Waldo Jaquith has kicked off an interesting discussion in the Virginia blogosphere with his post, "Why the Democratic majority cannot dominate."
In short, Waldo's argument is that "the developing Democratic majority will give the party dominance over the legislature for the foreseeable future, but will hinder our ability to hold statewide seats." Why? In part, Waldo argues, because of "an inevitable rural/urban split within Democrats in the General Assembly - northern Dems vs. southern Dems." In addition, Waldo argues that Virginia Democrats are not truly "centrist," but merely "have learned to fake centrism since the dark days of 2001," and "will drop that talk just as fast as Democratic legislators will drop talk of redistricting reform."
Over at the Richmond Democrat, JC Wilmore argues that "Waldo is Wrong." JC says he doesn't see "the existence of an urban-rural split among Democrats that is somehow unresolvable." Nor, he argues, "are Northern Virginia Democrats necessarily more liberal than Democrats in other parts of the commonwealth." Furthermore, JC disagrees with Waldo's "'NoVa' versus 'RoVa' distinction," arguing that "[this] construct ignores the critical and growing role of Democrats in Tidewater Virginia." Sure, JC believes, "[a]s the Democratic Party regains dominance there will be growing pains." But, in the end, "[a]s our society becomes increasingly complex, it will demand the kind of results-oriented, optimistic, and skilled management that Democrats in Virginia have always delivered."
Finally, Shaun Kenney weighs in from the right, agreeing with Waldo and arguing that "the Democratic resurgency in Virginia be brief, it will be brutal, nasty, and mercifully short." Kenney adds that "1 in 7 votes cast in the Commonwealth may be in Fairfax County, but 6 out of 7 are cast elsewhere... and regionalism (and dare I say nativism) still prevails very strongly against first generation Virginians."
Overall, I agree strongly with JC Wilmore. And I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree with Waldo on a number of his points.
1. The idea that Virginia Democrats -- Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Chap Petersen, etc. -- have been faking centrism strikes me as completely absurd, even insulting. Is there any evidence to support such a charge?
2. Waldo claims that his friends are "shocked" he owns firearms. Well, I'm not shocked at all, in fact I could care less. Honestly, I don't know anyone who WOULD be shocked that Waldo owns firearms. Why would they be?
3. Waldo somehow jumps to the conclusion that "a great many of the grassroots do not support any of those things" (firearms ownership, fiscal restraint, balanced budget). Speaking for myself, I've supported a balanced budget and fiscal restraint for as long as I can remember. So do many, if not most, Democrats that I know. Just look at the results over the past decade or so -- balanced budgets and even surpluses under Bill Clinton and Mark Warner; out of control deficit spending under people like Gilmore and Bush. Hmmm.
4. I have no idea why Waldo's so worked up over abbreviations for different regions of Virginia. Fine, let's spell out "N-O-R-T-H-E-R-N V-I-R-G-I-N-I-A" every time. Personally, I think NOVA is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation, just like calling the University of Virginia "UVA" or calling the United States of America the "USA." There's an issue here? Got me.
5. As far as "ROVA" is concerned, I personally find the word kind of silly (mainly because it sounds funny, but also because I think lumping 80% of Virginia into "rest of Virginia" is ridiculous), don't know who invented it (a newspaper?), and hardly ever use it (because I find it silly). Personally, I prefer to talk about Hampton Roads, the Shenandoah, Southwest Virginia, Southside, etc. The fact is, Virginia's a big state, so of course people are going to naturally break it down into subregions. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever, and I don't know anyone personally who seriously looks down on other regions. Is there antagonism WITHIN regions. Speaking from what I've observed in Northern Virginia...er, NOVA...I'd say there are tensions over transportation, immigration, and other issues, but nothing too terrible as far as I can see. Is there some feeling, especially among long-time political leaders, that Northern Virginia doesn't get a fair shake proportionate to the amount of money it sends to Richmond? I've seen that, definitely. But I've also heard people from other regions of Virginia who would like more money, more power, more respect, whatever. I think this is what's known as "human nature."
6. With regard to Waldo's argument that "[a]s the burgeoning liberal population replaces Republican legislators with Democrats, both chambers of the General Assembly are moving to the left," I simply don't see that at all. To take just one example, the recently elected Chap Petersen is no "liberal." To take another, neither is John Miller. Neither, as far as I can tell, is Ralph Northam. We could go on and on. Not that there's anyting wrong with being a "liberal," but where's the evidence that Virginians are electing many of 'em? As Jim Webb said last year, "the old labels of liberal and conservative no longer apply." In Virginia, I think there's a lot of truth to that. Instead, my view of the main difference between the parties is that Democrats know how to govern effectively and get things done, while Republicans are more concerned with scoring ideological points -- never raising taxes (unless they're called "fees"), constitutionally prohibiting things that already are illegal ("gay marriage"), etc.
One last point that I can't emphasize enough: maybe it's because I'm one of those dreaded "first-generation" Virginians that Shaun Kenney apparently finds so distasteful (people like Mark Warner? Tim Kaine? George Allen? John Warner?), but I believe that Virginia is ONE state, that we're all in it together, and that no one region is superior or inferior to any other. Obviously, there are going to be regional differences within every state of a significant size -- upstate New York vs. NY City, coastal vs. inland California, southern vs. northern Florida, etc., etc. But I simply don't believe that these differences are as stark or insurmountable as Waldo seems to be implying.
Having said all this, I definitely DO agree with Waldo that if Democrats want to become a dominant majority in Virginia, they're going to have to work very hard on expanding their reach beyond suburbia and exurbia into rural, currently "red" Virginia. And we also have to be very careful, whether in selecting committee chairs or in setting legislative priorities, to look out for the entire state, not just one region (e.g., NOVA or Hampton Roads). Finally, we should not abandon our good government principles -- on nonpartisan redistricting or anything else -- once we get into power. As long as we keep working hard for the good of ALL Virginia, Democrats' time in power will be anything but "brutal, nasty, and mercifully short."
Lieberman has good positions on some key issues, environmentally he's pretty good, and also he's got some smart economic policies. The problem is that in foreign policy, and cultural issues, he takes whatever football the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society or Rush Limbaugh, throws him and runs, throwing dirty blocks against his own supposed teammates, and helping the other side of the aisle score obstructionist victory after obstructionist victory.
It's a bad habit, that's very dangerous to emulate on any level, and when you start playing into the "tax-and-spend liberal" meme, you undermine your party by buying in to the Big Lie snake oil foisted by the right wing.
It's going to take a unified party to right this ship of state after decades of Bush Republican hegemony, we can't afford to undermine the great work of true moderates like Warner, Kaine, Webb and Deeds. Virginia isn't blue enough yet to allow for this kind of massive strategic error.
Also, I agree that the centirsm of Kaine, Warner, Webb, etc is definitely not an act. Or if it is, it is an act they have wholeheartedly adopted, since their policies reflect that. If they seem left, it is only by comparison to the far-right Virginia GOP.
And not to hit it too hard on the nose, but why are gun-owners so sensitive about it? Calm down guys, we don't think you're crazy. I swear. Although you also have to accept the fact that some of us are going to be a bit surprised if you don't fith the raving NRA-loving stereotype, since those are the gun-owners who constantly announce it to the world.
Having said that, the old labels, to a certain extent, are truly misleading. For example, although I consider myself liberal, I not only don't care that Waldo and others own guns, I support their right to do so. I have other friends who also are gun owners. It might come as a shock to both Republicans and some Democrats, but right here in Northern Virginia, lots of blue collar working people own handguns. They own rifles. They hunt. They want to be able to protect their families. For many union members, the right to gun ownership is a big issue. Yet on bread and butter issues, they vote liberal.
When it comes to fiscal responsibility, Democrats have done a better job of it in recent history than Republicans. Whether it was President Clinton on the national stage or Mark Warner and Tim Kaine at the state level, Democrats seem to be the ones who close the deficits and leave surpluses in the treasury. That's because they don't promise voters the impossible and the contradictory - no taxes, lots of government services and no sacrifice. It doesn't work that way. The real debate should be what services do we want, how much are we willing to pay for them, and how do we deliver them most efficiently. Democrats are willing to have that conversation. Republicans are not.
They play a one note game of "no taxes, no taxes, the government is bad."
I believe that Democrats govern better. The biggest problem that will keep us from dominance is our inability to figure out how to govern despite a well-organized effort by Republicans to obstruct the business of government. They have been having a remarkable success at thwarting the will of the people in Congress this year.
Democrats must figure out how to move the legislation through Congress that they promised to pass when they were elected. The public is getting mad at those it elected in 2006 not because they have moved a Democratic agenda through Congress but because they have failed to do so.
That failure is our biggest danger, not internal bickering, rural vs urban Democrats, or liberals masquerading as centrists as Waldo seems to think.
The idea that Virginia Democrats -- Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Chap Petersen, etc. -- have been faking centrism strikes me as completely absurd, even insulting.
I never said or implied any such thing. Mark Warner was elected despite vociferous opposition from more liberal Democrats (such as myself). Ditto for Webb. You saw how pissed off that many Democrats were about Kaine when he was first running, especially from national netroots. (I couldn't tell you where Chap Peterson stands on a single thing, so I'm no use there.) The very reason that these guys were nominated and elected is precisely because Virginia Democrats have been willing to support candidates with whom they disagree about significant things. You disagreed with Kaine about some important things, but you supported him because (in addition to being our own candidate :) you knew that those very disagreements were the matters that would help him to get elected.
Webb et al aren't faking centrism. But much of the grassroots are, and for the best of reasons. Here's hoping we keep it up.
Waldo somehow jumps to the conclusion that "a great many of the grassroots do not support any of those things" (firearms ownership, fiscal restraint, balanced budget). Speaking for myself, I've supported a balanced budget and fiscal restraint for as long as I can remember.
Sure you do, Lowell, but you and I are both quite different than the traditional grassroots. Surely that's a part of your new book, explaining how netroots != grassroots.
With regard to Waldo's argument that "[a]s the burgeoning liberal population replaces Republican legislators with Democrats, both chambers of the General Assembly are moving to the left," I simply don't see that at all. To take just one example, the recently elected Chap Petersen is no "liberal."
Are you telling me with a straight face that Chap Peterson isn't farther to the left than Sen. Davis? Because I read about three dozen of your own blog entries that claim otherwise. :)
Every time we replace a Republican with a Democrat, the chambers of the GA move to the left. By definition. There's no debating that.
But I simply don't believe that these differences are as stark or insurmountable as Waldo seems to be implying.
I don't believe that they're insurmountable. I view this as being very similar to redistricting. I think it's all but inevitable that a Democratic majority will refuse to institute the nonpartisan redistricting that they now champion. Likewise, I believe that a majority-emboldened grassroots will demand that statewide candidates toe an ideological line that will render them unelectable in the rest of the state. (Think Harris Miller.)
Having said all this, I definitely DO agree with Waldo that if Democrats want to become a dominant majority in Virginia, they're going to have to work very hard on expanding their reach beyond suburbia and exurbia into rural, currently "red" Virginia.
So we agree. That's good. :) I suspect that you also agree that a) the core issues supported by candidates upstate are an utter disconnect with the issues that will win races in SWVA and b) that if our statewide candidates succeed in a far-left upstate electorate after a tough primary that they'll subsequently have a difficult time winning other parts of the state. Which, if so, would mean that you agree with the bulk of my thesis. :)
Both parties have their "purists" and they have to be debated and defeated. Fortunately we've done a better job of it than our Republican colleagues have of late.
I remember speaking on behalf of Jim Webb at a committee meeting. A mousy woman came up to me afterwards and told me that she opposed having people who served in the military run as Democrats. It was all I could do to keep myself from telling her to go to hell. But despite "purists" like her, Webb won the primary and then the general.
Just be thankful that you aren't a Republican and that you don't have to deal with the kinds of extremists they do: racists, neo-confederates, Grover Norquist wannabes. In the DPV the fringe is still fringe: in the RPV the fringe has taken over and is calling the shots.
Both parties have their "purists" and they have to be debated and defeated. Fortunately we've done a better job of it than our Republican colleagues have of late.
Well, heck, you just summed up 75% of my blog entry in two sentences. Amazing that it took me 300 words to pull that off. :)
I remember speaking on behalf of Jim Webb at a committee meeting. A mousy woman came up to me afterwards and told me that she opposed having people who served in the military run as Democrats. It was all I could do to keep myself from telling her to go to hell.
Wow.
That's...
Wow.
I sometimes wonder if these people ever get out of the house and talk to people of different political beliefs. If they did, I have to believe they'd realize that most people do not share their perspective, or at least not all of it. And that there may be at least some partial merits in listening to the other side, even if they're mostly wrong.
Personally, purists are part of the reason I don't really read 80% of Dkos. That place is infested with purists, the brilliance of sane commentors like FleetAdmiralJ and DHinMI notwithstanding.
And as for that lady, yeesh. Sounds like she'd be more at home in the Workers' World Party than the Democrats.
In this country the purists drive the political debate which ends up becoming their downfall.
I will use the greater Raising Kaine community as an example since I am posting here but it is true of any political action group right or left. Forgive me for the generalizations but I am trying to keep this short.
The goal is to elect democrats. Congratulations the goal is continuing to be met... But is that really your goal?? Are you going to quit when you regain the majority in the house of delegates. Of course not you will continue to lobby for left-leaning/liberal/progressive/ whatever you want to call it policy
Over time this will move policy further to the left until a tipping point is reached and the silent majority begins to look at the Republicans again.
At this point we flip back the other way.
The golden rule of politics once a majority is reached the respective base demands action pushing the party into a crashcourse of irrelevance.
I noticed you put Democrats before Progressive
I argee that when you match up the Republicans and Democrats the Democrats match up with more of your progressive values. Realistically to have any power in this country you have to latch onto one of the major parties.
Ignoring that for a moment two rhetorical questions
Is the Progressive movement in its purest form actually a thirdparty movement
Many established political operatives critisize inter-party battles for a nomination. At what point would sitting democrats be targeted for not being "progressive" enough
Democrats, especially progressives, don't have pushing an ideology as a specific goal in itself: it's a means to an end. That end goal is good government. When Democrats achieve good government, they will go into "cruise control" because they will no longer have a need to push ideology any further.
Republicans, especially Virginia Republicans, will push their ideology as far as it will go, right over a cliff, like good little lemmings.
Because Democrats pursue concrete goals we are more likely to stop when we get where we are going, while Republicans seems willing to plunge deeper and deeper into abstraction regardless of the consequences to ordinary people.
I think that would be an excellent policy to have sort of ties-in with the whole term-limits, nonpartisan redistricting themes,
One little thing you do realize... that there are also many democrats who will push their ideology as far as it will go right over a cliff if given the power
From my reading of the various posts and comments I'd say the most important statement that Virginia Democrats most need to be aware of comes from the analysis over at the Richmond Democrat by JC Wilmore
Many local Democratic committees have allowed themselves to become too insular, too small, and too weak. The most troubling divide in the Democratic Party of Virginia is not between urban and rural, but between young and old. When I have visited these committees in the past--and I have visited quite a few in the course of my adventures--there is a distinct shortage of members under the age of forty and the overwhelming majority of committee members seem to be over fifty. The great challenge to the Democratic Party will not be solving the perceived divide between urban and rural, it will be in recruiting the next generation of leaders to fill Virginia's growing demand for Democratic leadership.
the trap of a geographically-limited Democratic majority will be the habitual nomination of unelectable candidates. Here's hoping that I underestimate the average Democratic voter.
since I heard some Democratic committee members in the Northern Virginia area patting themselves on the back for having "turned" their particular district blue, thus implying that the vote change resulted solely from their hard work, rather than from what I have seen as a cyclical turning of the tide, and an influx of new voters from outside moving into the area who have had different life experiences, different education, and more naturally Democratic mindsets. In other words, Northern Virginia Democrats should not count their chickens before they hatch. Democratic victories are not inevitable.
I also agree that, whether thanks to gerrymandering or to natural concentration of Democratic or Republican voters into a geographic area, polarization results in the nomination of candidates representing the more extreme elements of a political party (who can now game the system), rather than a more middle of the road candidate. It is only when a district is mixed and competitive do politicians run to the sensible middle... Another reason why nonpartisan redistricting is so essential to a successful democracy.
It will be up to the grassroots to hold the politicans' feet to the fire to enforce nonpartisan redistricting.
The insular, "us against them", "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" Republican approach to governing can not sustain itself in a society that is growing, and has economical needs. Reality takes over. History proves that. Educated folks tend to learn quickly that mandatory safety nets (Social Security, labor laws, minimum wage, Medicare, etc.) are essential to a civilized society. And in the past, Democrats have provided those elements.
The sooner we are successful in making the electorate know that today's Republicans are on record opposing these safety nets, the more easily Democrats will get elected.
It is a message that I believe we, as Democrats, still fail to make.