Replying to my post yesterday on the Blue Dogs, the Porch Dog says give them some credit. There must be a market for fiscal conservatism and social moderation because the Blue Dogs "get elected...As a matter of fact, if I remember right that was basically the entire Democratic partyline for most of the 90s." I probably should have made this more explicit, but the point of yesterday's post was that the Blue Dog ideology is not popular with voters. Something else is generating it. And that something is pretty obvious: Money. The fiscal conservatism of the Blue Dogs isn't what Ron Paul would recognize as conservatism so much as what the Chamber of Commerce would recognize as conservatism. Thus, the Blue Dogs are able to raise boatloads of lobbyist and PAC money for their reelection battles, which in turn helps them win in districts where they lack an organic fundraising base and need to mount heavy air wars in order to keep swing voters from drifting towards the Republicans. This, however, requires a pro-business, pro-tax cut, pro-subsidy, ideology when in legislating. The donors need to get something for their investment, after all. The invocation of the 90s is useful here, too. The central political reality of the 80s and 90s was that Democrats were being wildly outraised by Republicans, and a big part of the DLC/New Democrat project was crafting an ideology that could restore some semblance of financial competitiveness to the Democrats. But it's not the 90s anymore. Democrats are financially competitive. The DCCC and DSCC are easily outraising their Republican counterparts. Small donor democracy hasn't been as transformative on the congressional level as it's been on the presidential level, but it's certainly having an effect. Insofar as there was a political logic to creating a Corporate Wing in the Democratic Party, I'm not sure that logic still holds. Maybe it does, but there's no reason liberals shouldn't mount some primary challenges to test it out.
