Can The Progressive Caucus Make A Difference?

Sorry Beltway Democratic Party careerists, but Blue America worked hard last year to help rid our party of corporate, anti-family slugs in the congressional Blue Dog Caucus. (Help us eliminate more of them here.) It was with great satisfaction that we saw more than half of them go down to defeat and to see so many more-- including some of the worst of the worst, like Dan Boren, Mike Ross and Joe Donnelly-- announcing their retirements this year. The Democratic Party will be so much better off without them... unless "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel manages to replace them with yet more GOP-supporting Blue Dogs, as he attempted to do is NV-2 and is trying to do in AZ-1.

Though always far bigger and with far more important members, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was never the same kind of money-raising machine or clout-heavy machine that the Blue Dogs were, basically because the Blue Dogs were always willing eager to take their marbles and cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans when they didn't get their way. Obviously, voting with a neo-fascist party isn't a credible option for progressives. Yesterday in Roll Call Jessica Brady looked into how the Progressive Caucus is making a play for more clout.

Over the past several months, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has begun formalizing ties to a number of outside groups and organizing internally to bring more pressure to bear on leadership.

“We’ve always been a great group, but in my opinion we’ve not punched above our weight; we’ve punched below,” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the CPC, said in an interview last week.

Indeed, one Democratic leadership aide said the caucus “in the past hasn’t been taken very seriously.” And Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the other co-chairman of the caucus, said: “There’s no question that part of all this is the sense of not being taken seriously. And so if we’re going to be taken seriously, we’re going to be serious.”

The Blue Dog Coalition saw its membership cut in half after the bruising midterm elections, whereas the 77-member Progressive Caucus lost only a few in its ranks. Because of the group’s naturally close ties to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and its strong membership levels, the caucus has historically functioned as a loose alliance with little strategic vision. This year, however, the group has become an outspoken force in Democratic Caucus meetings and publicly, where Members have offered policy proposals and even criticized President Barack Obama.

“I think all of the members just sort of got together and decided we had to step up our game,” an aide to a CPC member said. “We can’t just speak our piece and sit down. We have to speak our piece and figure out a construct to move it forward.”

Aides and Congressional observers said the caucus became more organized during the 2009 debate over whether to include a public option in the health care reform law. While the group ultimately lost that battle-- and drew criticism for causing public spats with fellow Democrats and the Obama administration-- members learned how to better mobilize outside groups and build a press strategy that resonated outside the Beltway.

Grijalva said the caucus showed its independence during the debt limit debate, where 95 Democratic Members voted against the deal that President Barack Obama had crafted with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). And while liberals “used to just be a ‘no’ vote” on Republican bills, Grijalva said they’re now offering alternatives. In the case of the debt limit, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) spearheaded an effort to pass a “clean” debt limit increase. More recently, the group put forward its own jobs proposal, which includes increased infrastructure spending and higher taxes for wealthy Americans.

“Our view is we need more attention on jobs in America, and the outreach that Raúl and Keith are doing in all these cities is mobilizing support for an economic agenda that helps the middle class,” Welch said.

...Ellison said, “There are comparisons to be made” between the CPC, the largest group within the Democratic Caucus, and the Republican Study Committee, which includes more than half of the House Republican Conference. The Minnesota Democrat maintained that “they’re not on my mind” when it comes to building an infrastructure for his own group, but he acknowledged that the RSC’s influence over the broader Republican Conference is something the liberals are looking to
emulate.

“When you look at the right, they have the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, Cato, tons of right-wing think tanks,” Ellison said. “What do we have on the left-- the Center for American Progress? Great institution, but there is a clear imbalance between their conservative infrastructure and our progressive infrastructure, without a doubt.”

Robert Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, said the Progressive Caucus is “filling a vacuum in the political debate at a time when the administration has retreated.”

“You’re going to see the caucus increasingly play the voice of a broad public that’s locked out of the debate in Washington at a time of increasing economic distress,” he said. “They’re going to have greater and greater resonance across the country.”

Grijalva, one of those who has criticized Obama’s jobs plan, disputed that claim and maintained that liberals “are still seen as loyalists.” But, the Arizona Democrat said, “we can’t be taken for granted.”

“I think the administration sees the progressives that way, that at some point you have no choice but to deal with us,” he said.

Among the problems with the CPC is that they seem to accept almost anyone who wants to join, even Democrats not necessarily identified with progressive activism. More than a few regularly abandon Grijalva's and Ellison's most important efforts. Several, for example, voted against the People's Budget. Needless to say there's no price to pay. There are also no dues to pay-- literally-- and the caucus even accepted Los Angeles machine hack Janice Hahn when she needed cover to run in a new left-leaning district after she was elected by pitting two actual progressives against each other in a dirty primary. Perhaps we'll see the CPC supporting progressives running for Congress, the way the Blue Dog Caucus always supports conservatives running. The out-of-the-box endorsement of Mary Jo Kilroy in the new deep blue Columbus, Ohio congressional district by Grijalva and Ellison was impressive and Grijalva's DC fundraiser last week for Wenona Benally Baldenegro-- who's running against a conservative DCCC/EMILY's List fave in the Democratic primary-- was another good sign.

Yesterday we wrote about Franke Wilmer, a populist/progressive running for the open seat in Montana. Her opponent in the Democratic primary is Kim Gillan, from the Max Baucus wing of the party, someone the DCCC has already started to gravitate to. It's one of many races where support from 70-odd Democratic incumbents could make a tremendous difference. There's a similar dynamic in Albuquerque where state Senator Eric Griego is the epitome of a proven progressive stalwart and he's being opposed by a disgraceful corporate shill, Marty Chavez, who is being stealthily assisted by the DCCC. Nick Ruiz, the first candidate endorsed by Blue America for the 2012 cycle has put a lot of effort into trying to figure out the dynamics behind this conundrum. He sent me this earlier today:

In the Byzantine politics of Beltway betrayal, progressives need only understand that the Blue Dog Coalition may as well be a direct extension of the Republican Party. Hence, that is 25 or so, so-called 'Democratic' members [save perhaps, Michaud (ME-2) who recently worked with Dennis Kucinich on a verifiable mission of real free trade conscience] who should be challenged and eliminated by progressive Democrats in 2012. Progressives have to understand the forces that conspire against them are organized and ruthless.

The other side wants your servitude, not your Democratic participation. They have names, like Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sandy Adams (R-FL), Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and the Koch brothers. These people don't want government by the majority of conscientious people-- they want totalitarian fascism by corporate fiat, because that is what they pay and have been paid to deliver.

Without your help for progressive candidates-- they will succeed-- and you and yours shall suffer.

What shall the progressive Democratic response be to 21st century American totalitarianism? Complicity? Acquiescence? Fear and failure?

No. We will fight. And we will do so by supporting and electing New Deal Democrats who will fight to create a 21st century, New Deal America. But Wall Street will not help us. Neither will the status quo crony exploiters and abusers of labor. You must help us. Working, struggling people. And if you do not-- we shall fail for lack of support for what you know in your heart of hearts must be done. Act now.