Month: December 2009

Closing the Wallet

Linda Hirshman makes a great point on Salon — namely that pro-choice donors in general and women in particular should loudly proclaim they will not be donating to Democrats as long as the party treats their rights like an afterthought. Gay donors have joined a boycott, lead by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, to withhold contributions to the DNC, OFA and the Obama campaign until the Obama administration and Congress start working on behalf of LGTB Americans who support them. Hirshman writes:

Now the Democratic majority the women enabled is about to make the Hyde Amendment worse, and women are negotiating only about how much worse it’s going to get. Anyone who knows anything about bargaining recognizes the dynamic: give in the first time, and you’re weakened in the next round. And so it goes until you finally stop going along.

All histories of the gay movement record how much the founders took from the racial civil rights movement and the feminist movement that came before. It’s time for women to return the favor. Gay leaders can threaten the Democratic Party with a few paltry million-dollar donations. To paraphrase the lady at the diner in “When Harry Met Sally,” I’ll have what they’re having.

Promises have been made for years by Democratic politicians to both these communities. It’s clear that the party, under the leadership of the President, is not currently prioritizing honoring their commitments. Now is the time to withhold money and show elected officials that the base won’t stand for rollbacks of women’s rights under a Democratic administration. Making influence felt through money may be somewhat cynical, but it’s this cynicism that is needed. We know the other side will do everything they can to make their influence felt when they want to curtail the right of choice or prevent loving couples who aren’t straight from being able to marry. It’s time for progressive interest communities to up the ante and the force of the tactics they use.

Progressives Less At Risk Than Conserva-Dems

I tend to agree with Chris Bowers and Jonathan Singer that while broadly Democrats may lose seats in 2010, it’s unlikely that progressives will be at risk as much as conservative Democrats. As Bowers notes, losses expected of non-progressive Democrats will only increase the relative strength of progressives in Congress. This in turn will mean there is an easier path to achieve progressive policies under a Democratic majority. There will be fewer conserva-Dems to try to hold the rest of the caucus hostage. And Singer is right that there is no real reason to take Charlie Cook’s assertion that being progressive is a political liability in this climate. We have no indication as of yet that supporting the progressive agenda under a Democratic president is something that voters will punish members of Congress for.

In fact, Nate Silver had a post a little over a week ago where he highlighted that the squeaky wheel Democrats in the Senate – people like Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus – were suffering in the polls while making loud noises about how they may or may not vote on health care reform. Hemming and hawing in public doesn’t help their ratings, nor does making themselves swing votes in the debate. By comparison, their colleagues within the state who have been quietly taking a position and not making much noise afterward are doing just fine.

Broadly speaking, it is conservative Democrats who have made the most noise about where they do or do not stand on health care reform, while injecting themselves into the debate as negotiators seeking to extract specific concessions. Progressives, on the other hand, have largely been silently supporting reform while working quietly behind closed doors to hold the line against their vocal conservative colleagues. This makes me think that Bowers and Singer are right to be indifferent to coming conserva-Dem losses while projecting few progressive losses.

One thing that is certain, though. If there are a large string of conservative Democrat losses in the House and Senate in 2010, while there are comparatively few progressive losses, the media narrative will be that Democrats must be less progressive and stake more centrist positions. There will be no electoral evidence to support this position. It will simply be Conventional Wisdom via preconception and ignorance. It’s the way of the world and hopefully one of these days Democrats in DC will try to educate the press about why they are so fundamentally wrong.