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. 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. 
