What the Hell is a Moderate Anyway?

Posted on May 30, 2013 by lmsinca

I enjoy reading political writers who have both a sense of humor and ask thought provoking questions.  When I read this brief piece by booman, it resonated with me.

What constitutes moderation in Democratic politics? Which policies of mainstream Democrats are simply unacceptable to South Dakotans, for example? I think these are questions that need to be empirically tested. South Dakota clearly preferred Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, but it isn’t entirely clear why they felt that way. While Republicans absolutely dominate on the local level, the Democrats have done very well in recent years on the federal Senate/House level. Why is that?

These same dynamics have played out in North Dakota and Montana, where Democrats have over performed in Senate contests. Senators like Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, and Tom Daschle have certainly been frustrating at times, but it’s hard to find all that much commonality between them in terms of their apostasy from the party platform. I suppose they have probably been less environmentally friendly than your average Democrat. They’ve been cozy with the banking and credit card industries. They’ve been a bit more socially conservative than their peers.

If I had to name something really out of whack, it’s been their obsession with the deficit. Because the other stuff is easily explainable by the fact that they represent sparsely-populated states with a lot of mining and financial services activity and not much religious or ethnic diversity, their love of austerity sticks out.

Opposition to big spending seems to be a requirement in these northern plains states. Is that the key ingredient for success? Or is it possible to use a different playbook? How much of a role does personality play? Jon Tester and Max Baucus don’t seem much alike but they both have success. Kent Conrad struck me as quite a bit more conservative than Byron Dorgan, who could be quite openly partisan at times.

I understand the urge to find a candidate who is seen as moderate, but I can’t pinpoint what moderate really means.

I’m working with a group trying to find a congressional candidate to support who will run against our very conservative congressman here.  The last time we came close to beating him was in 2008 and we had a pretty progressive candidate who barely lost.  In 2010 the same candidate lost by a larger percentage.  And 2012 was awful.  We lost by 25 or 30 percentage points I think, but we’re not sure if it was from redistricting or because of a new and relatively unknown candidate.   Both worked against us of course, but which played the larger part?

We’re a very conservative district, perhaps even more so now, and so I’ve been arguing for a more moderate candidate but I think I’m being out voted.  It’s a pretty liberal group so they want the most progressive candidate we can find.

One of the aspects of politics today that I’ve been fascinated watching is the apparent growing split in the Republican Party between the more ideologically driven members of the base or Tea Party and more traditional or moderate conservatives.  As I’m sure everyone has already heard Bob Dole had a few things to say about today’s Republican Party.

“Reagan couldn’t have made it. Certainly, Nixon couldn’t have made it because he had ideas,” he pointed out. “I just consider myself a Republican, none of this hyphenated stuff. I was a mainstream conservative Republican. It seems to be almost unreal that we can’t get together on a budget or legislation,” Dole said, comparing today’s Congress unfavorably with the institution in which he served for decades. “We weren’t perfect by a long shot, but at least we got our work done.”

Another example, of course, would be John McCain’s criticism of the small group of Senators who appear to be blocking budget negotiations.

I consider myself a moderate on some issues and a progressive on others but I’d still rather be represented by a Democrat than a Republican so I’m willing to compromise a bit.

It’s funny, when Kevin picked the name for this blog, I told him I wasn’t a moderate but now I’m not so sure what that even means or if it matters.

I’m also wondering if any of the conservatives here worry about the same things I do.   Are they being too driven by the base, or political purity, when they might have a better chance at winning more elections if the moderates, or more traditional members of the party had a little more influence?  Or is winning with moderates some sort of cop out?

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, Congress, Democrats, moderates, politics, Republican Party | 134 Comments »

George McGovern, RIP

Posted on October 22, 2012 by markinaustin

Sam Houston Clinton chaired the D State Convention in ’72. He was General Counsel to the AFL-CIO and the TCLU. He was a “lawyer’s lawyer” who had won three notable cases in the US S.Ct., one of which you may remember; the reversal of Jack Ruby’s conviction. Sam looked like John Wayne and was a hero to most young lawyers in Austin.

In August 1972, the McGovern Campaign asked to meet with Sam. He set the meeting for my firm’s conference room and invited my partner and me to sit in, but not to speak unless spoken to. The Campaign wanted Sam’s views on how to carry TX.

Taylor Branch and a black woman whose name eludes me represented the Campaign.

Sam told them that the rural/small-town weeklies had not yet weighed in and they could be “had” for McG. He suggested a column ad, topped by a photo of McG stepping out of his B24, captioned “decorated WW2 bombardier”. The ad would stress that McG was the son of a Methodist minister, had won the DisFlyingCross, had always voted for gun rights, and would close with the pledge to help [D nominee for] Gov. Briscoe eradicate screw worms in TX.

The black woman laughed. “SCREW worms?” Sam patiently and colorfully described how these larvae were hatched in the nostrils, worked their way to the brain, and destroyed not individual cows, but herds. He explained that Briscoe and the TX D Admin were getting a cold shoulder from Nixon’s USDA, and that ranchers throughout the plains were suffering.

Then Branch said “We cannot say that about gun rights.” Sam pointed to McG’s voting record, which was pure SD and against gun control. Branch explained that it would not fly in L.A. Sam allowed as how he had been asked how McG could win in TX; polls showed Nixon would carry CA no matter what. The meeting ended and so did McG’s prospects of running a competitive race in TX.

Another of my mentor lawyers was Will Davis, a conservative D who, for example, wrote insurance law for the insurance lobby. Will authored the [in]famous McGovern Rules which changed the national D Party from boss run to unmanageable in that election, but which have survived pretty much in tact to this time. Even the Rs have copied some of the McG Rules reforms.

Those were my connections to that campaign. Also, I met his wife, who was gorgeous and charming. This is not apparent in photos on the net, btw. She was petite with curves in the right places and sparkling eyes and short honey blonde hair and a dazzling smile.

LaterSummer of ’78, he co-sponsored a bill with Goldwater to intervene militarily in Cambodia or Laos, I don’t recall. It was beaten down in the Senate as badly as the two men had been beaten for POTUS. McG was asked by someone how a former anti-war candidate could support an intervention war. He explained he was not anti-war. Some wars are just.

Filed under: Democrats | 10 Comments »

Dem Convention Open Thread

Posted on September 4, 2012 by markinaustin

Comments are welcome.

Booker? Castro? First Lady?

Your thoughts. Please. I missed it, in favor of time with grand daughters, and will continue to do so.

I rely on the beneficence of strangers.

Filed under: 2012, Democrats | 107 Comments »