Pressure vs Purge
Ruth Marcus critiques a straw man version of the idea that there ought to be tighter party discipline:
One difficult test of who’s right here involves the role of the conservative House Democrats, Blue Dogs and others. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel helped elect them. Now he has to cope with the consequences of having a Democratic caucus with a cadre of members significantly to the right of their party but in the leftward precincts of their districts. If they vote like prototypical Democrats, they won’t be coming back.
The problem here is that it vastly underestimates the ideological flexibility available to an incumbent legislator. We know that a great deal of flexibility exists because each state features two senators with the exact same electorate. And yet Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich have very different voting records. So do Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar. So do Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin. Where a member winds up positioning him or herself within that feasible ideological space is going to depend in part on his or her conscience and in part on the degree of electoral pressure he or she faces in the form of fear of primary challengers and the like. This is pretty commonsensical, and thinking that more pressure could be helpful by no means commits you to the obviously silly few that everyone should vote exactly like Jerry Nadler.
42 Responses to “Pressure vs Purge”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am
It also vastly overestimates the knowledge of voters, who by and large will only remember 1 or 2 votes from the Congress. (How did your rep vote on Waxman-Markey?)
Your voting record only comes under scrutiny when you’re attacked on it–and the GOP will attack Dems on their records regardless of how they’re voting! They’ll all of a sudden be pro-abortion coverage, if it’ll help them!
What’s necessary is being able to defend your votes to the people that you want to vote for you. If you say you voted against Waxman-Markey because your district gets coal electricity and would be disproportionately charged, more liberals will give you a pass. If you say it’s because climate change is made up and Al Gore is a fatty, they won’t. Same vote, different reasoning.
Likewise, if you voted against Medicare +5 because your district has low Medicare reimbursement rates, you’re safer. If you did it because you’re afraid of increasing the deficit, you’re not safe.
Coming up with the right excuses is why you do constituent services. I don’t think these Dems have been taking constituent services seriously enough, and I think it’ll make them lose next year.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Diversity across a state is not comparable to diversity within a district, the latter being (comparatively) not much. Moreover, voters within a district usually have (or believe they have) much more knowledge of their member’s voting record and position on issues important to the voters.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:04 am
There isn’t a spectrum of ideology in a district like a numberline where somebody is +5 or -5 or whatever. I know Partisan Voter Index is a tool people use but people who have strong views against the orthodoxy of a given party get elected in tough districts all the time, mostly because they signal to voters that they don’t have their finger in the wind on every goddamn issue trying to be all things to all people.
From the Institute for Southern Studies on the House HCR vote:
There are many options to explain votes one way or another on every vote for every member of Congress. It’s sad so few of them choose ‘governing as best they can’ as one of the explanations.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Also if there were more serious consequences to voting against the Democratic party line then this itself provides political cover for a vulnerable senator.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I would argue that enforcing party ideology is the slipper slope Republicans found. Their lock-step through the Bush years destroyed their party. Party diversity benefits the party, and we should welcome it in the Democratic Party.
A spectrum of Democrats only becomes a problem because of the Senate. The filibuster destroys our national political debate, forces it into the closet. You have to have the agreements, made behind closed doors, to hold discussion and vote to gain the super majority. It creates pork — payment for votes that benefit a lawmaker’s district. So it inflates the budget, too. The filibuster forces back-door politics, encourages regulation capture, bloated budgets, and drains responsibility out of the legislative process. Instead of voting on health care, you’re voting on reproductive rights, as a result. Instead of solving the budget deficit, you’re funding a widgets factory through the voracious defense budget.
That’s why it won’t go away, and why we should demand it does go away.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I would argue that enforcing party ideology is the slipper slope Republicans found. Their lock-step through the Bush years destroyed their party. Party diversity benefits the party, and we should welcome it in the Democratic Party.
A spectrum of Democrats only becomes a problem because of the Senate. The filibuster destroys our national political debate, forces it into the closet. You have to have the agreements, made behind closed doors, to hold discussion and vote to gain the super majority. It creates pork — payment for votes that benefit a lawmaker’s district. So it inflates the budget, too. The filibuster forces back-door politics, encourages regulation capture, bloated budgets, and drains responsibility out of the legislative process. Instead of voting on health care, you’re voting on reproductive rights, as a result. Instead of solving the budget deficit, you’re funding a widgets factory through the voracious defense budget.
That’s why it won’t go away, and why we should demand it does go away.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:16 am
What is silly about the view that everyone should vote like Jerry Nadler? We’d be way better off than we are now if we had 535 Jerry Nadlers at the capitol. I really do not buy into this idea that we need to have conservatives in the Democratic party or in the government. Democracy does not require some minimum proportion of idiots, wackos, and sleazebags in order to function. The spectrum of viewpoints from John Kerry to Dennis Kucinich is broad enough to have an argument. A politician to the right of that is useless. We could use more Democrats to the left of that, though.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Halfway specious argument. Small shifts in the electorate matter less statewide than they do district wide. The smaller the population, the more important random variations become.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:34 am
The problem here is that it vastly underestimates the ideological flexibility available to an incumbent legislator. We know that a great deal of flexibility exists because each state features two senators with the exact same electorate. And yet Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich have very different voting records. So do Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar. So do Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin.
Huh?
Matthew’s examples don’t do anything to refute Marcus’s argument.
Marcus is arguing that, given the range of acceptable ideologicial flexibiility in the districts of the Blue Dogs, those members are already on the left edge of such range. So making them move further to the left will just cause them to lose their seats.
So I don’t understand how the examples Matthew gives (which are of Senators’ after all, not House members) refutes that. Given the range of ideological flexibility in the State of Indiana, for example, Evan Bayh may in fact be on the left edge of the range. Making him vote like John Kerry may just cause him to lose his seat. (I don’t know if that’s true for Bayh in particular, but that’s Marcus’s argument in general.) Saying that Lugar votes differently than Bayh tells me nothing about how far left Bayh can go.
Better examples would be of states where there are two Democrat Senators – because then we know that the more conservative of the two can, in fact, move left without electoral consequences. Think of Feinstein, for example.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Al has a point! Nevertheless, people don’t vote on incumbency based on “left” versus “right”, they do it based on whether or not they felt represented by the person.
In the very Catholic OH-1, Driehaus’ yes-yes vote on Stupak/HCR will cost him fewer votes than a yes-no, or a no-no.
However, he’s going to have to defend those votes–and the defense will determine the election, not the votes themselves. HCR is pretty easy to defend, for moderates.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Speaking of Democrats in Republican districts – the NY-23 race may not be over after all
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/owenshoffman-race-tighten_n_355696.html
The special election last week for the 23rd Congressional District seat in New York may not be over after all.
Though Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman conceded and Democrat Bill Owens was sworn into Congress last week, the routine recanvassing of votes shows Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes, with about 5,800 absentee ballots received so far that have yet to be counted. The final outcome rests on uncounted absentee ballots, and more than 10,000 were sent out.
The county Boards of Election are still recanvassing votes and it could be the end of November before a final count is certified. If the count overturns the election, Owens could be removed from office.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
The problem here is that it vastly underestimates the ideological flexibility available to an incumbent legislator.
=========================================================
Exactly right – and Bill Owens is an excellent recent example
http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7623:owens-to-break-campaign-promises&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175
Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress
November 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I would argue that enforcing party ideology is the slipper slope Republicans found. Their lock-step through the Bush years destroyed their party.
The Republican enforcement of orthodoxy began when Gingrich became Speaker in 1994 or earlier, and it led to a long run of successes which only ended in 2006. It allowed the Republicans to accomplish an enormous amount (from their point of view) with very slender majorities, and it has enabled them to resist the Democrats very effectively even with tiny delegations.
Democrats need to quit parroting Broderisms.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Feature, not bug!
November 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
John Emerson : I have learned that the Republican domination of Congress 1994 – 2006 either didn’t happen, is insignificant, or accomplished nothing of note, because that is somehow not an Establishment-approved storyline.
The fact that the legislation they pushed largely framed the economic crisis we’re living now is, also, unimportant.
The lesson is that when out of power, Democrats should go along with conservative Republicans, and when in power, Democrats should go along with conservative Republicans, they just should, because, shut up.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
We know that a great deal of flexibility exists because each state features two senators with the exact same electorate. And yet Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich have very different voting records. So do Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar. So do Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin.
Is this a measure of ideological “flexibility” or merely a certain way of thinking about ideology? I know many people who stand firm in their belief that “both sides have some good points and both sides have some bad points”. Given such a belief, if you have an opportunity to have two people representing you (e.g. in the Senate), aren’t you actually going to vote in such a way that you have a more conservative representative and a more liberal one?
I don’t see how this argument translates into the House or even to individual Senators: if Grassley were to go all liberal, the people of Iowa would probably kick him to the curve because he was no longer providing a “conservative voice”. OTOH, many of those same people probably would kick Harkin to the curve if he went conservative — because they believe “both sides have some good points and some bad points” and hence want to have both sides representing them … not just a liberal and not just a conservative.
That the same people could vote for Grassley as for Harkin doesn’t mean either has all that much ideological flexibility (because each was elected on his own ideology) and it certainly doesn’t mean a member of the house from a district in Iowa has such flexibility.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:35 am
it has enabled them to resist the Democrats very effectively even with tiny delegations. – John Emerson
And ironically, it has allowed the GOP to appear less partisan: if every Republican votes for bill X and against bill Y while only a 2/3rds majority of Democrats vote against bill X and support bill Y, then the support for bill X and opposition to bill Y are bipartisan while the opposition to bill X and support for bill Y are partisan.
Given that the American people have a distrust of “partisan politics” and “even the liberal media thinks something is amiss when Democrats are so partisan”, that the GOP was able to maintain party discipline so that the positions they took were “bipartisan”, that helped the GOP! That is, ironically, the GOP’s very partisanship made them seem less partisan and helped them get votes in a political environment that disdained partisanship!
November 13th, 2009 at 10:43 am
This post is correct, in my fewpoint.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Voting for an individual and hoping that he or she will somehow “represent” you seems incredibly stupid. It’s a travesty. One should be able to vote for a party platform.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Disciplined parties with platforms cheat the voters too. Most of the Democrats who voted for the anti-abortion provision probably were voting their districts, in fact.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
[...] as Matthew Yglesias points out politicians often have significant flexibility. Democratic and Republicans Senators from the same State rarely have similar voting patterns. [...]
November 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I agree with you Matt. Conservative Dems are whining too much and their defense is a poor one. When Democrats are elected we expect them to vote on the major Democratic pieces of legislation at least most of the time and by we I mean ‘the voters’. They can get away with it, especially right now when there’s a little time before campaign seasons starts for most.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The party should vote, as a block, I don’t care who the individuals are. I vote for a party, the party gets a number of seats in the parliament proportional to the share of votes it received; the party votes as a block, always; according to its platform, detailed platform. This way I know what I vote for, and my vote is never wasted. This is how it works in civilized countries. You know this, I’m sure.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Abb1, you’re the looniest loon that ever flew south. I suppose that powerless splinter parties are honest, but who cares? You’re another spatter thinker, blowing out a hodge-podge of contrarian ideas that add up to nothing.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
What? What are you talking about, smarty; what powerless splinter parties? You don’t you know how party-list proportional representation works? Talk about looniest loons…
November 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
People in Europe grumble about their parties about as much as people do here.
The loony thing you said was proposing party discipline as a Big Idea, which in the context of all the other contrarian Big Ideas you’ve thrown out over the years makes no sense.
In particular, the idea that if you vote for a platform voters won’t feel cheated. The rare voter who agrees with a whole platform will be happy, but every other voter will have reason to be pissed.
Everything I know tells me that Stupak represents his voters pretty well.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I don’t care about any contrarian Big Ideas (whatever it means), nor do I give a shit about what voters will or won’t feel. I only care about what I feel, what is exactly what I described.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Everything I know tells me that Stupak represents his voters pretty well.
And who represents people in his district who voted against him?
November 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Like I said, spatter thinking. What you feel.
Your latest obsession doesn’t fit well with your various others. It’s just too trivial.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
unlike you I don’t get obsessed, just killing time.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Anyhow, how is the party-list proportional representation system a “spatter thinking”? It doesn’t appear to be spatter thinking; it’s used in many countries.
What’s with this need to express resentment for no apparent reason, are you alright, brother?
November 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Everything I know tells me that Stupak represents his voters pretty well.
And who represents people in his district who voted against him?
He voted the plurality, and likely majority, opinion in his district. In terms of acting as a good constituency Congressman, he has been perfectly honorable and acted in a commendable manner.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
In fact, just because you think covering abortion is right, does not mean Congressman Stupak has to take the side of a minority of his constituents over the opinions and beliefs of of a majority of his constituents. Personally, I would rather this it is advisable that we make abortion available to those who sincerely wish for it, but nonetheless Stupak has been honorably and commendably representing the views of his constituents in this case.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I don’t care how he acted, I’m asking: who represents whose who voted against him.
Who, for example, represents (on the federal level) all the Republicans living in Massachusetts – a couple of million people, probably.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Who, for example, represents (on the federal level) all the Republicans living in Massachusetts – a couple of million people, probably.
No one.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Great Post. Very diagnostic natural experiment.
Marcus is bullshitting and she probably knows it. Another diagnostic fact — blue dogs say they can’t vote for the public option because their constituents won’t let them even when an absolute majority of their constituents support the public option. It is rare for representatives who are not freshmen or sophomores to be voted out and, when it happens, it isn’t about them personally or their votes.
I aways admire your clear thinking and extraordinary command of English — espeically your ability to find homonyms (you are in great form in posts above). However “few” for “view” is not up to your usual standards. Vot is happenink are chew turnink cherman ?.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
In Abb1’s magical world of strict party discipline, who represents people who don’t agree with the party 100%?
November 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Other parties represent them. You should have 20 parties to choose from, from Nazis to Maoists and everything in between, and you vote for the one that suits you most. Your party will get a few seats. Coalitions are formed, but you (along with other people like you) have elected a group of people whose views are exactly like yours (well, to a reasonable degree, of course). Now you are represented, and everyone is represented.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
So elected officials have to switch parties or create new ones every time they disagree with their party leadership? Fun. Why not just let people vote their consciences?
November 14th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Like I said, I don’t want no elected officials with consciences, fuck that shit. I want elected parties with platforms.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Dude, that’s really weird. Good luck getting the American public to agree with you.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Fuck the American public.