The Constant of the Tea Party Tantrums

By Dave Anderson:

A few years ago when I was laying out my decision criteria for whom I would support in the 2008 Democratic primary cycle, I talked a little bit about calculus and constants when taking derivatives:

When I analyze problems and scenarios, I am interested in looking at the things which have the potential of changing. After a very short while, I only pay attention to constants when the laws of reality and physics force me to pay attention to them. I assume unhinged and substantially fact free attacks against Democrats are a prerequisite of any GOP campaign. I assume that these attacks will occur, and the only variance will be the internal details of the attack. If any Democrat wins the Presidency we'll have the crazy lunatic brigade of the VRWC trying to gin up a scandal where there is nothing there....

And a few months later in Steve Benen is making the same type of argument for Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) with regards to her cloture vote on healthcare:

Look, Lincoln isn't going to out-conservative the Republican candidates in Arkansas. No matter how she votes on reform, the entire Attack Machine is going after her as some kind of radical leftist. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense, and it certainly doesn't matter if she votes with Republicans on the big issues of the day for the next year.

A Democrat will not be accepted by the Tea Party brigade no matter what they do short of becoming the love child of Joe Lieberman and Glenn Beck. And even then, there is always a slightly purer conservative candidate whom the Tea Partiers will rally behind instead of the Democrat. Cowering in fear and shooting your base in the foot in an attempt to win the admiration of people who will never vote for you, donate to you, or door-knock for you is counter-productive. Producing good policy that actually makes some type of difference that you can claim credit for while also discrediting the wildest claims of your opponents is better policy. Cowering has not worked particurly well for Democrats in general, or Southern Democrats in particular for the thirty year rise and fall of the Reagan coalition, so why continue a mal-adaptive behavioral pattern when the Freepers and Tea Partiers are merely a constant in the American political landscape.

Comments

[Zifnab]

Cowering has worked pretty well for conserva-Dems in years past. Couple incumbency with a consistent push to the middle on every issue (even when the middle is being pushed drastically to the right) makes you a very difficult individual to unseat.

That's why Lieberman still has his job. That's why Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstien somehow manage to come from the same state. That's the only reason anyone even thinks about voting for Mitt Romney.

The DLC Democrats have become political survivalists. They've jettisoned every principle, sacrificed every moral, and sold out every constituent that ran out of money to back them. They're mercenaries. And the corporations that fuel them have deep, deep pockets.

So if the insurance industry promises to fund her Arkansas campaign through 2016 (and defund her opponent) and the Republican Party is polling in the teens in most populated areas, does Lincoln really want to give up all that sweet filthy lucere on policy that's never even made it out of the Senate before?

If I were a filthy rich Walmart crony who'd been elected time and time again on the "you can't go wrong being more conservative" platform, I know which way I'd knee-jerk.

[Enlightened Layperson]

Zinfab is right. Granted Republicans and especially teapartiers will never vote for any Democrat. But they may or may not go into convulsions of hysteria, turn out in mass demonstrations, and accuse her of planning gas chambers depending on how much she cowers.