On not being the chump

I am a liberal first, and a Democrat second. The overwhelming majority of times that means the same thing, but I recognize that I am part of a faction within a much larger coalition. The distribution of power between the factions that dominate the Democratic Party is in flux on a day to day basis, but I want to move my party closer to my policy positions and outlook on the major issues of the day.

Tim F at Balloon Juice has a great succinct summary of basic party organizational theory as he comments on the current Republican coalition:

" If the party wants to keep its coalition and wield power at the same time, somebody has to be the chump."

I don't want to be a chump, but I believe that there is a risk that the netroots and other self-identifying over educated liberals will be the chumps in the Democratic Party coalition. Ian Welsh at the Agonist rails against Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH] for his failure to sign on as a sponsor of the Reid-Feingold Senate bill to force a withdrawal of US troops in the next year. This is a bill whose effective policy outcomes are supported by more than 60% of the US adult population. This is a bill that is overwhelmingly supported by the small donor netroot identified individual. This is a bill that can effectively hammer any GOP talking point for the next two years.

It is a near no-brainer for a Senator who came to power due to a motivated Democratic base that opened up their wallets for him which allowed him to ride a wave of revulsion against President Bush and an open ended commitment in Iraq. And yet he is ducking the issue despite the fact that this is a popular bill with his base and the marginal members of his winning coalition, good policy and good politics. On this issue, he is making his supporters into his chumps.

Sen. Brown is not the only Democratic Senator who is seeking to make his base and his supporters into chumps. The Iraq war is not the only issue on which this is happening. My senator, Bob Casey will be doing this on the vote on stem-cell research funding, as he will be the marginal vote to uphold President Bush's projected veto. I have slightly less animosity against Sen. Casey as we knew on social issues that he is a knuckle dragger half a step above Rick Santorum. We knew that and we voted for him.

The field was cleared for Casey so that only token opposition by Chuck Pennachio, who I did some minor policy work for, and Alan Sandals was raised in the primary. The dominant message was to shut up and soldier on as we had to beat Santorum and that Bob Casey was the only individual Democrat who could do that task in 2006. I disagreed with the last part of this assessment as I believed any barely conscious and breathing individual without multiple sex scandals involving bestiality and necrophilia with a (D) next to their name could have won. With this analysis in my mind, I wanted to get the best possible Democratic Senator instead of a barely acceptable Senator. That effort failed, and failed miserably, so again the liberals and progressives who make up a significant faction of Sen. Casey's wining coalition will get played as chumps.

I have the same basic analysis of the 2008 Presidential election. Any of the top four Democrats (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson) should be able to win the general election assuming no colossal and unanticipated mistakes or exogenous events. For this reason, I am taking my time in choosing who I want to support for the Presidential run as I want a good president instead of a merely and barely acceptable one. This means I want to support a candidate and campaign that can not afford to make me or my natural allies into their permanent chumps.