Democrats Have Their Own Issues

In the wake of Tuesday’s election results, Beltway pundits and talking heads in the mainstream media are buzzing about disarray in the Republican party.  The Republicans indeed, have a long and tough road ahead.  Going back to basic, conservative principles is a start and is obviously the right course of action. 

The Democrats, however, may not be without their own ideological struggles. 

The liberal blogosophere naturally, yet incorrectly, assumes that the election was a mandate for a progressive America, that the country is now a “center-left” nation versus a more conservative one.  Nobel laureate and economist-turned-liberal Bush-hater, Paul Krugman, thinks so; not only that, he demands that President-elect Obama ignore the pleas for moderation and fiscal prudence called for by the electorate and jerk the nation’s collective steering wheel to the left:

Bear in mind…that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?

Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.

So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.

But how does a Nobel laureate explain that most environmental ballot measures were voted down on Tuesday night?  Or that all three gay-marriage proposals were rejected (making suporters of traditional marriage a perfect 30 for 30 overall in such measures)?  And, as Malkin notes, these were rejected by voters who supported Barack Obama? Certainly all of these issues would be part of the progressive agenda.

In the adrenaline-filled momentum of a political campaign, promises are made and are expected to be kept.  This is especially true in the Democrat party, whose base is an extremist, liberal coterie of special interests. National Review’s Jonah Goldberg writes:

As a matter of practical politics, contemporary liberalism amounts to a coalitional ideology, while conservatism remains an ideological coalition. The Democratic Party is the party of various groups promising to scratch each other’s backs. Gay rights activists and longshoreman coexist in the same party because they promise support on each other’s issues.

That being said, the pressure from these groups will be enormous.  They’ve worked tirelessly and spent millions of dollars over two years to get Mr. Obama elected.  These groups, a veritable who’s who of American liberalism, will not be waiting too long after January 20, 2009 to cash in their chips:

In recent weeks, groups have held conferences, drafted policy papers and lobbied campaign advisers in the hope of influencing what they believe would be the most receptive administration to the political left since Jimmy Carter. The Obama campaign declined to comment about pressure from liberal policy groups.

A number of the economic and social prescriptions being pushed on Obama advisers would require greater spending that almost certainly depend on raising taxes — threatening Sen. Obama’s campaign promise to cut taxes.

For example:

The Center for American Progress likewise backs higher taxes based on a “pro-growth” structure steering funds to schools, health care, job training and technology innovations. Mr. Podesta’s organization is one of several interest groups working with Mr. King’s Realizing the Dream Inc. to push the federal government to cut the poverty rate in half over the next 10 years.

 John Podesta was just named the head of Obama’s transition team.

More moderate voices in the Democrat Party, could have other plans.  An interesting development over Democrat leadership in the House has the liberal pitbull Henry Waxman up against Blue Dog Democrats, a caucus of moderate Democrats.  Waxman is eyeing the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and is challenging current chairman John Dingell of Michigan, who is being supported by members of the Blue Dog coalition.  Waxman has already launched his offensive.  Dingel’s office has responded:

Tearing a leadership apart is something the Republicans should be doing after their big loss. It shouldn’t be the first order of business for the Democrats after a historic election

This could get interesting.

(UPDATE)

Ed Morrissey feels the same.

Gerald Seib at the Wall Street Journal:

Some of the new Democrats in Congress aren’t prototypical liberals but moderates who won by knocking off Republicans in middle-of-the-road congressional districts. Their presence may aggravate an existing split about how much to worry about the federal budget deficit. The party’s progressive wing sees a mandate for new programs in health care and alternative energy that trumps deficit worries. More conservative Blue Dog Democrats loath the idea that such spending could add to an already-growing tide of red ink.