There always seems to be at least one or two nominally Democratic politicians in congress who manage to torpedo or significantly weaken the party or its agenda. Joe Lieberman, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, the lunatic Fetterman, and most recently the idiot Haley Stevens of Michigan come to mind. By contrast, the MAGA party doesn’t have much major internal dissent that manifests as serious damage to what the MAGAs want to do. Years of RINO hunting have either shut up or got rid of most internal dissention in the MAGA party. Even alleged “moderates” like Susan Collins, despite their hand wringing and other pointless virtue signaling, are rarely significant in terms of meaningful dissenting impact.
For context, the sometimes allegedly dissenter mavericks (or whatever dumb label is applied) Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Rand Paul are staunch MAGA supporters no matter what they or the idiot MSM says to the contrary. Murkowski votes for Trump 90% of the time and Collins votes for him 92% of the time and Paul, the only close thing to MAGA dissent in the Senate votes 85% MAGA. That’s not much opposition. One could almost say it is almost no significant opposition.
Exactly what is the Dem Party?
Why did Michigan’s Haley Stevens go off the rails? Apparently because of disagreement over always poisonous Israel politics. She went nuts and supports Mike Rogers, an authoritarian kleptocrat MAGA politician, because she misunderstand El-Sayed’s stated position on Israel.[1] As usual, Israel supporters generally frame any criticism of Israel as fascist anti-Semitism. Even with stakes as high as possible control of the US Senate and the fate of democracy, an arrogant, idiot (yes, I really mean idiot) Dem politician happily tries to sabotage that over the always toxic American politics related to Israel. That is how fragile the Dem Party coalition is.
In the Dem Party coalition, there are 4 main groups, all of which are poisoned by overarching divisive issues of Israel and special interest money. The party is worse than an organizational mess.
Democratic socialists seek the largest shift of economic power away from wealthy owners and toward workers and public institutions. This is generally the group that is (1) most explicitly opposed to corporate political influence, and (2) the strongest critics of unconditional US support for Israel. These people usually are the most directly at odds with AIPAC’s preferred policies.
Progressives / social democrats support stronger unions, universal benefits, progressive taxation, and tighter corporate regulation within a substantially reformed capitalist economy. Their political support includes grassroots donors, unions, advocacy organizations, and as always, organized interests. Increasingly critical of Israeli government policy and unconditional military aid, but not uniformly so. AIPAC-backed campaigns against progressive incumbents demonstrate how disagreement over Israel can also weaken the party’s economic left.
Mainstream / establishment liberals support regulated capitalism, social insurance, and incremental reform. Their position between the left and business-friendly moderates makes them a major arena for competing donors, organizations, and voter demands. The liberals are traditionally supportive of the US–Israel relationship, but increasingly divided over military funding and conditions on support. Some are moving away from AIPAC toward J Street’s more critical, liberal pro-Israel position. Others maintain relationships with both organizations.
Business-friendly moderates / centrists emphasize private enterprise, market-oriented solutions, and compromise. Their economic approach is more compatible with corporate interests. These elites are often donor beneficiaries when pro-Israel organizations support challengers to the left. But economic moderation and support for Israel remain separate positions. AIPAC’s electoral coalition is organized around demagoguing for Israel, not a comprehensive domestic economic platform.
Obviously there are lots of other ways to describe groups of Dem Party elites. But this should help to see why there is almost always a freak like Stevens going nuts over some damned thing or another, often Israel. The elites are mostly a herd of arrogant grumpy cats, not regular, decent people. They’re not pragmatic rationalists. Not clear-minded politicians. Definitely not disciplined in their reasoning or their loyalties.
But at least, unlike MAGA elites, most of the Dem elites are still nominally pro-democracy and pro-rule of law. Well, probably still mostly pro-democracy and rule of law. As a whole, Dem elites are a broad, independent-minded coalition, basically the opposite of authoritarianism-minded MAGA elites.
Q1: Are the elites running the Dem Party too diverse to ever get away from the plague of one or more of their elected politicians going rogue and doing unbelievably stupid things like Stevens has done?
Q2: Was what Stevens did[2] mostly a matter of a fragile injured ego lashing out against El-Sayed, or is it mostly something to do with Israel, no matter how irrational it is, or a combination of both?
Q3: Is it better for democracy to pretend the Dem Party isn’t the organizational mess it is?
Footnotes:
1. The immediate flashpoint for Stevens going nuts was an outside group’s advertisement connecting Americans’ grocery costs to US military assistance to Israel. Stevens demanded that El-Sayed reject it and made that a condition of joining a campaign event. El-Sayed said the advertisement was not his campaign’s and that he disagreed with its contents. CNN reports that Stevens initially praised that response, but nonetheless endorsed Rogers the following day anyway. Is that insanity or what?
2. According to current reporting, Stevens is not Jewish. But she said in an October 31 interview that she was considering converting to Judaism. The NYT reported that Stevens was pissed at El-Sayed because he refused to say whether Iran or Israel was a greater threat to the US. And thus, the balance of power in the US Senate just might hinge on Stevens being pissed off at El-Sayed for whatever reason(s) there may or may not be, rational or not, pro-democracy or not.
Some info sources:
Centrist Democrats Would Rather Lose the Senate Than Win With El-Sayed
Stevens staff resign over Rogers endorsement
El-Sayed’s primary opponent stuns Democrats by endorsing Republican opponent in Michigan Senate race
No comments:
Post a Comment