Political Animal
Blog
Outside the House Blue Dog Caucus, and the embattled ranks of North Carolina Democrats, the announcement today that Rep. Heath Shuler was retiring at the end of this term is being met with bipartisan huzzahs. Republicans, of course, figure they’ll pick up another House seat in a year when they need it. Many, perhaps most, progressive Democrats wish him a not-so-fond adieu as one of the most regular renegades from party discipline, and as an active force for evil on abortion policy.
Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of intra-party litmus tests or the various “framing” theories that suggest Democrats would win a decisive majority if we spoke without a single discordant voice. The only unimpeachable authorities on who is a “true Democrat” in the 11th congressional district of North Carolina—or anywhere else—are the Democratic voters of that area. And no, I don’t think it can be confidently assumed, these days at least, that a Republican replacement could not do worse.
But Shuler, like Joe Lieberman in the Senate (though for somewhat different reasons) is probably the exception who proves the rule. With the sole exception of his vote for Obama’s climate change legislation, Shuler broke with his party and its president on just about everything that mattered since 2008. He even voted for the abominable “Cut, Cap and Balance” resolution that if implemented would inevitably lead to the destruction of every progressive accomplishment since the 1930s. While that’s still not grounds for being expelled from the Caucus, it sure would justify, if I were in charge, denying him any perks and privileges associated with Caucus membership, up to and including men’s room keys in the Cannon Building. If that sounds petty, too bad; after all, a guy like Shuler would probably use these insults to burnish his reputation as someone who’ll stand up to the godless liberals.
Ah, but it doesn’t matter now. What should matter now for Democrats is an effort, not just in the 11th district of North Carolina, but in every tough or even hostile district, to find candidates who can manage to reflect their constituents’ values and preferences, even if they are far from the progressive mainstream, while maintaining some respect for the traditions of their party and its collective interests as an agency for governing. If that’s impossible, well, you can’t win them all—but you can stop holding out a hand to a “colleague” for the sole purpose of having it slapped away.
Facebook
Twitter
Danp on February 02, 2012 5:17 PM:
Even if you can't find the perfect candidate in every district, you at least need someone who can articulate the Democratic message. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and unopposed candidates don't worry about consistency or accountability. Dean's 50 state policy understood this.
K in VA on February 02, 2012 5:21 PM:
Shuler was recruited to replace a Republican so evil even his partisans couldn't stand any more of him. Shuler got elected by being a somewhat notable jock and then by appealing to the very white, very conservative christianists of western North Carolina.
What's next? Should Democrats even try in districts like this, if there's nothing to show for the effort than one more "D" to count in determining the majority?
Danp on February 02, 2012 5:30 PM:
Should Democrats even try
Don't underestimate the size of the majority or minority. Committee membership is decided by the level of control, and committees decide which bills get voted on.
Equal Opportunity Cynic on February 02, 2012 5:39 PM:
"Should Democrats even try in districts like this...?"
I would think that socially conservative, economically populist D candidates would do well in districts like these. We might have to work on untuning voters' ears from the dog whistles of Republican themes of lazy poor versus hard-working poor.
c u n d gulag on February 02, 2012 5:50 PM:
Shitty Quarterback.
Shittier Democrat.
Good riddance!
'Nuff said!!!
James on February 02, 2012 6:04 PM:
Well, there are Democrats and then there are freepers in D clothing, which was Shuler. Still, you can't overestimate the importance of having the majority. Even if they vote against you on every bill, at least you get the opportunity to bring the bill to the floor, if you are in the majority. At least you hold the gavel in the Committees when you are in the majority. And every D counts for a majority, even if they get there under pretenses.
Most of what we lost in the House in 2010 were Blue Dogs. How'd that turn out for the liberal purists? Hmmm?
Tom Parmenter on February 02, 2012 7:17 PM:
Just a note here, exceptions don't make rules true, they make you prove that the rule is true. Why would an exception to a rule make it true?
Doug on February 02, 2012 7:24 PM:
James, in my reading of what occurred, both by commission AND by ommission, the failures of 2010 cannot be placed at the feet of "liberal purists". The blame lies squarely at the feet of those who campaigned by running as far away as possible from their legislative accomplishments. Why should any candidate expect a voter to vote for someone who refuses to defend his/her accomplishments? That some "liberal purists" sat out the 2010 elections may, or may not be true. That the defeat of half of the "Blue Dog" caucus can be laid at the feet of those "liberal purists" who may not have voted is, to put it mildly, a crock.
You run a crappy campaign, you can expect to be defeated. You run a crappy campaign as a Democrat in a Republican district and you're certain to be defeated.
It's really that simple...
TCinLA on February 02, 2012 7:45 PM:
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, you perfect example of the meaning of the term "dumbass jockstrap."
oldswede on February 02, 2012 9:47 PM:
Tom Parmenter brings up a good point. Why do people so casually accept an faux axiom like that without thinking it through? It offends logic.
What the work "proves" means in this sentence, as Mr Parmenter notes, is testing. What happens at the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, or the General Motors Proving Grounds? Testing, of course.
oldswede
markg8 on February 02, 2012 10:10 PM:
Is the rumor true he's running for governor? Ugh!
James on February 02, 2012 10:28 PM:
@Doug,
I'm not laying the entire blame for 2010 on liberal purists. Liberal purists have less support than the crazification factor. Certainly less support than the Tea Party in the general population. Even worse, they keep shooting themselves in the ass even more than the rightwing extremists with *their* purity tests. At least the rightwing loonies have strongarmed some support in Congress -- a bad thing! -- but the liberal purists have no actual support or clout in any political or policy-making sense.
So while they jump up and down and wave their arms on the internet over these Blue Dogs and less-than-absolutely-pure Democrats, they have no actual influence over anything of importance. Instead they act like perpetual naive little brats, in a very self-destructive way. Tear down all their potential allies because they don't say and do things in an absolutely perfect way. Very off-putting.
Who knows? Maybe someday they will learn how to do politics. I've been waiting around for that for quite awhile now. No hope in sight.
rea on February 02, 2012 10:37 PM:
Is it too much to ask for the Democrats to have at least enough party discipline to avoid getting rolled by a minority party? If they'd had that in '09 and '10 the country would look a lot different today.
Eric k on February 03, 2012 2:33 AM:
Cynic,
That is what is so weird about the Blue Dogs, most of them are in districts where a socially conservative, economic populist position would make sense, but they all vote with the Republicans on economics
skeptonomist on February 03, 2012 10:20 AM:
Conservative Democratic politicians in the South are probably doomed. They have been getting votes out of nostaligia, or probably because many former Democratic voters have not yet realized that the parties have switched on major issues.
dalloway on February 03, 2012 11:35 AM:
I live in the 11th District of NC. Shuler bailed because the Republican dominated legislature gerrymandered our district, making it virtually impossible for any Democrat, no matter how conservative, to win. Fine -- better to have a real GOPer than one disguised as a Democrat. And now that the state is getting a good look at what Republican "governance" looks like -- for example, slashing school funding at 1 a.m. to prevent debate on it -- the whole state may get bluer in the near future. We can only hope..
rdale on February 03, 2012 12:45 PM:
Good riddance to any DLC blue dogs. Next to go will probably be Jim Matheson of Utah, who has long been rolling over any time Karl Rove tells him to. Despite his being a total DINO and voting in favor of every repub atrocity since he's been in office, the Utah lege gerrymandered him out of his district and he'll have a hard time getting re-elected. As one Salt Lake Tribune commenter put it, why not have a real republican in the seat that I can hate, rather than a blue dog that continually disappoints?
Greg Wythe on February 03, 2012 1:55 PM:
Ed, I know you've got a few years on me. So I'm not sure how anyone with that kind of memory could think of Heath Shuler as any worse than Sam Nunn.
The voters (Democratic and otherwise) of NC-11 obviously thought that Heath was the candidate who "manage[d] to reflect their constituents’ values and preferences, even if they are far from the progressive mainstream". The highly subjective standard of "maintaining some respect for the traditions of their party and its collective interests as an agency for governing" isn't something that's required of anyone. To the degree that it's granted is certainly a remarkable feature of American politics. But I'm not seeing where it's defined.
I think you start to make an eloquent case for running candidates everywhere - even going so far as to offer music to my ears that doing so would lead to candidates who reflect a broader range of thought that already exists among purely Democratic voters. But to run a separate litmus test of respecting 'collective interests as an agency for governing' seems to run counter to anything I've seen you write before. Certainly so if you're suggesting that a "good" Dem is one who votes more in line with his party on the bills that make headlines for Fox News.
Eisbaer on February 04, 2012 2:07 AM:
Heath Shuler was about as good a Congressman (and Democrat) as he was a quarterback. Now the good people of western North Carolina can recruit Ryan Leaf or Browning Nagle.