The Editor

Where have all the Blue Dog Democrats gone?

In 1995, a coalition of Democrats was formed to counter the Democrat party’s shift to the left, a shift which helped give the Republicans control of Congress after the 1994 election.  This coalition came to be known as the “Blue Dog Democrats”. 

The term “Blue Dog” came about when Pete Green, a Democrat representative from Texas, said more moderate members of the Democrat party were being “choked blue” by those who were moving the party more to the left.

Those who joined the Blue Dog coalition were Democrats who saw themselves as fiscally conservative and strong on national defense and advocated for working with Republicans to gain bipartisan support for issues. 

When the Blue Dogs were formed, there were over 50 member of the coalition, which was about 25% of the Democrat party in the House.  Today, as the party shifts more to the left, there are only about 25 Blue Dog members, which represents about 10% of the Democrat party in the House.  The Blue Dogs seem to have started to lose their voice and may not be able to counter their party’s shift further to the left.

Apparently, the Blue Dog’s inability to counter the party’s shift to the left and the party’s strong arm tactics against those who were not willing to fall into party lines was too much for Jeff Van Drew, a representative from New Jersey who was both a Democrat and a “Blue Dog” up until the time he switched party affiliation and joined the Republicans.  He felt as if the party was abandoning him over his centrist views and, especially, because of his expected vote to not impeach the President.

It is troubling when a member of a party feels the need to leave the party because of intolerance towards dissenting positions.  However, this may partly be why, as a party, Democrats appear to be stronger than and more unified than Republicans.  It seems that Republicans tolerate opposing views within their own party, so much so that Republicans break ranks on votes and issues much more frequently than Democrats.

But, it is the intolerance and strong arm tactics to force members to fall into line with the party that suppresses the free flow of thoughts and discussion that helps to lead to a health political climate and meaningful solutions to the practical problems within the country.

If the Blue Dogs and other moderate Democrats can’t find their voice in the current culture of the Democrat party, is it time to leave those pushing so hard for a shift to the left and for a third party moderate coalition to emerge and legitimately be competitive on a national basis?

How did we, as Americans, let our government and elected officials get so out of control.

One could argue that based upon the election and composure of the House, the Senate, the Presidency and even the Governorships, the country is pretty much divided down the middle between conservatives and liberals with the majority of Americans being middle of the road philosophically.

In American politics, there have always been opposing sides to issues.  There has always been a pendulum that swings to the right, then to the left, and back again before seemingly settling somewhere in the middle.  However, not in our lifetimes has there been the unwillingness to come to the table, listen to each side’s views, and come to common ground as we have now.  Not in our lifetimes have we seen a win at all cost mentality that has taken over, one that has especially taken over the left.

Why then does the left feel the need to wield such power “for the good of the people” where they are willing to crush any conservative opposition, thinking, and values that stand in the way of their agenda?  Values that many American’s agree with, even if they don’t identify as conservative.

In order to be sure they get more votes, the left forces no ID requirements for voting and pushes mass unchecked mail in voting “for the good of the people”.  How do we know who is voting and how many times?  How do we know that the people that are voting are casting the vote they want to cast with their own free will?

In order to be sure there are no roadblocks to their future left wing agendas, the left wants to stop the political pendulum’s natural swing back and forth between conservative and liberal and pack the Supreme Court with more liberal judges “for the good of the people”.  They threaten impeachment of the President (again) and the US Attorney General.  Using scare tactics, they argue that the future of our Democracy is at stake unless they take such drastic action “for the good of the people”.

In order to be sure the conservatives fall into line and support their agenda, the left threatens that “all options are on the table” and to “burn the system down”.  They let anarchy, looters, and vandals run rampant in the streets of our cities with no condemnation of or attempt to take control of their actions.

The left apparently knows better what is “for the good of the people” than the people know.

What we are seeing is an all-out attempt to take over the government and beat their conservative opponents into a position where there can be no more opposing voices and threats to the liberal agenda, which will lead the American people into more and more socialism “for the good of the people”. 

A healthy democracy needs opposing sides wielding equal power in order to force compromise: a middle of the road compromise where most Americans feel they would want the country to be “for the good of the people”.

It is about time that the American people stand up and elect reasonable people, whether left or right, who are willing to work together to do what is “for the good of the people”.  We need elected officials who are not just trying to gain more power and promote radical political agendas.  We need to demand from those already in power to back off the rhetoric and start working to solve the issues that Americans face “for the good of the people”.

There is an opening on the Supreme Court.  A divisive battle is brewing and the rhetoric is heating up.  Democrats and Republicans each have their reasons why a nomination should or should not be made to fill the seat.  Each say that unless their position is taken, our democracy is at stake. 

Democrats argue that Trump should not be allowed to nominate a replacement justice, pointing to the precedent set during President Obama’s last year in office when he had an open Supreme Court seat.  Obama put forward a nominee but the Senate refused to hold hearings or a vote on that nominee, with Mitch McConnell arguing that he Senate would not take up a nominee in an election year.  At the time, Obama was a Democrat and the Senate was Republican.  Obama was within his rights to put forth a nominee and the Senate was within their rights to confirm or not confirm that nominee.  The Senate chose not to confirm.  That’s politics.

In a 2016 speech, Obama stated “When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination…  There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years.  That’s not in the Constitution text.”

Now we have a situation where both the President and the Senate are both Republican.  Each still has the right to carry out the rights they are given even though it is an election year.  The President has the right and responsibility to nominate a SC justice.  The Senate has the right and responsibility to confirm or not confirm that nominee.  The fact that it is an election year should not matter.  Both are in office until the next President or Senate are seated.  Their powers are not suspended just because of it being an election year.   

Does anyone really believe that if the Democrats held both the Presidency and the Senate that they would not be putting forth and attempting to confirm a nominee for the open seat?