I'm torn between saying Is Lambism even anything? and I've been encouraging Lambism.
My claim to Lambism is based on 2 posts I wrote after Lamb won the special election in 18th Congressional District. First:
I love the Conor Lamb effect. I am cheering it on. Conservative Democrats! Break up the old clods of power and give us something crumbly and fresh!And second:
Lamb's presence in the House is disruptive, and hence more Trumpian than [his GOP opponent] Saccone. As Trump himself put it, Saccone would be a reliable vote for Republicans. Just another Republican. But Lamb is a force for change within the Democratic Party. I'd like to see the Democrats challenged from within like that.Radosh begins his argument by reminding/telling us about Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who couldn't get the Democratic Party nomination in 1972, when the party just had to have George McGovern who was crushed in the general election by Richard Nixon. Maybe Lamb is like Jackson.
The idea that some Democrat is a Scoop Jackson Democrat is something that I believe I've heard continually since 1972. He's the moderate Democrat that will fail within the party's processes, but if only he could get through to the general election, he'd win... and those dumb Democrats, leaning left, keep forcing "Democrats" to vote Republican.
If Radosh is doing anything more than restating this ancient insight, I'm not seeing it.
Posts
60 comments:
The important thing is political correctness.
If you'll overturn it, you can talk about fixing stuff that's wrong.
Democrats trade on PC.
"Conservative Democrat" has become an oxymoron. He was a stealth candidate and when he assumes office he will vote the party line.
Their “only hope” is to replace the electorate with immigrants, which is why they dread the wall.
Let’s look at how a compassionate “liberal” might examine the problem of the wall, were they interested in alleviating suffering, rather than power politics. They would reason that the attraction of the US border is leading migrants to die in the desert, killed by bandits of one kind or another, or simply dying of thirst or exposure. That if there were a wall there, then this would keep immigrants from taking that perilous route. Then we could deal with the problem by crafting a humane immigration policy, you know, through the government.
But NO! When votes are at stake, it’s literally the Wild West! The last thing we want is the government involved imposing law and order on these freedom loving illegal immigrants and the people who employ them!
It’s ironic if you don’t think about it too hard. But if you do think about it, the only conclusion is that the wall is about power politics, and a rejection of democratic rule. “If we build the wall, we will never get the votes to make it the law of the land that as many Mexican immigrants as possible come to the US!”
Great. So instead of an ass their mascot can be a sheep.
On the other hand, it is good if they open a real debate on identity politics. I think they are not going to do it though. As we saw from the example from Upstate New York, they lie about being conservative. It has been a joke for years among Republicans, funny because it’s true, that Democrat Senators become conservative one year out of six, the rest of the time, they are thrall to Schumer.
The problem with the "Scoop Jackson" brand of Democrat is that it appeals to white voters, but not to minority voters, which are now the voting backbone of the Democratic Party (Lamb's district is unusually white.).
I remember Paul Tsongas' short-lived presidential campaign -- lots of enthused white people, no minority support. Tsongas went nowhere.
but not to minority voters, which are now the voting backbone of the Democratic Party
You have a Fox Butterworth style “Chicken and Egg” problem with your reasoning. Just saying.
The seduction of identity politics is that it removes the need to compromise. Obama wouldn’t compromise, he lost elections, he started prattling about his “pen and phone” (A.K.A. diktat) rather than compromise. Compromise is anathema to them. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat who believed in compromise. Obama sure didn’t, Hillary sure didn’t. Democrats would rather rule by diktat.
Look at Inga. Democrats have created a belief that their fellow Americans who disagree with them on what is best of the country are “despicable.” That’s what Inga said yesterday. How do you compromise with “evil.” Of course that analysis, that your opponents are all evil, might look a little too simple and convenient to a reasonable and disinterested person who thought about it for more than a minute, but that thinking person is going to get the Twitter version of tar and feathers if he or she says anything like that out loud.
@Tim,
You have a Fox Butterworth style “Chicken and Egg” problem with your reasoning. Just saying.
Nope, don't see it. There's only a problem if you consider "Democratic voters" to be a static group, as opposed to a "growable" subset of all voters.
That would be the opposite of #Resist, no? That would be siding with HItler.
Right now the Dems are running away from anything Trumpian. Right now they reflexively oppose anything he's for.
Which only goes to show they stand for nothing but themselves.
Moderation: it isn't just for Republicans any more.
"Look at Inga."
Ugh
Tim in VT said..." Democrat Senators become conservative one year out of six, the rest of the time, they are thrall to Schumer."
Yes, and Schumer gives them a longer leash than Harry Reid did.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Follow the ( big ) money.
There are no genuine personalities in all this.
There is no character-linked function in the behavior of Congress as a body, and none either in the counting of votes.
People dont matter. They are not individuals for political purposes. They might as well be machines as far as their political functions are concerned. They will do as their side requires, almost always. They have no free will.
This is especially so for Democrats because they control all institutions. A genuine turncoat Democrat will suffer not just political consequences, but complete ruin, which will also follow his family and associates.
It is insect politics, there is nothing else.
And tcrosse is right, follow the money.
I remember when I called myself a "Scoop Jackson Democrat". It was around 2002-2003. Then I decided that the Democrats were a lost cause, took a deep breath, and started voting for Republicans almost exclusively.
Let's wait to see how he votes.
Due to outside funding and the loss of power of the parties, lamb candidates will be few and far between.
The left / Democrats biggest hope is the stupid party (GOP) will run idiots with foot in mouth issues or super boring / no charisma candidates.
With Bannon sidelined, there should be less GOP idiots running.
"The left / Democrats biggest hope is the stupid party (GOP) will run idiots with foot in mouth issues or super boring / no charisma candidates."
-- Barring that, Republicans could run a Roy Moore, or a woman that the Democrats could call a witch to insult her based on gender and religion.
Lambism only happens if the activists in the party are convinced to follow tact over emotion for a change, at least for a few months. I'm not betting on it, the recent trends seem to be ever more toward purity over pragmatism.
Democrats don't realize it, but they probably don't want to win control of Congress in 2018, as winning either the House, the Senate, or both would lead to so much time wasted on Trump Derangement Syndrome priorities that the voter backlash will hand the White House to Trump in 2020.
The loudest and most influential voices in the Dem party have been far left libs and they were mostly Jewish & Black & Hispanic. They seem to despise the electoral power and numbers [maybe even Christians themselves] of middle America Christians of all races and so they have promoted immigration from 3rd World countries and illegal immigration to counteract the middle America Christian voting bloc. I don't think the Conor Lamb types will prosper in that Dem party- he will be vastly outnumberd by the far left Jewish/black/Hispanic bloc.
Blogger buwaya said...
And tcrosse is right, follow the money.
This is why Nancy Pelosi is so important. She is keyed in to the San Francisco tech billionaires.
Like Elizabeth Holmes who will get to keep enough of the money she swindled to support Democrats.
Tom Steyer is another.
Trump really does have an opportunity to catalyze a dramatic shift in the Party's. At this point the Republicans are more open to that shift than the Democrats. I know there are many reasons but one persistent reason is the deep seated desire to use Trump as the thing we must resist. Note Lamb really didn't go anti-Trump.
For some reason the Lambism might save the Democrats' bacon (mixing up my barnyard a bit hah) thought experiment has me remembering Zell Miller giving the keynote address to the RNC that nominated Bush for his second term.
"I love the Conor Lamb effect . . . Lamb's presence in the House is disruptive" On which $&*@! has been called.
Anyway, the Dems are betting on a demographic shift turning enough purple areas blue to lock in a leftist majority without concessions.
You don't need Lambs if you have enough sheep.
The True, Deep Meaning of Lambism
If Radosh is doing anything more than restating this ancient insight, I'm not seeing it.
Some stories are eternal.
(As an aside, one of the sad things about getting older is the difficulty of encountering something truly new or surprising, at least to you, especially in storytelling. I hate that moment watching a play, a movie, or a TV show when I realize that the story is just a variation on something Shakespeare, the Greeks, and thousands of others have written, likely having origins stretching back to prehistoric campfires.)
It isn't new that Democrats will pretend be Republican like to get elected if that is what's required.
But Lamb is a force for change within the Democratic Party. I'd like to see the Democrats challenged from within like that.
May I remind you, Althouse, that you also thought the election of Obama in 2008 would force the Democrats to take responsibility for the War on Terror? That never happened and what uou’rd Describing above won’t either.
Zell Miller was an antique, a leftover of an earlier time. His constituency was in the conditions of his day already trending Republican, or rather, vs Democrats, a case of "the party left us". Miller was truly representing his voters. Joe Manchin is the current Zell Miller, who has not chosen to jump yet.
And Miller also came from a time when the local economy was local and more independent of national institutions. The modern system can impose sanctions even on people who truly do represent the opinions of their community. Georgians can be made to suffer, personally, by unhappy people in NYC.
I suspect much of this has to do with consolidation of financial institutions since the 1980s.
"remembering Zell Miller giving the keynote address to the RNC"
Odd, I thought about that speech (or rather, the reaction to it) just a few days ago. What seemed to me a statement of the fuck-obvious had people who I had thought were intellectual colleagues ranting about how Miller was the reincarnated love child of Adolph Hitler and George Wallace (paraphrased). It was one of the signs that "Scoop Jackson Democrat" wasn't really a viable political position anymore.
Oh Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the Democratic Party. As if. They'll be carrying around his testicles in a velvet bag within minutes of his arrival in Congress. He has about as much likelihood of moving the party right as Scoop Jackson, who hasn't been heard from in quite some time, and only partly because he's dead.
If history has taught us anything on this phenomenon, it is that no matter how “conservative” the Democrat candidate pretends to be to get elected, the sonofabitch will vote party line any time it matters.
Althouse is confused or fool take your pick about "lambism". This fakery only wins because it's fake. Lamb enables the very sorts that he rebels against in the Democratic party. He SAYS he is pro-life PERSONALLY but,...he'll still enable by his very presence in the HoR the most shrill abortophiles nut cakes. Same with guns, same with, well... the entire nutcake agenda they have. Repubs need to nationalize the election around their populist issues, and not make the election a beauty contest between the candidates. Being the stupid party though, I'm not holding my breath that they'll do this.
Rob @ 9:46
In my considered opinion as a former Washingtonian, Scoop Jackson couldn't even get nominated in the Democratic party Washington has today. Not a chance.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Blue Dog Democrats transformed the Party and the Congress.
What blather. Democrats are Democrats. They are about politics and power and nothing else. They will say whatever they have to to get elected. They will do whatever the have to to stay in power - however evil.
Dollars to donuts that when he gets to the House, he'll vote exactly how Nancy Pelosi tells him to vote
Lamb's presence in the House is only disruptive if he really follows through on his campaign promises. Who believes that will happen? Not I.
Democrats are trying to perfect the dystopia of American democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville saw and foresaw almost 200 years ago.
Alexis de Tocqueville on the “irresistable strength” of democratic government in the U.S. (quoting…):
My greatest complaint against democratic government as organized in the United States is not, as many Europeans make out, its weakness, but rather its irresistible strength. What I found most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny.
When a man or a party suffers an injustice in the United States, to whom can he turn? To public opinion? That is what forms the majority. To the legislative body? It represents the majority and obeys it blindly. To the executive power? It is appointed by the majority and serves as its passive instrument. To the police? They are nothing but the majority under arms. A jury? The jury is the majority vested with the right to pronounce judgment; even the judges in certain states are elected by the majority. So, however iniquitous or unreasonable the measure which hurts you, you must submit.
But suppose you were to have a legislative body so composed that it represented the majority without being necessarily the slave of its passions, an executive power having a strength of its own, and a judicial power independent of the other two authorities; then you would still have a democratic government, but there would be hardly any remaining risk of tyranny.
(/unQuote)
(Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” 13th Edition, 1850, edited by J. P. Mayer, translated by George Lawrence, Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co., Inc., New York, 1975, pp. 252-253)
You misspelled "Lam(e)ism."
If “lambism” stands for opposing the leftward might of California Dems, I’m all for it. Unfortunately, there are no more lambs to slaughter in California. Each and every Dem here is a full-on collectivist.
“Look at Inga. Democrats have created a belief that their fellow Americans who disagree with them on what is best of the country are “despicable.” That’s what Inga said yesterday.”
No, actually that not what I said. What I said is that Trumpists are despicable creatures, but not because I disagree with them. They are despicable because they adhere to despicable notions, they embrace their bigotry and are proud of it.
That’s despicable.
Shorter Inga: Tim in Vermont is absolutely right.
When Inga sees bigotry as the sole reason anyone disagrees with her point of view then that is truly despicable.
Even shorter Inga
Democrat Senators become conservative one year out of six, the rest of the time, they are thrall to Schumer
Take the word "Democrat" out of that sentence and it's still true - lots of firebreathing from Republicans about repealing Obamacare and building the damn wall and molon labe for the yokels during the campaign, but reasonable, responsible caving in to the Democrats once safely in DC.
Aw jeeze. I'll bite.
What bigotry, Inga?
Keep in mind that 'stupid', and 'illegal' aren't races.
Inga said...
“Look at Inga. Democrats have created a belief that their fellow Americans who disagree with them on what is best of the country are “despicable.” That’s what Inga said yesterday.”
No, actually that not what I said. What I said is that Trumpists are despicable creatures, but not because I disagree with them. They are despicable because they adhere to despicable notions, they embrace their bigotry and are proud of it.
That’s despicable.
Socialism/Fascism needs people as stupid as Inga to succeed. Inga and her relationship with the people that use her is the core reason why leftists have successfully murdered over 100 million people over the last century+.
This ancient insight allowed Democrats to control Congress for most of the twentieth century. Like most ancient insight, it is precious precisely because it was forgotten or ignored.
Bigotry? Love trumps your projection of hatred.
It could work out that way, with the Total State-f*cker Left pushing the Overton Window further to the side of outright tyranny, and the moderate-statists coming out as a more sensible alternative. But the result will remain a further extension of the State into what was once the private sector. And the State rolls on. . . .
Scoop Jackson was my Senator growing up. And Dixy Lee Ray was my governor.
They would be run out of the Democratic Party on a rail today.
"He's the moderate Democrat that will fail within the party's processes, but if only he could get through to the general election, he'd win... and those dumb Democrats, leaning left, keep forcing "Democrats" to vote Republican."
This is very much the photo-negative view I had of Trump. I didn't think he was likely to get the Republican nomination, but he'd have a good chance in the general election if he did.
Inga: "They are despicable because they adhere to despicable notions, they embrace their bigotry and are proud of it."
Perfectly describes islamist supremacists.
Whom Inga wants to import by the thousands if not hundreds of thousands.
You know, at the start of Obama's first term the Republican leadership in Congress said they wanted him to fail and did everything they could to block him in the name of their so-called "conservatism." It led to a hostile takeover of the Republican party by Trump and Co.. I wonder if something similar could happen to the Democrats?
Personally I think Lamb's schtick was the result of focus grouping to see how the anti-Pelosi meme played in real time. He played along, but as a freshman Lamb will fall in line, or Hoyer will put a bit of stick about.
There's a reason Hoyer's position is called The Whip.
Post a Comment