30 September 2005 - 10:37am
With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?
Dr. Laniac has followed up his exceptionally detailed study of Democratic Congressional voting records with a breakdown of Senate rollcall votes. And the results are quite striking.
Senator Ben Nelson seems to be flying under false colors.
Ben Nelson votes against the Democratic Party position on partisan votes more than any other Democratic Legislator in Congress by far. He votes against them more often than he votes with them.
Look at his votes, and you wonder why he pretends to be a Democrat at all. See also analysis on Senator Harry Ried and Senator Hillary Clinton. They're not as "red" as Nelson, but it's interesting nonetheless.
For the big picture, Dr. Laniac has done a summary statistical analysis of Senate voting (.pdf). See also his research on the House (.pdf).
When one looks at these analyses, one wonders what the DLC's "big tent" approach has been all about. Obviously, Democratic Party gains seem marginal, at best, when elected Democrats routinely vote against the party and with the radical Republican agenda. Why people today push for more "big tent" politics, when such a gambit has been a losing proposition for the Democratic Party and progressivism, I don't know.
Or perhaps "big tent" isn't about legislative results at all -- just how these candidates get funded ... and thus which "advisors" and "consultants" get paid to assist their campaigns. Could it be that simple? Probably not. But all the rhetoric we see about Party over principles clearly does not seem to favor advancing the progressive or liberal values that have been under virtually unopposed systematic and rhetorical attack for 25 years.
--Oh, wait! Those of us who hold progressive values are "a roadblock that must be pushed aside." Silly me! I keep forgetting! I suppose it's because I don't understand the "why." The Democrats have run on no principles since Michael Dukakis publicly denied being a liberal when debating Bush the Elder. And now, with Bush the Lesser and cohorts sinking in the polls, being indicted and probably planning their 2008 appeals for presidential pardons, the Democrats still seem to be resisting taking any stand to define themselves. As Jon Stewart asked the other night of Senator Schumer, where is everybody? (Schumer shrugged and said, "Here I am!" As if making wisecracks about the Texan affection for executing criminals constitutes articulating progressive values.)
I recall Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary entry for Politics:
POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
That was written around 100 years ago. Have we evolved so much since then?
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
The system set up in the Constitution was intended specifically to prevent us from developing a two-party system. They knew that this kind of binary prevents things from getting done. We were always intended to function more independently and have more flexibility in government and citizen participation in it allows. I want to know why we can't demand that we go back to the original design of the Constitution. It has gradually been changed into the mess we have today - let's go back to the beginning and restructure everything as it was originally designed.
Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements
Evolution of the two party system is attributed soley to the advent of mass media culture. Around the turn of the last century, radio broadcasting was in it's infancy. Political parties quickly moved to consolidate thier power for greater control of the message and assure longevity in office.
This era saw the emergence of the professional politician. The 'professional politician' is contrary to what the founding father's intended; they saught plurality through multiple parties and advocated for a citizen legislature that would return to their farms and businesses when congress was not in session.
Many of today's media outlets, print and broadcast, bar coverage of third party candidates. If they do cover them, they are typecast as mavericks and relegated to the style pages of your local rag. Just the term "third party candidate" has a 'redheaded-step-child' connotation to it, a sort of anomaly in the political spectrum.
The media sought access to this inner sanctum in the early days of radio and wire services, and has shown it's hegemony since. Further consolidation of the fourth estate only seals the fate of any candidate who would challenge this very new status quo.
It's hopless.
Hey MG, thanks for the link. Eventually, I'll get around to turning this into a web application so that you can do real-time analysis.
One thing I did want to point out, I put out the Hillary and Reid profiles as comparisons to Nelson's, not to complain that they were also Republican. I'm not a fan of Hillary's, particularly. She is the DLC poster-child and she's pandering to position herself to the right. Her voting record, however, compares with Kerry's. Reid is in the middle on my chart, but if you eliminate the gun stuff, he looks much better. I suspect Leiberman, who's right next to him in the Senate analysis, doesn't fare as well.
I also did a pdf on the recent House vote on the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, another one of those bizarro world-named bills, which weakens the act it pretends to save.
Anyway, thanks again.
Does anyone recall George's use of the phrase "humble foreign policy?"