|
Any conversation
about moderates
in the 111th
Congress begins
by focusing on
the Blue Dog
Democrats in the
U.S. House.
Although
centrist Senate
Democrats wield
more power, the
cleverly named
Blue Dog
Coalition gets
the lion’s share
of attention.
And let’s face
it, the House
Blue Dog
Democrats, those
fifty or so
fiscal
conservatives on
the right side
of their party,
have had a great
ride.
Established in
the wake of the
1994 GOP
takeover of the
House, they have
consistently won
broad coverage
for their
various
pronouncements,
usually on
issues of fiscal
restraint,
deficits, and
governmental
growth. During
the 12 years of
Republican House
majorities, the
Blue Dogs were a
bit of a
curiosity,
though never a
major force, in
that Speaker
Dennis Hastert
decreed that
only bills that
could be passed
with a strong
Republican
majority in the
House would be
brought up.
Thus,
negotiating with
Blue Dogs – who
might well have
been interested
– was rare on
major issues.
Starting in
2007, however,
the Blue Dogs
appeared to gain
real leverage,
given the
Democrats’
35-seat margin
in the 110th
Congress. With
about 235
Democrats in the
House majority,
the fifty Blue
Dogs should have
been able to
move legislation
to the right –
toward what
political
scientists call
the median point
of the chamber.
No question that
the Blue Dogs
tried to
moderate their
party’s fiscal
policies, both
on the floor and
behind closed
doors. But did
they accomplish
much? That’s
another story –
and a lesson,
perhaps, in the
difficulties of
practicing
moderate
politics in a
highly partisan
age.
No question that
the Blue Dogs
tried to
moderate their
party’s fiscal
policies, both
on the floor and
behind closed
doors. But did
they accomplish
much? That’s
another story…
Who, then, are
the Blue Dogs?
First, they come
disproportionately
from rural areas
and southern
states, and are
thus easily
stereotyped as
across-the-board
conservative
Democrats.
Second, they
make up a
well-organized,
formal caucus in
the U. S. House;
would-be members
must apply to
join (some are
rejected),
members must
attend most
meetings to
remain in good
standing, and 60
percent approval
is needed to
endorse a
coalition
position.
Although these
legislators
maintain strong
ties to each
other, it is
their stated
commitment to
fiscal restraint
that gives the
Blue Dog
Coalition its
potential
clout.
As veteran Rep.
Dennis Moore
(D-Kansas)
observed, “Our
focus is key –
on the economic
issues of
balanced budget
and paying for
program (Paygo).
We don’t take
positions on
social issues.”
It is no wonder
that journalists
turn to the Blue
Dogs as a good
story; they
often personify
conflicts inside
the Democratic
caucus by
opposing the
powerful party
leadership and
offering a
centrist
counter-narrative
to that of
Speaker Pelosi
and a liberal
majority.
Given a catchy
name and a clear
organizational
structure, Blue
Dogs provide
journalists a
simple way to
touch base with
centrist
Democrats – get
a quote from a
leader like Mike
Ross of Arkansas
and move on.
This is
problematic in
at least three
major ways.
First, the
Coalition is
often split on
given issues;
second, beyond
fiscal concerns,
its members hold
widely divergent
views (say, on
abortion or gun
control); and
third, the Blue
Dogs are all
Democrats. To
be sure, their
centrist views
pull them away
from their
leaders on some
issues, but
(save for the
recent defection
of Alabama’s
Parker Griffith)
they remain
members of the
Democratic
caucus, whose
careers depend
in part on how
well they can
work with the
leadership.
Moreover, as
Democrats they
agree with many
of their party’s
initiatives. In
fact, Blue Dogs
almost never
vote as a
separate bloc to
oppose a major
party position.
And in the
three-plus years
since Democrats
won control of
the House, it
has not happened
at all. From
TARP to stimulus
funds to health
care reforms,
Blue Dogs simply
do not
constitute a
cohesive or
powerful force
in congressional
voting.
From TARP to
stimulus funds
to health care
reforms, Blue
Dogs simply do
not constitute a
cohesive or
powerful force
in congressional
voting.
Rather, their
members argue
that their
voices are heard
within the
Democratic
caucus, in
committees, and
in private
conversations
with the party
leadership and
the president.
This claim of
insider
influence over
the agenda and
on specific
issues is
credible, but
difficult to pin
down.
Ironically, the
Democrats’
likely loss of,
say, 25 seats in
the 2010
mid-term
elections, would
reduce Blue Dog
numbers in the
House, while
increasing their
clout. Were
there 230 or so
Democrats in the
next congress,
fewer than 20
Blue Dog
defections could
determine the
outcome of key
votes, and the
Coalition might
well exercise
both voting and
agenda-setting
power.
Ironically, the
Democrats’
likely loss of,
say, 25 seats in
the 2010
mid-term
elections, would
reduce Blue Dog
numbers in the
House, while
increasing their
clout.
So, does the
existence of the
Blue Dogs
matter?
Coalition
members argue
strongly that it
does, by
bringing
like-minded
legislators
together and
providing a
voice for fiscal
moderates. As
for impact,
however, the
answer is less
clear. Despite
the fears of
some liberals
and the
attention of
many
journalists,
there is little
evidence that
Blue Dog votes
have made much
of a
difference.
Whether they
have
significantly
altered the
Democrats’
agenda may be in
the eye of the
beholder, with
House leaders
acknowledging
few adjustments
and Blue Dogs
seeing real
modifications on
given issues,
such as Paygo.
In the end,
actual substance
may not matter
much. The Blue
Dog brand name
is convenient
for the press to
use, standing
broadly, if
inaccurately,
for all
moderate-conservative
Democrats across
all issues. The
Blue Dog
narrative
continues to
work, even as
the Coalition’s
impact remains
open to
question.
--###--
Burdett
Loomis is a
professor of
political
science at the
University of
Kansas and
author of a
recent
study on the
Blue Dogs
entitled, "Blue
Dog House
Democrats: Lead
Dogs or Mythical
Beasts? (http://www.ou.edu/carlalbertcenter/extensions/spring2009/Loomis.pdf. |
