We know the Dems are a less effective majority than the GOP in several ways. The question is "why?"

[jpgray]

By "effective" I don't mean quality of supported legislation and party policy--the Democrats trounce the GOP on both those points, more because the GOP is so unflinchingly horrible than anything else. I'm talking about the ability to make their ideological agenda into actual policy. The Democrats aren't anywhere near as effective in that regard. But why? What do you think, and what is your evidence?

To my mind, a huge factor is media bias, another is the tiny size of the majority, and perhaps most important is the fractured nature of our party. In general about 20% are moderate Republican on social and economic issues, 10% are extremely hawkish and belligerent on foreign policy, 50% are ambitious and covetous of power, to the point of bowing to common wisdom no matter who creates it, and 20% are basically great Democrats that behave as we wish all our party would.

These categories mix and cross over at times, and some fall under multiple categories. Another question might be: is it fair to generally bash "the Democrats" when the spectrum of response to most controversial issues (even going back to the IWR or the bankruptcy bill) is so wide? On almost every important vote, any serious opposition you'll find will be in the Democratic Party.

But what do you think, and why?

[ClassWarrior]

1. I agree that media bias and size of the majority are the main factors.

But I refuse to fall for the "fractured nature of our party" myth that the Corporate Media keep promoting. We've always been a big tent, and we've never had a problem governing - and governing well - despite our differences.

Step away from the RW talking point...

NGU.

[jpgray]

2. What about FDR's congress? Or Dan Moynihan who was very hawkish, though socially liberal?

The Solid South was hardly on board with the ideals of social equality others in the party had, for example.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. We don't have the White House.

Why is it so hard to see that the current conditions aren't even similar to what Republicans experienced a year ago?

[jpgray]

5. Of course! I'm just asking people to give those different conditions some thought

The power of veto and other executive controls on policy direction are incredibly important.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. I'm sorry

I misunderstood your intent. Given the tone of threads on DU of late, I'm sure you can understand how I'd make that mistake though...

[jpgray]

21. No worries

I've flown off the handle a few times for no good reason myself recently. GD seems to promote that behavior. :crazy:

[CatWoman]

4. one word: filibuster

the GOP is not as shy about employing that tactic as the Democrats are.

[jpgray]

7. But why is that? Is it due to lack of unity? Something else? What?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. The something else is the veto that goes along with it.

It's not JUST about beating the filibuster, it's also about beating the veto that would most definitely accompany any filibuster attempt. Republicans know that, and as such, filibuster away.

What they DON'T realize is that they're going to pay dearly for being so obstructionist. They've got a ton of vulnerable Senate seats open next year, and they could easily find themselves in a filibuster proof minority.

[jpgray]

15. Another concern might be the accusations of "do nothing" Congress

If the Democrats forced every filibuster instead of holding a cloture vote, little legislation would get through. Now of course some here support shutting down the gov't to avoid war and damn the risks, and that's a fair viewpoint. But I imagine that accusation plays into Dem thinking.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. And they'd be right to think that.

Shutting down the government didn't work when the Republicans did it and it's not going to work now. Iraq is not the only thing that needs fixing - we've got 12 years of Republican rule to correct, and it's not going to happen by shutting everything down over one issue.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Honestly? They're suckers for the process.

Dems, by and large, believe government is something that can be used to help people...when not used to do all that other shady profiteering permanent-war-economy shit.

So they tend to operate with real respect for the system itself, for the process and the traditions. They don't blow up the process because they are devoted to the process, because the process is what gets things done in their minds.

I agree...but you can't help noticing that their respect for process is a little like bringing a knife to a gunfight...because the other folks couldn't give less of a shit for process, which gives them an automatic advantage.

Still, if you're going to salvage and repair constitutional government, you have to stay within the lines while doing so. Can't repair a republic with fascism or anarchy.

Sucks...but there's honor in it, too.

[jpgray]

9. Moderate methods in a nasty climate are going to be condemned as cowardice.

(witness the uzi-toting monks thread :eyes:)

But I don't see a problem with bringing serious parliamentary pressures to bear, so long as they are well within the rules and standards of behavior.

[Cruzan]

8. cuz they're pussies

They're ascared someone's gonna call them libruls or say they "hate America."

[jpgray]

10. Are all of them scared? Which ones are, which ones aren't? Why the difference between the two?

[Cruzan]

13. House and Senate leadership

Those with the power to get things done, or certainly a helleva lot more than has been done.

[jpgray]

14. The moderate Dems who refuse to vote controversially are the problem, the bosses get the blame

And to some extent that's well and good--if you can't whip your party together (as they did on Habeas Corpus), that's a problem. But don't those intransigent members of our delegation deserve some blame as well? Are their undoubtedly electoral concerns valid, even though using such as an excuse is totally reprehensible?

[book_worm]

16. could part of it be that their majority was bigger than ours?

In the Senate particularly they don't really have a true majority--not with Lieberman--so it's difficult to do as much as they might.

[jpgray]

17. I mentioned that in the OP, and yes, I think that's a major factor

[Egnever]

18. Big tent

Nuff said

[jpgray]

19. So who deserves blame for how the party behaves? The conservative Dems? The leadership?

It's a leadership failure when the party isn't wrangled to support supposed party policy, but is it possible or even desirable to get a big tent in GOP-style lockstep? And are the conservative Dems who are looking after the ballot box deserving of more blame? Less?

[AlinPA]

20. Democrats don't know how to fight dirty. Republicans fight dirty and win. nt

[jpgray]

23. But do we want to defeat them only to set ourselves up in their place?

To me the thread about how the Buddhist monks should have been packing uzis is an extreme example of the ends justifying the means thinking of a "fight fire with fire" mentality. To my mind the Democrats aren't using enough non-evil tools to pass their policies by far, and I think they don't need to stoop to a GOP level to do so, either.

[AlinPA]

34. I do not advocate playing dirty. Good policies will win in the end.

Things are going our way over time, but very slowly.

[Bitwit1234]

22. I think it is because we don't have kick ass leaders in congress

don't get me wrong. I, contrary to other people like Pelosi and Reid. But what we need is people who fire back at the republicans. Who don't mind telling the public the truth. I think the democrats, who are in congress now, have been there there for too long under republican subjugation and are just afraid to push issues.

We also need an organization that goes to bat for us. Look at the RNC. They don't mind jumping out in front and going after the Democrats. BUT do you see any of the Democratic groups pushing for us. Look at what happened when MoveOn went after bush's mouthpiece "The General". Look at the ad the democrats pulled with one shot, because the republicans didn't like it. Did the republicans and I am sure rove was partly behind it, the swift boat attack on John Kerry. Hell no. bush wouldn't even condemn it. He and rove paid too much to get it started.

That's what wrong with the Democrats. THEY DON'T YELL IT FROM THE ROOFTOP LIKE THE republicans DO. Of course the media being the republicans asstail doesn't help.

[jpgray]

25. Well the media are a big issue. How do you fire back when 20-30% of your delegation says "don't?"

And who do you blame more in that situation? The leadership or the faceless selfish pols that are avoiding controversy?

[AlinPA]

35. I don't think Nancy Pelosi demonstrates toughness. She may be, but I don't see it.

Her posing for pictures with Bush** and holding his hand still irks me.

Harry Reid? I think his soft spoken style may make him appear a bit weak. But his words are tough.

[madokie]

24. I think Blackmail is the reason for the season

what else explains the rolling over that the dems are doing for bushco*.

[jpgray]

26. The anthrax scare was interesting, but I'll still hold to Occam's Razor here

Can it be explained by simpler motivations?

[madokie]

31. to me it hasn't happened yet

[BurtWorm]

28. The puny size of the majority does have something to do with it

but I also think the party is plagued with "centrists" who, given a perceived "swing" in the voting electorate (as opposed to the merely eligible to vote electorate) back toward the right, would jump ship in a second. You can't threaten these myopic assholes or whip them into line. They're just plain fools. And they're blind and deaf to anything but their own self-interest. They may as well be Repuiblicans anyway.

[lonestarnot]

29. You said a damn mouthful there burtworm! What burtworm said!

[jpgray]

36. Yep. Is this problem fixable?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Because the Republicans have a majority with the Blue Dogs.

The Republicans play to their "conservative" base. The Democrats play to their "conservative" base.

2+2=4, or a majority of conservatives where the (D) becomes meaningless.

[bigtree]

32. republicans can always find enough of a MINORITY of Democrats willing to bend to their initiatives

It only takes about 10-12 Democrats to give the minority enough support to bring measures to a vote. The same kind of margin exists in committee where these bills get advanced to the floor.

There really isn't the same amount of republicans available to bend to progressive initiatives and provide the numbers we need to prevail.

Then there are the other times where we lack a unified opposition and end up splitting our own vote. Republicans almost always remain faithful in their opposition. It's more craven for them. Their entire thing is beating us. They organize on denying us an inch. Democrats seem less ruthless. Many folks would say that's complicity. I don't know.

[Froward69]

33. one can analize this to death

the bottom line is we Dems are humanists and we actually care. whereas the republicans don't. we need some teeth, or at least start using them. the republicans have no guilt nor remorse as to how bad their party screws things up. as long as they made a profit.