Political parties in the United States

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?

We've all heard the argument many times now from people who proclaim affiliation with the Democrats but are wont to attack the progressive constituent base of the Democratic Party:

• Any Democrat is preferable to any Republican
• A Democrat -- even a radical right-wing Democrat -- will support the Democratic Party agenda
• Progressives hurt the party by undercutting the party's agenda and effectiveness.

Well, while all this speechifying and pounding from the orange star pulpit has been going on, Dr. Laniac was quietly crunching some numbers, and the results (.pdf) are quite illuminating:

I ran an analysis of all votes, recording the majority Democratic and Republican positions for each rollcall, as well as other statistics. With those statistics in hand, I ran a query that categorized and tallied up four classifications of votes for each Dem representative:

* Against the party: voting with the Republicans against the Dems
* Anti-bi-partisan: voting against a measure which the bulk of the Democrats and Republicans took the same position
* Bi-Partisan: voting with the majority on a bi-partisan supported measure
* With the party: voting with the Democratic bloc in opposition to Republicans

There were two reasons for this approach.

1. I wanted to deprive the least loyal Dems of their cover for supporting the large number of bi-partisan supported measures and
2. to remove the stigma that progressive's have for taking stances with little support from the bulk of the Democratic party.

The first is only fair as it helps weed out non-consequential votes, much the way Chris Bowers had done by hand picking votes that mattered. The latter ensures that you can tell the difference between the mainstream and the progressives. I didn't do the Senate statistics at this point, but I decided on this approach after I looked at the very first Senate vote of the year. Barbara Boxer introduced an objection to the electoral votes, so the issue could be opened up for debate in the House. Michael Moore had made a point of this in Fahrenheit 9/11, you might remember. Well, Boxer introduced her objection and voted alone in it's behalf. I knew that in other cases single Congresspersons had voted their conscience alone or in small groups while the rest of the body voted for things en masse. I'm thinking of a certain war....

As it turns out, the anti-bi-partisan category also strips the cover from the least loyal Democrats as well. Among the top 10 Most Republican Democrats (8 Blue Dogs), 855 votes have been cast with the Republicans, while 122 against measures with bi-partisan support. Blue Dogs are pretty keen on bi-partisanism. You have to go down to the 40th Most Republican Democrat to find one that has cast more votes for the party on a partisan issue than for bi-partisan measures. Of the top 10 Most Republican, 56% of their votes with the Democrats are bi-partisan supported measures. Are they really voting with the Dems? Or just voting with the crowd? Take the bi-partisan votes votes away and the difference between voting for the party or against it gets pretty small.

At the other end of the scale, the Progressive coalition dominates, with few votes favoring the Republican position against Democrats. Conyers is #50 on the True Blue scale, with 7 Republican leaning votes. Yet many members of this group have voted repeatedly with lonely voices. I would imaging that a good number of those votes are for solidly progressive principles.

Check out the data breakdown (.pdf). Very illuminating.

So next time someone tells you it doesn't matter what a Democratic candidate stands for, as long as he or she is a Democrat, because Democrats back Democrats, remember these numbers.

This originally was going to be a response to an ongoing exchange, but it got a little long. I also happen to believe that this is an important question that non-Republicans face now, so I'm bumping it up here.

Some people, despairing at the apparent solidarity and message discipline of the Republicans, say that we should be more like them. Some might say that party loyalty trumps all else. I may just be too much the independent-minded American cliché, but I just cannot just go along with that.

Before going on, I should say that I'm not a Democrat. I have no party loyalty. To me politics is not like a football game where you battle it out, take your penalties, win some and lose some, and drive around with bumper stickers framing your tailpipe. If the Republicans suddenly lost the callouses covering their hearts and started backing progressive causes, I'd be voting for them. I don't think that's too likely, though. These days Republicans are more likely to honor Coolidge and Harding than Teddy Roosevelt. Still, I'm writing as someone who is dedicated to moral values that are at the heart of progressive thought. Anyway....

I question that the lesson the Democrats should learn from the Republicans is that everyone should shut up and get in line. It's true, they are very good at that. But the thing is that they respond well to authoritarian ways of thinking. It's part of their culture: "Do as you're told!" The regimented approach works for them simply because they work well in a regimented system. It suits them -- and it suits their authoritarian message.

And so we see them come out every now and then -- all of the sudden -- with new talking points, new fictions, new spam with which to assault our sensibilities. They made their plans, then attacked on the specified date with the specified lingo.

Now I may be wrong, but I don't think that theory can work with progressives and liberals. We're just too independent-minded. We think for ourselves. We don't follow orders unless we know what the reasons behind them are. It's a problem of which most progressive leaders are aware, and there are efforts to change that, to try to build a more cohesive collective effort. I'm a part of a couple of such endeavors, and framing is topic #1.

But I and the people I've spoken with are under no illusions that we can just expect to set the drum beat and have everyone start marching. Who would want that, anyway?

So what unites progressives? Values. Morality. Justice. Many of us cannot really articulate it, we just know. We know it's wrong for the powerful to screw over the powerless. We know it's wrong to treat people struggling to make ends meet as problems to be dispensed with. We know it's wrong to use people's misfortunes in health, work and home against them. But it seems like we cannot find ways to say these things. We don't have the vocabulary. We're out of practice.

And it sure doesn't help when the purported progressive "leaders" refuse to stand up for these things, and constantly and repeatedly bow to pressure, appease opposition and yes, take the money. It's not even a working "strategy": the Democrats have gotten their asses handed to them time and time again. Meanwhile, by not standing up and fighting for what's right, they devalue their own message, and their silence lends credence to those on the other side.

"What does John Kerry stand for?" was the big question in the last election. Even his supporters couldn't answer. It was "anybody but Bush," and if Kerry won everyone just sort of hoped he would back their own perspective. Meanwhile he said virtually nothing, tried to bargain his way around issues (perhaps the most pronounced regarding gay marriage) and not offend anybody. It didn't work. As bad as W is, it didn't work.

In the '80s, Reagan's big victory was playing the leading man in the conservatives' big stage play that twisted progressive liberal values into something to be ashamed of. "Liberal!" cried the conservatives, and the Democrats ran away as if they'd said "leper!" Since then the Democrats have still been scrambling, trying to find a way out of the Republicans' framing of the issues. Some, but not all, are starting to see that there is no escape from the Republican frame. It's the Republicans' frame! Of course the Democrats can't get any footing there. It's designed that way. Until the Democrats break that paradigm, I see no result other than more of the same.

I offer this as a another way to look at things:

A Declaration of Progressive Principles
Drafted online by the members of The Principles Project and adopted March 1, 2005

We believe in America's historic promise of liberty, justice and the expansion of opportunity for all people. These commitments to fundamental human dignity and a better nation for all animate the American spirit and give us a sense of common purpose. We honor these commitments by recognizing that with the great freedoms afforded us comes an even greater responsibility to see that those freedoms are extended to all people in all places.

We believe that this sense of shared responsibility -- for our families, our communities, our nation and our world -- strengthens our country and secures our future.
_______

We believe in defending dignity:

“All people are created equal� is not just a fact -- it is a call to action. Either we create justice for all or we have justice for none.

All people have the right to lead their personal lives in accordance with their own beliefs, free from imposition or monitoring by others.

All people have a right to the basic necessities required to lead dignified lives and to pursue happiness.

We believe in strengthening democracy:

It is the shared responsibility of a nation to ensure each citizen’s freedom, security and equality. Through government, we honor our responsibility to promote the common good.

Government must be transparent, accessible and open to all citizens who wish to oversee its workings and share in its benefits.

America must work to enhance the democratic process by ensuring an educated citizenry, equal opportunity for influence, honest public debate, competitive elections and robust civic participation.

A healthy democracy requires tireless vigilance against corruption and abuses of power, and a government that is accountable to its people.

We believe in promoting progress:

We must promote innovation and entrepreneurship, cultivate the arts and sciences, and ensure a quality education for everyone. When we invest in individual potential, the benefits are shared by all.

America must continue to be a welcoming home to all people. We believe that diversity of faith, culture and perspective enriches our nation.

America must keep a watchful eye on the economy to ensure fairness, transparency and genuine opportunity for all.

Each generation has a duty to protect and improve those resources we hold in common -- our community spaces, our public institutions and our natural environment.

We believe in embracing leadership:

America’s security requires an effective military and a commitment to enduring alliances, but we must remember that America’s true power is found in its wisdom as well as its strength.

Our security and prosperity rely on the security and prosperity of people throughout the world. By helping others, we will help ourselves.

America must join with other nations to build global institutions that protect the vulnerable, promote democratic self-government, and improve the health and welfare of all people throughout the world.

America must never suspend its belief in democracy and human rights in the pursuit of its global objectives. Noble ends require nothing short of noble means.
_______

As progressives, these are our guiding principles -- to defend dignity, to strengthen democracy, to promote progress and to embrace leadership. We believe that our country must always be looking toward a better and brighter future for all people, and in this pursuit we pledge to come forward and work with whomever we can. We will fight for these principles in every community, every forum and every office of government, because the struggles of this new century will not only be about preserving the freedoms we already enjoy -- they will be about expanding those freedoms for all people.

-A Declaration of Progressive Principles, by The Principles Project

It's a sad testament that, most likely, all of the Democratic Senators would probably pay lip service to these moral values, while so often they turn and take the money so they can run again and take the money again. When does it stop? When do Democrats who do as Republicans do get measured by the same yardstick?