The Blue Dogs & the Power of Positive Press
After posting last week on the role of Democratic factions in the House's stimulus debate, I tried a small thought experiment: If we took media exposure as a measure of congressional influence, which Democratic group is the most powerful?
Now, Nancy Pelosi and fellow leaders surely get the most press. But when I compared the two ideologically disparate Dem factions -- the conservative-leaning Blue Dogs and the Progressive Caucus -- the numbers were staggering. In the past 90 days, the Blue Dogs were mentioned 933 times in national press coverage according to Lexis-Nexis. The progressives were cited just 99 times.
Whether it's the press coverage, their members' assertiveness or both, the Blue Dogs are respected as an influential force on the Hill. The president-elect courted them in advance. They helped push the Bush-backed compromise wiretapping bill through the House in 2007 and again last year.
And the Blue Dogs wield this power with just 51 members, as Matt Stoller pointed out. Meanwhile, the Progressives claim 71 members and an impressive group of House committee chairmen in their ranks: Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers (D-MI), George Miller (D-CA), and leadership member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).
The gap between the two groups' apparent influence is pretty troubling. But here's something worse: on the issue of fiscal responsibility -- the core mission of the Blue Dogs, something that most liberals can get behind -- the Dogs have had little success.
Remember when the Blue Dogs threatened to hold up the bill exempting middle-class taxpayers from the AMT unless its cost was offset in the budget? Senate opposition killed that effort.
Remember when the Blue Dogs chose to take a stand on offsetting the cost of veterans' education benefits? Democratic leaders got around that by tweaking the timeline for the bill. Blue Dogs voted against it, but the veterans' program ultimately passed.
And in 2007, the offer of $4 billion in emergency (read: not paid for) disaster aid for farmers helped get Blue Dogs on board with a massive bill to fund the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, many of the Blue Dogs hail from southern and farm states and are constantly facing tough re-election fights, making their ability to bring home the bacon even more crucial.
Now that Democrats' majority is expanded this year, here's hoping that the Progressives challenge the Blue Dogs for dominance -- or at least that the latter group sticks to budget-hawk moves that actually pay off.
Of course, if media exposure is the yardstick of power, Mitch McConnell is the guy controlling a 59 seat majority and Boehner is Speaker of the House.
January 14, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And our very own Blue Dog/DINO/Dem Traitor Ben Chandler of Central Kentucky just stood up in the House and praised Mitchie-poo for passing the 24-year Kentucky Senate record set by Democrat Wendell Ford.
Chandler should be tarred, feathered and reamed with a railroad tie for that shit.
Long, LONG past time to make the Blue Dogs sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
And Elana? Stop excusing them with that tired, FALSE trope that they have to out-repug the repugs to get re-elected. All they have to do is out-spend their progressive primary challengers, which they do with repug donations.
January 14, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, easy big fella. Its just a meaningless courtesy thing, one of those little ritual mutterings of sweet nothings that keep 'em from breaking out in baseball-type brealws the way legislatures in foreign countries (and the occaisional U.S. state) do from time to time.
January 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the sentiment, but this is just the latest in a long line of dem betrayals by benny boy.
He thought he fooled us this May when he endorsed Obama before the primary, but as always, no matter how cynical you get, it's never adequate to the occasion.
There are four repug house members from Kentucky, two of whom have more seniority than benny.
This was egregious.
January 14, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media loves "centrists" on the Democratic side, doesn't it? Just like it loves the fact that we're a center right country...
January 14, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great report!
Maybe the Progressive Caucus need a color and animal label? Suggestions?
Green Dogs?
January 14, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Wile E. Coyotes?
Missing the color, but, y'know, they're about this effective.
Meep meep!
January 14, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea, but let's make it "Green Eagles."
Screeeee! Screeeeee!
January 14, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question, Elana: are you just referring to the number of times the actual phrase "blue dogs" vs. "progressive caucus" is mentioned? Because I'd suspect that terms like "congressional liberals" often serve as a stand-in for that, whereas "blue dogs" is a much more longstanding description for a particular demographic within the Democratic Party.
Also, I wonder whether it affects things that you use the word "caucus" in one and not the other, since that's a rather insidery word that the MSM probably doesn't use all that much.
I'm not saying you're wrong, here; I'm a ticked off progressive, too, and would find it affirming to discover that the media isn't doing us justice. But I still wonder about the methodology here.
January 14, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to second these questions about this analysis. Well asked.
As for Blue Dogs, I'm a liberal, living in one's district, and have much past in Baron Hill's district, too. Note that his district stayed 'D' in 2006&2008, but he lost it in 2004, after winning it in 2002...The fact is, he actually represents that part of SE Indiana better than the Republican, BUT if a 'progressive' somehow made it through the Dem primary there, the Republican would win in a walk.
If Hill didn't vote the way he votes, the district would go back to the Republicans. Yet this way, he and the others contribute to the Democratic majority, so we set the agenda.
If you want to be in a party where all the elected officials think and act exactly the way their leaders order them to, I could suggest one. Instead, I'll just ignore the elephant in the chamber...
January 14, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think one fundamental point of the difference between the power base of the Blue Dogs and the Progressive Caucus is missed here. The Blue Dogs have considerable more leverage than the Progessive Caucus because there are almost 180 representatives in a voting bloc to their right (the GOP), while the Progressive Caucus doesn't have something similar to their left.
Let's face it, the Blue Dogs have a much easier environment to operate because they can threaten to move en masse to the GOP position on any given bill and successfully kill it. This is why we hear more about there positions in the media, they have a means to end. Completely unfortunate in my opinion, but it is reality.
January 14, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to their website, the Blue Dogs have only 47 members.
January 14, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Blue Dogs are a bunch of prima donnas who run as Democrats and serve as Republicans. Harry Truman called that kind of member a "Republicat".
They should be told that their grandstanding will not be tolerated and that they are expected to support priority bills that the President and the leadership propose or get frozen out of the pork they worship. But that would take some balls on the part of the Democratic Leadership, something that has been notably lacking since Jim Wright left the Speakership way back when.
January 14, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now is the time to whip the Blue Dogs, they certainly won't switch parties and become part of the minority for as far as the eye can see.
January 14, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy. Blue Dogs are allies on many issues, if too often trigger-happy to bomb and invade and obsessed with budget deficits.
January 14, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alpha,
you just justified the reasons for whipping them into line. They don't have to completely bend over backwards, but intransigence on some things is unacceptable.
January 15, 2009 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the 'media' needs to trump up dissension in the ranks. It helps with ratings.
January 14, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of lies perpetuated by the party of perpetual fraud! Bush has been our best President and the Blue Doggie-doos don't mean squat. This country has never been safer under this man than anyone else. Hussein O. and his ilk are all liars and thiefs.
All democrats are liars and crooks and all their women are whores!
You want to get the U.S. in the right place, I can do that. I will slip on my new black evening dress, smother blue lipstick on my luscious cakehole and do my interpetive "danger dance" until all of you know why Clinton was a liar and perpetual fraud. Just tell me I can't!!
January 14, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes real intellectual talent to convince yourself that our country has never been safer than under a president who allowed the greatest attack in our nation's history.
January 14, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you're talking about and you are one of the fraudulent as well.
I used to be a democrat but got smart. I was brainwashed by the loser DCrat party and finally came to my senses under GWB.
You haven't told me anything here to convince me that the Rats haven't destroyed this country and will continue to. The MSM did there best to destroy palin but she prevailed and will kick your asses in 2012.
I will celebrate then and dance in the streets to my favorite Richard Marx songs. Afterwards I'll go for a stroll down to my town's card shop and I'll send everyone a "screw you!" card and cheer!
January 14, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lunatics are taking over the world.
January 14, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't . . . unless you have a certificate signed by the Governor and Secretary of State.
January 14, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have yet to see whether Blue Doggism will mean the same thing now as it did before the ugly, election-stealing spectre of double digit unemployment wafted into the room. Most of these people come from states that are going to be hit harder than the nation on average. Some of them may even be smart enough to grasp that what's good fiscal policy during good times is disasterous fiscal policy when the fecal material hits the rotary air impeller.
I have frequently said that the Republicans do not seem capable of understanding the extent to which the ground has shifted beneath their feet, but often, I'm not sure people on the left really get it either. Its like watching generals drawing up elaborate plans to refight the last war.
January 14, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Patience all. The shift to left will be noticeable and recognized by all. See what an inauguration can do to make that happen, and continue to notice the progressive shift of the power axis continue to grind for the next 6-12 months as the steady stream of information becomes a gusher of egregious criminal acts flooding out of the DOJ faster than rethugs can say 'damage control' much less do it.
January 14, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sad to say that us folks in Georgia have about 6/8 "Blue Dogs" and we aren't proud of any of them. Nothing but sellouts....
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ingnorant one to deny it.
January 14, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good article, Elana.
I am always looking for systemic reasons for why groups act as they do. I'd like to throw out a few comments which might be part of the reason for this.
First, what is surprising about the Senate overriding the the House? It was originally designed to be the bastion of conservatism to control the mobocracy of the House, and it remains the conservative (meaning traditional) rich man's club. It exists by definition to limit dangerous Progressive actions. The Senators are also the primary focus of the Executive Department's lobbying efforts. The structure of Congress was intended to make them the brake on popular new ideas, and the do it very well.
Second, on why the Blue Dogs get more exposure than the Progressives. I'd be interested in the relative seniority of the two groups. I suspect the Blue Dogs come from generally more secure districts and are freer to state their own beliefs publicly. But I suspect there is a more important reason for them getting more media attention.
We are coming out of a nearly 40 year period of the expansion of conservative ideology. That ideology has completely taken over the Republicans and it should be no surprise that there are many conservative Democrats. We are a less exclusionary Party. Because conservatism has been the more popular ideology, people who opposed it tend to be viewed as cranks and oddballs.
Which leads to my third thought. The Media itself.
The media is also an inherently conservative media in the sense of sticking to the common wisdom. What they hear the most they report as common wisdom. But they are not all knowing. Each individuals knows only the information that reaches him. What they hear most they are most likely to consider common wisdom, and they have hierarchies that enforce the promotion of the common wisdom, at least in part because it gets the widest advertising exposure.
The Editors and pundits, as long term members of the media, have come come up in this period of conservative ideological dominance. And the conservative ideology appeared to work on many levels. So they hire and promote like-minded individuals, and put out publications and TV for the widest variety of public ideology. When the companies get in trouble they attempt to immulate the more successful companies such as FOX. And where do they go on capital hill for the views they know to be like the more popular ideas they are used to? First the Republicans, and then, if they want to make news, the go to the Democrats and search for those Democrats who are going against the traditional Democrat grain - and that's the Blue Dogs. In a conservative-dominated political system with the Republicans on top, the Blue Dogs have been the Man-bites-dog story.
The result of the second and third points is a feedback loop in which the individuals in the media hear mostly conservative views, and since they are used to hearing mostly conservative views, they go back looking for more. The media members and especially their editors are the gatekeepers for what appears in the media, and since the media is highly competitive, they read or view what their colleagues put out. The common wisdom of the media is reinforced. The data they receive encourages the belief that the conservative views are correct (meaning most popular, which is what they want to sell.) So we should expect the media in general to over-represent conservative viewpoints.
If this is even partially correct, it could explain the large discrepancy in the Google counts.
----------
Note: I have used the term "conservative" to either describe the conservative ideology or to describe the natural tendency to keep on doing what previously worked. They are not the same meaning, and I leave to to the reader to determine from context which is meant. This is too damned long already.
January 15, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink