Two complementary pieces of news hit the wires today at the always excellent Talking Points Memo: first, the House is punting on the Obama middle class tax cuts. Second and more instructively, 44 House "Democrats" want even more tax cuts for the rich.
At first glance, one could see this as yet another foolish and craven move by Democrats to blur the lines between the parties. Many progressives will see this as a reason to scream about Democratic ineptitude, and want to see our elected officials punished for their cowardice. But in truth, we should be more motivated than ever.
That's because as Jed points out, this is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, crystallized in a battle for the House Democratic Leadership. Steny Hoyer is actively leading a revolt against Nancy Pelosi in the House on behalf of his conservative Blue Dog friends. Steny Hoyer represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party, and Nancy Pelosi represents everything that is right with it.
The disagreement between the two party leaders reflects a broader divide in the Democratic Caucus. Centrist and vulnerable Democrats want to push a vote on the tax cuts until after the election, and many want a temporary extension on rates for the wealthy in addition to a permanent extension of the current rates for the middle class. Liberal Democrats want an immediate vote on extending the middle-class cuts, arguing that the move would give incumbents an act to tout on the campaign trail and would force Republicans into a political corner.
Democrats face the real possibility of losing the House in November, which could shake up the party’s leadership and shift roles for Hoyer and Pelosi, who have worked together closely during the four years the Democrats have led the lower chamber since 2006. Hoyer has long been a voice for centrist Democrats, while Pelosi’s base of support is with the party’s liberal wing.
There is speculation that Hoyer could become minority leader if Republicans win back the House. It is unclear whether Pelosi would stay on as a leader if Democrats lose their majority.
So here's how this works: the best case scenario is to keep the House, and keep the gavel in Nancy Pelosi's hands. But if we do lose the House, the more Blue Dogs are ousted, the weaker Steny Hoyer becomes. If the GOP does take the House, they will overreach in every possible way, and provide a nice counter foil for Obama's re-election campaign. If the GOP takes the House at the expense of the Blue Dogs, it will actually strengthen the position of progressives--so long as Nancy Pelosi refuses to step down from House leadership, whether in a Majority or Minority role.
As progressives, our tasks now are clear:
1) Make sure great progressives like Alan Grayson get re-elected in the House. Donate generously to our Orange to Blue 2010 candidates. This strengthens the progressive position in the House, and deflates the inevitable "Democrats were too liberal" post-election storyline.
2) Defund and refuse to assist ANY Blue Dogs. Here's the list of Blue Dogs: don't give a dime to any of these people, and don't make a single phone call to help them. If you live in one of their districts, let them know you're not supporting them and why. The best thing for the Democratic Party would be to see that entire caucus shrivel up and die.
3) Demand and insist that no matter what happens this election cycle, Nancy Pelosi remain the leader of our caucus. Steny Hoyer must not be allowed anywhere near Democratic leadership.
Do this, and we'll be OK no matter what happens in November.
UPDATE: The argument here is not to just let Republicans take the House. But we have to be realistic. We are going to lose a lot of House seats. Our resources are limited. Many great Dems like Alan Grayson (and, say, Feingold in the Senate) are in precarious positions. We need to direct our limited resources to protecting the good Dems, and leave the bad ones to wither on the vine.