Conservative Democracy
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
What does it mean to be a conservative Democratic, or a moderate or a “Blue Dog” Democrat in this day and age of politics, especially given all the attention they have been receiving lately in the press during negotiations over the health care legislation? Now that they’ve got their “deal” with the House Democratic leadership, it’s interesting to wonder if all the action when it comes to politics and governance from a right point of view will be within the Democratic Party. And that’s not just due to the fact Republican are smaller in number. Very few in Congress have any proposals concerning health care worth discussion or debate and they seem quite proud of their neanderthalism.
But what is the conservatism of the “Blue Dogs”? Is it being tighwad with the public’s money? A few are like that to their credit like North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad for example and Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind fought the good fight against the agriculture subsidy system in the last Farm Bill. But a good many aren’t. Rep. Colin Peterson of Minnesota has never met a farm subsidy he didn’t like and there are others like him looking out for agribusiness interests. Many have voted time and again for the war and any other products of the military-industrial complex build within their districts. Oh, and they’ll make darn sure the pork flows back to their districts. They may not be for a public option for national health care but they sure don’t mind public’s money flowing back to their districts.
Once upon a time one could call a right-wing Democrat like George Wallace populistic but that’s really not true now looking at who funds the campaigns of the current crop whether its Big Ag or Big Pharma or the M-I-C. It may just be all about social concerns like support for the 2nd Amendment (which keeps gun control safely locked away) or opposition to abortion.
Or could place explain what they’re all about? I don’t think you’ll find too many “Blue Dogs” representing districts in New York City or Los Angeles. These are right wingers whose views are shaped by the fact they represent districts and states in Midwest, the South and the Mountain West. As all politicians do, they wish to get re-elected or get elected to bigger and better offices (literally and figuratively). Thus they try to represent what is bequeathed to them. They will defend the government that works for their districts (like the TVA for example, or the local military base) and be skeptical of everyone elses’ government (You know, what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable). They try to stay within the cultural norms of their districts and states. It strikes one as a politics of defense than anything else, trying to prove you’re not a “national” Democrat. It reminds one of what the Minnesota state Republicans used to call themselves after Watergate “Independent Republicans”, you know, not like the bad “National Republicans”.
It wasn’t easy being a Democrat of any kind in such places from the decade of 1995-2005. Indeed in many parts of rural America party organization had pretty much collapsed. Republican incompetence no doubt revived the party’s fortunes along with better organization thanks to Howard Dean’s 50-State Strategy. One can at least say Blue Dogs are rightists that take a hostile or view government with contempt compared to Republicans, suggesting their allegiance to their Tory roots. But it also could be said that Republicans, especially those that represented rural districts or one’s dominated by the M-I-C, could not manage the contradiction of supposedly being the party against “big government” and yet continually leaving bigger government behind every time their time in power comes to an end. Polls have shown a constituency out there for “big-government conservatives” and one can find many of them in the places Blue Dogs represent. The problem is, the GOP could never figure out how to square their supposed principles with the reality of what they represented and what they needed to do to win elections.
The end result of course is Democratic dominance in Washington. However you’ll find little cheering on the left (read the Washington Monthly on a daily basis and you’ll know why.) Like a Twilight Zone episode, the past three years anticipating this moment when building these new majorities could be used to install a national health care system probably feels pretty empty when its an obscure House member from Arkansas and not Ted Kennedy shaping the health care proposals.
Alas, they should be so lucky. According to the Gallup poll, leftists only make-up 38 percent of the party’s voters. While they may dominate the rank of the party, they certainly don’t control the file and so long as this is the situation, the Blue Dogs will be in the driver’s seat as far as legislation goes. While this prevents the Obama Administration from turning into Thermidor, this is again, more Tory rightism than “movement” rightism. One will not find a lot of Freedom Movement or Tea Party persons within the Democratic Party, Bob Conley notwithstanding. A more authentic conservatism (the Jefferson-Jackson-Cleveland style) probably won’t gain more than a niche hold within the party (at least some representation would be nice). Other political vehicles will have to be used to represent more traditional conservatism but first the keys have to be removed from the current drivers.
Filed under: Conservatism
“Very few in Congress have any proposals concerning health care worth discussion or debate and they seem quite proud of their neanderthalism.”
Sean, the use of the term neanderthalism concedes the terms of the debate to the other side, doesn’t it? There is hardly anything the Republicans could propose that wouldn’t be just me to Democrat light. I’m not sure that just naysaying the President’s proposal isn’t the best thing they can be doing right now.
What about Jim Webb?
Red, yes, we have the best of all possible health care systems, right? Neanderthal is the right word, because Republicans would FAR rather have the additional deaths (compared to other western countries) that we have as a result of our system than give up their own cherished beliefs about the universal applicability and high morality of the market, even for life and death issues. Plus, of course, continued access to corporate and other interest-group funding for their reelection in perpetuity. Do some research about the different health and lifespan outcomes and costs in, say, France, compared to us before instructing Sean on his adjectives.
[...] What is a “blue dog,” really? [...]
Winston, first of all any comparison between the “different health and lifespan outcomes” in the US vs. other advanced nations has to control for demographics. Once that is done much of the difference goes away. But Americans do have unusually unhealthy lifestyles which is arguably at least partially a result of our relative affluence. Unhealthy lifestyles are not the fault of the medical system.
I didn’t say that our healthcare system was perfect, nor did I site the magic of the marketplace, although there is certainly something to be said for it. The Constitution does not grant to the Feds ANY role in healthcare whatsoever. The only thing the Republicans could do that is constitutional is start dismantling government programs that are already in place, tinker with tax policy, and tinker with patent policy for new drugs. Nothing else that I can think of. Before you present to me some list of things the Feds ought to do, please site the Article and section of the Constitution that authorizes it.
As usual, I disagree with some of your premises, and conclusions.
But on the whole, an excellent and well-thought out post. Your points are definitely worth considering.
To say that your opposition, the GOP, has NOTHING worth considering is perhaps an oversimplification.
To miss that what is wrong with the medical delivery process in our country is due to crook politicians of BOTH PARTIES, is unfortunate, in that now you can’t account for what may seem to you an irrational reluctance on the part of the public to hand massive money to the folks who have created the problem in the first place.
But this was a nicely-done analysis, I am the better for having read it.
Oops. “Site” above should be “cite.”
Red, I guess you think Medicare is a violation of the Constitution. Brilliant. Many government activities are not “authorized by the Constitution;” absence of specific authorization does not mean that such activities are not permissible. Such activities as the space program and the US mails aren’t specifically authorized either. By the way, you are quite wrong that, demographics aside, much of the difference between our and other Western nations “goes away.” The gap narrows, of course, but in many instances is quite significant even if only whites are counted in the data for America. And of course the cost differences are enormous. Rather than extend this post, I suggest this article on McKinsey’s analysis of the health care issue: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/galston/archive/2009/07/23/what-mckinsey-could-teach-obama.aspx
There are also many other overviews of our system vs. other countries’ available on line.
“Red, I guess you think Medicare is a violation of the Constitution.”
Of course it is. Absolutely unequivocally.
“Absence of specific authorization does not mean that such activities are not permissible.”
Ah, yes it does. It is called the doctrine of enumerated powers. It is what the majority of the Founder’s intended and what the States thought they were getting when they ratified the Constitution. It is a key doctrine of originalism and is what is generally meant when someone describes themselves as a constitutionalist. You may not agree with it, but it is not a novel idea so you should be familiar with it.
Length of life issues in America are not a medical system issue. We pour way more into end of life care than do other countries. It is a health, lifestyle, diet, etc. issue. The medical system can not be faulted that Americans eat unhealthy and don’t exercise, just like the medical systems in Europe can’t be faulted that more of their people smoke.
I have had some significant interaction with the health system of an advanced Western nation courtesy of the USAF and while the care there was good and competent, it was minimalistic by US standards.
Red, here’s what really fries me about people who say what you say – for instance, that differences in the health and longevity are due to our unhealthy lifestyles, and not to the medical system: You are simply and totally wrong on the facts, and seem to be unwilling to engage on this critical issue in a fact-based way. For example, the very study to which I directed you, by McKinsey (not a leftwing organization, the last time I checked) included the following paragraph:
“Contrary to popular belief, Americans are not sicker than the populations of other OECD countries. In most major categories, the prevalence of disease in the United States is significantly below that of other industrialized nations. (Diabetes is the only notable exception.) Because we smoke much less than our peer nations, the incidence of smoking-related diseases is far lower.”
Red, please, argue over the best system, and about constitutionality, but do so from a base of intellectual honesty. There are many readily available studies that totally undermine the point you have made.
As for the doctrine of enumerated powers, it is not Red or Winston who defines its applicability, but the Supreme Court. Perhaps one day they will again see it the way you do, but since the 1930’s they have not. In any case, you are quite right to imply that I believe an America under the doctrine you prefer would be a far worse place than it is today.
Winston,
How exactly does your citation from the McKinsey report provide evidence that the difference in lifespan between the US and nations with socialized medicine is not caused by lifestyle– including diet, stress, and exercise?
Also, the “market” is not a magical force; it is a word used to describe human choices about what to consume and what to produce. I’ll refer you to mises.org. On that site, you will find a PhD worth of information about how human choices, undistorted by well-intentioned central planners, lead to best possible outcomes for the herd and the individual.
I love you progressives. You all have such good intentions, and I find charming your faith that putting the right smart persons in charge of the right federal program will lead to a more perfect world… kind of like Star Trek.
Keep up the good fight, brother Winston… all the way to the Supreme Court.
Do “progressives” (whatever that means) overreach? Of course they do. Do conservatives have much to add to the discussion about how our society can be bettered? Of course they do. But if you really believe America would have been better off without Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights legistlation, environmental-protection laws, child-labor laws, federally-funded research, public fire departments (instead of the private enterprises they once were) and all the other programs and policies that have helped to make us one of the most advanced and humane societies on earth, there’s very little I can say that will change your mind.
Red, Ron Paul is offering a bill (HR 1345 I do believe, I can’t be certain) that puts down in legislation some of the ideas he offered on health care during the campaign last year. And their are proposals than can be offered such as changing the tax code, allowing persons to by insurance across state lines, allowing for more health savings accounts, allowing states more freedom to design health care plans of their own, etc.,and even allowing persons access to the Congressional health care service that are ideas consistent with the freedom agenda which would help to lower costs by allowing for more competition in the health care market and giving persons the freedom to buy lower cost insurance which most do not have right now.
The GOP isn’t even supporting these. They’re supporting nothing, other than to oppose for political reasons. Ultimately I think this is a self-defeating strategy because it presumes that Republicans believe that everything is just hunky dory in the U.S. when it comes to health care which no one believes it and it also presumes Republicans feel hospital emergency rooms are the catch all universal health coverage for those who can’t afford insurance (which has gone a long way to raise costs).
Right-wing Democrats are a part of the game when it comes to health care and GOP is sitting on the sidelines. Whoever did anything when they didn’t play?
When we get the health care system in place, massive counseling and re-education of seniors will assist them in being happy with the government’s end-of-life plan, the loss of medicare, which basically says you should “just take a pill” instead of have that expensive operation.
==========================================
When we get the Cap and Trade to regulate production and use of energy, we will also need some behavior modification to help the “bluedogs” and “conservatives” (and other undesireables), recognize the wisdom of our leader, and to be happy with HIS decisions:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3247
“Text of H.R. 3247: To establish a social and behavioral sciences research program at the Department of Energy, and…”
Larry McDonald was a democrat and he would put the Republicans to shame if he were still around.
Thee MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS are CONSERVATIVES and MODERATES!