A long-time reader chimes in on the dividing line between politics and policy …
I think you hit on something really important here. And I think there is more to the story. One of the great tensions in the Democratic staff world is between those of us who work primarily on election and those who work primary on legislation and policy – and it is particularly true on the Hill.
Many times, the most political person in a member’s office is the member him/herself. Many staffers view politics as something you do in order to get a chance to do policy – not an integral aspect of getting good policy through. And, especially in the House, since many of them are ensconsed in safe districts, their overall political attenae atrophy. Think about it this way. Who were the most prominent critics of the House passing the Senate bill in the immediate aftermath of the Massachusetts election debacle? Liberal Dems in safe districts. Grijalva, Weiner, Maloney, etc aren’t likely to lose no matter the environment – so they don’t have to pay attention to the larger political miasma for their own electoral purposes. It’s not accidental.
The thing is, this is also endemic to left-of-center politics in this country. Many community organizing groups that have built up in the last two generations are at least skeptical and at most hostile to electoral politics. Just look at the Ralph Nader-inspired canvassing organization. They probably talk to more people about more progressive issues than any non-union interest group. And they have been doing it for 30 years. But they don’t use that experience electorally. And I don’t think that’s an accident. If you ask organizers on the Dem side, particularly those who are more liberal ideologically, I believe they will tell you that there is regular conversations in which they have to convince community organizers that electoral politics actually matters. This then bleeds into the legislative process – where many groups/individuals/staffers what to do the “right thing” regardless of political consideration, without understanding that ignoring political considerations actually precludes good things from happening (See HCR)
Just a random thought.
It should not go unmentioned that one of the biggest and most valid digs Dems had on the Bush administration was that there was too much politics and not enough attention to actual governing. It was politics all the way down. So that’s a caution worth bearing in mind. But there’s little doubt, I think, that the Dems have the inverse issue. And it’s debilitating to the point that their policies become close to irrelevant since they don’t end up being enacted.
