Massachusetts and the Problem (?) with the Democratic Party

Okay, that title, or at least the second part of it, seems to suggest that this will be a lengthy political analysis of the struggles of the Democratic Party, illustrated by what may occur tomorrow in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the union. Really, I just want to note a few things, particularly given the drama unfolding in that state.

First, some background for those not really paying attention. Following Ted Kennedy’s death, a special election was set to determine who would fill the remainder of his term in the U.S. Senate. Most people “in the know”—at least on the national stage—did not consider this a particularly important election, because, hey, we’re talking about a Democrat running for a statewide office in a deep, deep blue state, right? Well, as it’s turned out, a liberal Republican entered the fray (liberal in the way that Mitt Romney used to be liberal, as in, pro-choice and not anti-gay rights). His name is Scott Brown. He is opposing Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general. Polls on the eve of the contest—tonight—indicate that Mr. Brown has a 75% or greater chance of winning.

The loss of Kennedy’s vacated Senate seat would give the Republicans 41 seats and the ability to filibuster any bill brought in the Senate. Linked directly to the current health care bill, this would allow the Republicans to defeat it by filibustering—tying it up in procedural red tape, essentially. Many political analysts and Democrats would view this result as “devastating” and point out the cruel irony that the former seat of the very man who was synonymous with health care expansion and reform would be used to ultimately defeat it.

And it would be a bad result. Substantively. However, politically, at least this year, it might just be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats.

Okay—that’s nuts, you say (maybe you say). Without a filibuster-proof majority, how will the Democrats get any kind of health care reform done or anything else for that matter? How will that possibly help them?

This way: the Republicans’ strategy for the last year or so has been to be the party of “no.” Any attempt to work with the Republicans—with the extremely rare exception (Susan Collins comes to mind)—has been met with a complete lack of cooperation, reaching out, any middle ground. Interestingly, even some of the supposed ideas of the Republican party which were incorporated in, say, the stimulus package (having more in tax cuts than direct spending) were basically rejected. To the Republicans in Congress, if the middle ground becomes too in the middle, they draw it back even further to the right.

It’s been an effective strategy, because the Democratic Party is a big, big tent. They have their own conservatives to wrangle with and their own hardcore liberals. Look at it this way: there are 60 Democrats versus 40 Republicans (currently) in the Senate. That’s a 3-2 ratio! Rarely have there been times in the history of this country where one party has dominated the legislature, particularly the Senate, which depends not on population but the states themselves to set their numbers. Has the country changed so much? I don’t think so. Most of the states that were liberal ten years ago are still liberal, and most of the states that were conservative are still conservative. With a few demographic exceptions—Virginia is a great example—mostly what happened is the Democrats successfully recruited moderates and conservatives to the party.

So, the Republican strategy of saying “no” was an effective short term* strategy—let them fight themselves and try to pass legislation (it’s hard). While they’re fighting amongst themselves, we can throw mud at them—and they’ll be too caught up in their own internal struggles to unify and politically defend themselves. (It helps also to be the minority party in a severe recession—the “throw the bums out” reaction works against the party of the majority simply as a matter of mathematics).

However, once the Republicans have 41 votes, the “no” strategy is severely disrupted, because it’s effective! It actually stops legislation. The Republicans can no longer take the stance that—hey, we tried, they passed it anyway. Nothing we could do. Now, the majority party must negotiate with the minority party to some degree, and the Republicans then become complicit in the results of legislation.

So, yes, I think this could actually work to the benefit of everyone in the long run. Democrats will stop their self-absorbed debate, and Republicans will be forced to come up with or participate in real solutions.

* Note that I’ve always thought that it was only good as a short term strategy, because once the economy turns around, who gets credit for it? It also causes you, if you’re a Republican, to be pushed into the awkward position of rooting against the economy. Ask some Democrats about uncomfortable and conflicted feelings about news from Iraq in 2004.

** As an aside, I just realized that I pointed out another ironic situation—the disruption of the Republicans’ policy of “no” because it becomes too effective! Wow, twice in one post. Perhaps I should try literary criticism… naaaaah.

All right, I suppose that is it for now. I’d better post this before it’s rendered completely irrelevant (I hope).