“I Don’t Know Why Moderates Won’t Compromise the Way Progressives Have.”
From before members of Congress were sworn in this past January, the conflict between moderate and progressive Democrats has been the story. With almost no votes to spare can they get anything done?
When it matters, as they showed again this past week, they have worked out their differences and voted to move forward legislation on infrastructure, the economy and voting procedures.
Not without some drama, however, helped along by the media. Even the New York Times found it necessary to stoke the emotions – albeit with style and alliteration. Leaders worked “feverishly”; divisions “flared”; phone calls were “frenzied”; negotiations were “frenetic”. The revolt was “stamped out”.
The news version ended, not with the successful vote, but with anticipating the next conflict. “The same differences … promise to resurface in the weeks to come, as progressives push to make the reconciliation bill as far-reaching as possible and conservative-leaning Democrats work to limit its scope.”
The significant story this year, underneath the posturing and the hype, is that Democrats have demonstrated they can govern. This is in sharp contrast to the Republicans who, when they were last in charge, promised to fix the infrastructure and health care but could never agree, even among themselves, on the language.
The script followed by progressives and moderates before and after important votes has not varied much. Before the vote, dueling statements about what has to be changed to get their agreement. After the vote, dueling statements about what still has to be changed to get their agreement on the next vote.
But in the only action that matters, when the votes were taken, all the Democrats were “yes”.
In a recent profile in the New Yorker of Sen Joe Manchin, D-WV, the moderate most often blamed for scuttling progressive proposals, the author noted that for all of his pushback he has never cast a deciding “no” vote. All of his “no” votes have come on bills that didn’t have enough “yes” votes even if he voted “yes”. Or, there were enough “yes” votes without his.
The party is a big tent. Some have argued that the tent is too big; there are no standards for being let in and the party is weaker as a result. The differences indeed are wide. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, notes that in any other political system she and Manchin would not be members of the same political party.
What is not noted, however, is that in those other political systems neither the AOC party nor the Manchin party would have enough votes to govern. If they wanted to be part of a majority, they would have to form a coalition and make all of the accommodations necessary for cooperatively governing. Pretty much exactly what they have to do here. Only the timing is different.
Whether the party is broad, or the coalition is broad, either way, the tent has to be large enough for half the voters.
The diversity in the Party reflects the diversity of the country. Part is philosophical. Part is tone. Part is an urban/rural divide. Part is rooted in the differences in community attitudes in districts that are overwhelmingly Democratic and districts where the partisan split is more even.
The “moderates” tend to come from more rural and/or more closely divided districts and states. “Progressives” for the most part represent urban and/or more heavily Democratic districts. It shouldn’t be surprising that of the 136 Democratic House members who sponsored one or both the signature progressive programs, Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, 105 came from 60 percent plus Democratic districts.
Getting together can be difficult. If only the legislators themselves were involved it might be easier. But the unseen presence in the room are the voters back home who eventually have the last say.
They are the answer to the complaint expressed by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-CA, “I don’t know why moderates won’t compromise the way progressives have.”
They can’t compromise very much because their voters are moderate and they are elected with narrow majorities. When they go beyond what their voters will allow, they lose the next election. Voting for something that your voters fundamentally disagree with generates much greater pushback than not being able to deliver everything that your voters want – which is the political problem progressives face.
When moderates lose in moderate districts, the party loses its majority and so loses its ability to govern. If not Manchin from West Virginia, then a Republican. Mitch McConnell would be back in charge. When progressives lose in progressive districts, the replacement is another Democrat.
Ten years ago, when Democrats had a comfortable majority in the U.S. Senate, there were Democrats representing Montana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Indiana. Members from those states didn’t always agree with a majority of the Party, but when they lost, the Party no longer had a majority.
Where do the Democrats go in 2022 to win an additional one or two Senate seats? What kind of candidates and campaigns will it take? Can we get back to a more comfortable majority?
Democrats got their 49th and 50th senate votes in this Congress when Jon Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock won the Georgia run-off elections. They campaigned as moderates. Both avoided the more progressive policy proposals. They advocated expanding health care, investing in clean energy, and criminal justice reform. But did not support a single payer system, the Green New Deal or defunding the police.
Campaigns are in some ways a contract between the candidate and the voters. This is who I am; these are my beliefs and intentions. This is what you will get. A moderate candidate who wins in a moderate district will be a moderate legislator. A progressive in a progressive district will be a progressive legislator.
Being part of a majority, however, and governing in a democracy requires accommodation. It can be difficult and painful. It requires skill and an appreciation of what is possible. The alternative is worse.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]