Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Blue doggery

Evan Bayh's new Blue Dog Senate caucus would be more impressive to me if any of the members we know about were actually good at anything other than winning reelection. I mean, seriously, if moderates could articulate an actual vision for the country I'd applaud some sort of organization to reach out to them, but we're talking mostly about backbenchers whose only interest in policy seems to be in watering it down. If anyone could name a major policy initiative headed by Ben Nelson, for example, I'd rest my case. But there is no such thing, because all these Blue Dogs (i.e. Clinton Democrats) want to be members of the ruling party but don't have much interest in enacting the ruling party's agenda. There's a word for that: opportunism. I'm not saying to kick them out, but I do think that Obama should try to extract an opposition to the filibuster in exchange for smoothing over intramural conflicts. Look, I don't have a problem with moderation or moderates, I have a problem with opportunists who don't care enough about policy to even bother to articulate anything. And this will complicate Obama's efforts to paint himself as moderate and pragmatic, which therefore makes his agenda "liberal" and thus less likely to pass with Democratic opposition. Ugh.

Responses to this news ranges from apoplectic to angry to disappointed on the left, while conservatives seem happy with the development. Of course they are. What strikes me is how bizarre this whole thing is. They're doing it now? I guess they need to get it on the record that they're moderate and opposed to Obama's liberal agenda before it comes time to vote on said agenda. Barack Obama likes to talk about how we're all in this together, but already we have Democrats seeking to seal themselves off from Obama's potential unpopularity in their states. It's not even about whether Obama's agenda really is toxic: he won Indiana, Bayh's home state, so one would figure that Obama's ideas are at least somewhat popular in Indiana. It really is hard to disagree with Matt Yglesias that this is about "sending a message" and letting moderates sieze more power and authority, and it also functions as a declaration that the special interest buck stops there. No way this sort of thing would ever have happened under Republicans.

Barack Obama wanted to change the ways of Washington. Well, it looks like he's got more work to do. It strikes me that these sorts of things are why people get turned off to politics--that is, politicians deciding that they need more power and influence rather than fixing problems--though that sort of thing doesn't hurt the racket of "moderates" like Bayh. In fact, the less people pay attention, the more they can get away with, so sewing cynicism is actually a plus for them. If everyone believes that Washington is irrevocably broken then it never gets fixed. Since Bayh's declaration of principles seems to be nonexistent aside from being "pragmatic"at this point, "cynicism" seems like the proper term for this whole enterprise.

The Man, The Myth, The Bio

East Bay, California, United States
Problem: I have lots of opinions on politics and culture that I need to vent. If I do not do this I will wind up muttering to myself, and that's only like one or two steps away from being a hobo. Solution: I write two blogs. A political blog that has some evident sympathies (pro-Obama, mostly liberal though I dissent on some issues, like guns and trade) and a culture blog that does, well, cultural essays in a more long-form manner. My particular thing is taking overrated things (movies, mostly, but other things too) down a peg and putting underrated things up a peg. I'm sort of the court of last resort, and I tend to focus on more obscure cultural phenomena.