On Monday, I asked why there does not seem to be a systematic effort to identify and replace moderate Democrats the way that conservatives and especially the Tea Party has targeted "Republicans in Name Only." There's a sense of ownership in that label. To be a Republican is to be conservative. Progressives seem disappointed in Democrats, but not taking control.
I've heard a variety of interesting responses, from the claim that progressives make themselves heard in different ways, to the suggestion that Democrats are just playing the smarter strategy. But several people have also claimed that the reason the left doesn't primary Democrats is that they don't have to -- Democrats are homogenous and very liberal.
That is almost certainly incorrect. Quantitatively, we have these findings from Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal and Nolan McCarty that Democrats have not become more extreme in the last several decades (follow those links for more info and larger images. Images originally from http://voteview.com):
Additionally, by these measures, Barack Obama is the most moderate president in recent history. More moderate than Carter. More moderate than JFK. More moderate than Truman.
I've heard a variety of interesting responses, from the claim that progressives make themselves heard in different ways, to the suggestion that Democrats are just playing the smarter strategy. But several people have also claimed that the reason the left doesn't primary Democrats is that they don't have to -- Democrats are homogenous and very liberal.
That is almost certainly incorrect. Quantitatively, we have these findings from Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal and Nolan McCarty that Democrats have not become more extreme in the last several decades (follow those links for more info and larger images. Images originally from http://voteview.com):
Additionally, by these measures, Barack Obama is the most moderate president in recent history. More moderate than Carter. More moderate than JFK. More moderate than Truman.
Now, maybe we don't believe these quantitative results. Maybe the agenda has shifted or something. But they ring true. Obama, far from being moderate, is widely criticized by the left, for everything from unmanned drones to selling out on health care. He's been called a moderate Republican from the 1990s, and a close look at his record continues to reveal a lot of pretty moderate stuff. The claim that Democrats are spineless in the face of Republicans is a common one.
So I don't think it's accurate to say that Democrats are all ideologically pure progressives/liberals. At best, I think, the Democrats are at least no more ideological than Republicans. But this stuff is hard to assess. The country as a whole, including Republicans but especially Democrats, has moved to the left on gay rights. And the country as a whole, especially Republicans but definitely including Democrats, has moved to the right on economic intervention. Nixon made use of price controls. Obama would never dream of it. But these shifting agendas aside, at the very least, I don't think we can say that Democrats are far to the left.
So the question still stands.
In Texas, at least, there was a movement to oust conservatives from the Democratic Party. It occurred after the split of the Democratic Party in Texas between conservatives and liberals. The split originated over the New Deal, and the conflict lasted from the 1940s to the late 1970s, when liberals took over the Democratic Party in Texas. In Texas, the progressives did take ownership of the Democratic Party (see chapter 9 in Chandler Davidson’s Race and Class in Texas Politics [1990] for the story).
ReplyDeleteI think that another factor is the way that the party elites perceive political parties and their functions. In Texas, as the Texas Republican Party grew in numbers, a split between the “purists” and the “pragmatists” developed. The “purists” wanted the Republican Party to remain ideologically pure, adhering to conservative ideological principles. The “pragmatists,” on the other hand, wanted the party to win elections so that it could control government. Thus, they would reach out to ideological moderates and attempt to bring them into the Republican Party. In Texas, there is no doubt that the “purists” now control the party apparatus and the nomination process, using their influence to purge those candidates who seek to expand the party by appealing to moderates.
In terms of symmetry, there is no doubt that the Democratic Party was more heterogeneous ideologically than the Republican Party until very recently. Professor Mark Jones has studied the Texas legislature and calculated the ideology of Texas House members. Using his data, I have prepared a comparison of Democrats and Republicans in the Texas House in 2009 and in 2011, which is located here: http://texaspoliticsaustin.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-symmetry-and-political-party.html. In 2009, when the Republicans and Democrats were almost evenly split in the Texas House (76 Republicans to 74 Democrats), the Democrats were much more diverse ideologically than the Republicans. However, as a result of the 2010 election, Democrats became much more homogeneous and liberal ideologically. In 2011, the Republicans controlled 101 seats, and the Democrats controlled only 49.
I have a hard time believing that presidential graph. LBJ, who pushed through Medicare and the Voting Rights Act, is more conservative than JFK? Carter's the most liberal? What great lefty legislation did he sign?
ReplyDeleteI blame geography. We have plenty of DINOs, with Max Baucus being exhibit A. But what Democrat is going to try to replace the senator from Montana with someone more liberal? We're going to count ourselves lucky to have his vote at the beginning of the term, and hope he doesn't cross the aisle too often.
ReplyDeleteThere's probably also a fresh memory of what happened when we primaried Joe Lieberman. If it didn't work in Connecticut, we're not likely to try it elsewhere.
James, I wouldn't think the Lieberman memory would be a deterrent for Democrats. For one thing, they sent a message, actually kicking an apostate out of the party. For another, Connecticut is one of only four states without sore loser laws.
ReplyDeleteI've a difficult time thinking in which presidential chart. LBJ, which forced via Medicare insurance and also the Ballot Privileges Work, is much more traditional as compared to JFK? Carter's one of the most generous? Just what excellent left-handed pitcher legal guidelines do this individual signal?
ReplyDeleteregards,
hvac schools in CT