I do want to admit right away that it's fair to answer this question by saying "We think that way because the mushy middle has been selling out the party for the past seven years."

I agree. AUMF, for instance. Few people in the Democratic coalition actually thought that was a good idea. We let it slide simply because we didn't have the guts to fight it. I thought it was stupid then, and I still do.

I think that's a correct answer, but I also don't think it's the whole answer. There's a longer history here.

Okay, I can't sit on the idea any longer. Wall of text or not, here it comes.

I think the "spectrum" way of thinking is a legacy of the regional tensions that divided the Democratic party from the 60s through the 90s.

The ugly secret is that, at that point, our coalition also included Dixiecrats. And I suspect that made a lot of people on the left uneasy about ever counting quote-centrists-unquote as genuine members of our coalition. Because, frankly, the main thing the Dixiecrats contributed was foot-dragging and pandering to racists.

So we got in the habit of dividing Democrats into two groups: "real" Democrats and those in geographically dubious places who never had the guts to stand up for what was right.

That legacy is still with us, but I think we need to get over it. The Dixiecrats are gone, our nominee is named Barack Obama, and the challenges we're about to confront are not as straightforward, morally, as the challenges of the civil rights era were. In particular, we're going to have to balance long-term environmental concerns against immediate lunchbucket concerns, and it's going to be a painful contest between competing priorities on our side of the aisle. We'll really need to think of ourselves as a coalition in order to get anything done.

Are there two sides within the democratic party on whether or not to drill in ANWR and the outer continental shelf?

Have we not already compromised and authorized enough drilling
in the U.S.? Leases have long been granted with approval from democrats for millions of acres across the country yet they remain untouched. Also, the Democrats aren't blocking drilling off Cuba--the administration is, because they won't lift the embargo.

Also, the oil lying in ANWR and the outer continental shelf won't even make a discernable difference on gas prices, or the price of oil.

So on this issue, all we've done is capitulate and compromise and it hasn't even been pragmatic to do so.

Are we still split as a party on this?

Bush just had a press conference with his economic advisors about this very issue. It's being debated, once again, on the floor of the House and Senate.

I thought it might be a good issue for democrats to share their opinions on now, before the vote.

My guess is that Democrats would all be against it.

But I just don't know anymore.

Excellent post. Rec'd.

I think more coalition discipline is in orde.r I think some Dems are too selfish/self-centered to work together. I get flamed for disagreeing with some of the zealotry at DKos. The Dems seem to have so many parts to their coalition that it's harder to keep together, just so many special interests. And many people are overly idealistic to the point of refusing to compromise, and refusing to have any quid pro quos with other partners, ie. practical politics o advance EVERYONE's cause not just their own. Many would rather just push their own agenda and to heck with anyone else or even the actual success of their agenda, it's enough just to be Right.

But the fact is we need a strong coalition to move forward, logn after the November election is done. National health care and global warming will not advance without continued support and coordination. Our enemies are very organized and powerful (health insurance companies anyone?) so we need to be too.

I think we need to get our act together. FISA showed me that. We are not that disciplined, and not that dedicated to the greater good. Many of us are focused on a pet issue and refuse o make hard choices or compromises, or even to strategize long term.

People need to quit raising the argument that seeking coalition is telling them to shut up, or idolatry of Obama. It's funny how we can be so disunited even before winning. The GOP at least waits 4-6 years after winning to do that.

It was good to draw out someone saying Obama was Bush's third term. Do they let you type with a straitjacket on? Who knew.

Remember, the GOP stays together for one reason: They Hate the Left. All of it. More than we can imagine.

Meanwhile, the mushy middle left hates the farther left (and tries to sell them out) and the feeling is reciprocated.

"Why is it so hard for us, on the Left, to remember that we're part of a coalition of different interests?"

You build a coalition by representing different interests. What interest of the left is the party supporting? Just asking. I'm trying to remember the last time the party delivered on any of my interests.

I want to see the Dems standing around smiling and joking and laughing about pushing through something GOOD, and IMPORTANT, and HELPFUL; doing that, well, it'll lead to rage on the Right...I'd feel elated, energized, ready for the next ass kicking.

Sorry, del7. That is not how I do politics. It's not a game where the blue team gets to give the finger to the red team. Perhaps that's how Karl Rove and Tom Delay did politics. Perhaps their successes drove you crazy mad and made you want to stick it back to them. As for me, the past eight years have simply made me sad. I support Obama in part because his message is not "Fuck the Republicans!" He wants to bring the country together behind common objectives--economic security, good health care, national security, education, a healthy environment, etc. That's all I want. That's all that most Americans want.

Those of you who want to give the Republicans a good ass-kicking will never be satisfied by Obama. That's not his game. So much the better.

I agree with you that there has been a coalition problem with Dems ever since the heydays of special interest minority politics starting from the 70's, especially as regards what is sometimes disparagingly called the victimization Olympics.

But since I also just a few hours ago posted this comment and this comment on Theda Skocpol's thread, disagreeing with her that the Dems are more divided than the GOP about the presidential race, I'd like to clarify what might at first seem an apparent contradiction. And I think that might also bring up a point of thought or discussion for others.

I think mainly what you are addressing applies to problems governing and acomplishing things, not so much to presidential elections. Ever since Reagan grabbed a bunch of disgruntled Democrats, people have increasingly not voted party line as to president. (Of course, this started happening somewhat before, with the Dixiecrat problem, things like Wallace's third party run.) I just don't think a unified party is necessary to win presidential elections, that's not the key at all, because so many more people vote in them that don't identify strongly with either party, much more than in mid-terms, and their number is increasing all the time. It is independents and swings that make presidents for the last few decades.

That doesn't help a newly elected president with governing at all. That's where what you address comes in. We still have a two-party system for the governing part, but it doesn't have as much to do with getting a president elected as it used to, precisely because an increasing number refuse to identify with party, that's without throwing in those who do vote for and by special pet interests.

(I even recall a couple of years back a very interesting op-ed column in the New York Times which complained that liberal interest groups had given up on politics and had gone instead to the judicial system to accomplish change, and that this had been a big mistake. It eally rang true, Wish I could recommend the author!)

Also, the latter, the voting by special interest rather than party, is the reason for Rovian/Dick Morris/Mark Penn presidential politics of micro-targeting--if it's skillfully done, it can deliver the right independent/swing votes in the right places to win a presidency via the electoral college. You don't need to "pander" to all special interests if you know your polls well enough. That is, of course, destructive to a grand overall ideology that unfiies, but which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did people get fed up with the two parties first and the micro-targeters got to work, or vice-versa. I tend to think the former.

In any case, I don't think criticism of Obama'x policy decisions on the internet or in the media in this new world of 24/7 war room are going to play out the same way as in previous elections. I think the fear of people like Todd Gitlin that labeling will stick is outmoded now, the labeling is going to change over and over and over by the time the election comes, the cycles are faster than ever before. Every new issue raised is going to bring forth tit-for-tat and criticism and discussion, it's going to be a bumpy ride, and at the end people will have a shitload more of information to process.

And Obama set himself up for this by being vague about his centrist beliefs in primary race, playing up RFK style rhetoricals, and more importantly, I am still trying to figure out whether he did that intentionally or not. Everything I read about him and from him before he announced made me expect more than a few intentional Sister Souljah moments were everntually going to come from him towards the left and towards "netroots" and towards special interests. I kept waiting for that, now I am seeing some of it, but I am not sure it is intentional planned by him to happen at this time in the race. His coolness under this fire suggests a little bit that that is so.

(A cavaet: apparently, he does have exceptionally low blood pressure and I happen to know how that is, not that easy to get one's knickers in a twist things. :-))

I might add that this is why I think both Obama and Hillary were equivalent as to electoral success chances. Hillary would have started out with her negatives already known and those that would attack on those would merely be singing to choir and actually probably turn off some swings with repeating the same old same old. Obama would have to start being more specific and that I thought would eventually get him equivalent negatives, though maybe of a slightly different makeup.

(BTW, I think Hillary used to represent a "victim Olympics" type of liberal to many, differring from Bill in that, but I think she did a remarkable remake of that image since becoming a Senator on path to running for president. And I think the PUMA types are misreading her as the old Hillary.)