Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
BLUE DOG THINKING.
Chris Hayes's nice piece on the Blue Dog Democrats asks the right question: Why fiscal conservatism? These are, in theory, conservative Democrats from marginal districts interested in demonstrating independence from Nancy Pelosi. They could choose social conservatism or international aggression or anti-corporate populism or anti-crime posturing. But fiscal conservatism? There's no district in America that wants to see its Social Security benefits cut. People are about as interested in the long-term national debt as they are in the finer points of Anderson Localization Theory. But still, the Blue Dogs persevere.
Chris gets at some convincing answers -- it's less dangerous than opposing abortion, and better for corporate fundraising -- but there's a piece I think he misses, too. The Blue Dogs smartly hew to a form of elite centrism that assures them almost uniquely glowing press coverage. They've picked the issues -- entitlement reform and budgetary policy -- that most excite members of the Washington Post editorial board, and so they attract much more press coverage lauding them as thoughtful and heterodox than they would if they'd chosen a lonely crusade on behalf of, say, clean election funding, or health care delivery system reform. And since the opinions of the elite media filter rapidly into the home state coverage -- both because their political reporters dream of one day working for elite outlets and because many regional and local papers simply syndicate AP and Washington Post stories -- soon enough, this or that Blue Dog can feel confident that the papers that matter to her reelection will be convinced of her moderation.
Put another way: It doesn't matter if you're a centrist or a liberal. It only matters whether you're perceived as a centrist or a liberal. And Blue Dogs have chosen to be ostentatiously and inconsistently heterodox on the issue that's most visible to the perception-makers.
COMMENTS (11)
Anderson Localization Theory? Where did that come from? Sorry, I missed your physics exposure so far.
Posted by: stefan | February 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Boy, you're wrong on this one. I live in a Blue Dog district and the first word and worry out of everyone's mouth is that all this stimulus spending is growing the deficit big time and that we will have to eventually have tax increases to pay for it. In our area people tend to be in hard-working families with both parents earning a good solid income, with still very little in the way of layoffs or foreclosures. The big financial worries are property taxes, college education for the kids, and retirement funds going down the tubes.
Posted by: zyxw | February 18, 2009 3:31 PM
Kind of a strange post, since you seem to take it as a given that these politicians are motivated by the act of opposition rather than the content of that opposition. In other words, that they cynically decide they need to distance themselves from Pelosi, and THEN they select what they deem the most politically expedient issue on which to accomplish this distancing. It seems to me much more likely that most of these pols are in fact honestly fiscal conservatives by nature. "Socially liberal fiscally conservative" is a popular mantra among many in the US, and it isn't because people want to strategically dissociate themselves from Pelosi.
Posted by: Dork Vader | February 18, 2009 3:53 PM
I suppose zyxw speaks some truth, but Blue Dogs arise from some places that really are in economic difficulty (foreclosures - but not as severe, job losses but spotty rather than systematic).
I suspect any grand unified (single cause) theory won't explain even a majority of BDs. Except fear of defeat at the next election and not from a primary challenge.
I don't think 'conviction' that balanced budgets achieved through holding down overall costs of government explains very much. Their selectivity on what is OK to spend on, or not, suggests social programs are their targets. In many ways they are the successors to the former so-called moderate Republicans that went through a species extinction event and disappeared.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | February 18, 2009 3:55 PM
As long as we spend over a trillion dollars on the DOD and our wars, it is all good!
Posted by: Obama -- Not as Tough as the Steelers | February 18, 2009 3:57 PM
"People are about as interested in the long-term national debt as they are in the finer points of Anderson Localization Theory."
The must be evidence on this. My non-representative social circle worries about federal debt and unfunded obligations quite a bit. Isn't there polling on this?
Posted by: stefan | February 18, 2009 3:57 PM
Did we not have a balanced budget and healthy economy in the 90's? What am I missing here?
Why is debt now a good thing?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 18, 2009 3:59 PM
As Dork Vader said, "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" describes this Blue Dog area. We have good jobs, good wages, good infrastructure, great schools, low crime, and the high taxes that pay for all that stuff. Lots of small business owners that service the many people who have good-paying and secure government jobs. Taxes, getting your kids into a top college, and the loss of 401k returns are definitely the concerns.
Posted by: zyxw | February 18, 2009 4:16 PM
There are lots of reasons to disagree with the blue dogs. Social conservatism is among them. But to characterize "fiscal conservatism" as "entitlement reform and budgetary policy," and to write an entire post and not mention, well, TAXES, is, I think to miss the point here.
Posted by: Vermonstrous | February 18, 2009 4:31 PM
Well, that's one heck of a choke point. How much would it cost to buy out the Washington Post and fix the problem? George?
Posted by: eb | February 18, 2009 7:05 PM
IT's pretty obvious this isn't a principle, or they would go after the 55+% of spending that is defense spending and not the 10-15% (if even) that is safety net spending.
They are nothing but corporate hacks, corrupt scum.
Posted by: soullite | February 19, 2009 8:27 AM