Blue Dog Democrat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Blue Dog Democrats are a group of 44 conservative to moderate Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives[1]. The Blue Dogs are a coalition of like-minded Democrats whose primary mission is to promote fiscally responsible budget reforms and accountability for taxpayer dollars. Many members hail from conservative-leaning districts, where liberal Democrats and liberal values are a decided minority. Therefore, the Democratic Party has become more supportive of Blue Dog candidates in recent times. This was especially true in the 2006 election, when Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, upending years of Republican dominance in these districts.

The term is a reference to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana; the original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls (and both of whom later switched to the Republican Party).

The term is also probably meant as an ironic counterpoint to the traditional "Yellow Dog" label, which is applied to Southern Democrats so loyal to the party that they would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican.

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 during the 104th Congress to give more conservative members from the Democratic party a unified voice. The Blue Dogs are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party made prominent during the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Harry S. Truman, whom many in the Blue-Dog movement consider to be the first two Blue Dog presidents.[citation needed]

The coalition was notably successful in a special election of February 2004 in Kentucky to fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives. They were also successful in the November 2004 elections, when three of the five races in which a Democrat won a formerly Republican House seat were won by Blue Dog Democrats. Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes known as Blue Pups.

Often, the group is instrumental in striking a balance between liberal and conservative ideas. Despite Blue Dogs' differing degrees of economic and social conservatism, they share a strong orientation toward fiscal responsibility, and as a rule work to promote positions within the House of Representatives which bridge the gap between the two extremes. Blue Dogs are an important swing vote on spending bills and, as a result, have gained an influence in Congress out of proportion to their small numbers. They are frequently sought after to broker compromises between the Democratic and Republican leadership.

Contents

[edit] List of Blue Dog Coalition members

Former members of Congress who were once prominent Blue Dog Coalition members include:

[edit] Differences between the Blue Dogs and the Democratic Leadership Council

The differences between the Blue Dogs, and the other prominent coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), are sometimes subtle. The DLC describes itself as new Democrat and positions itself as centrist while taking moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. The DLC views the support of free trade as a traditionally liberal position, and similarly frames their support of an aggressive national defense as historically a Democratic Party position. Thus, despite several differences with modern liberals and progressives, most remain unabashedly partisan Democrats, with less of a tendency than the Blue Dogs to form coalitions across party lines. The two emphasize different goals; the DLC aims to revitalize and strengthen the Democratic party, while the Blue Dogs prefer to emphasize bipartisanship.

Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be fiscal conservatives, but have more divergent positions on social issues than the DLC. Reflecting the group's Southern roots, many are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, some have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. As a caucus, however, the group has never agreed on or taken a position on these issues, and many members favor more socially liberal positions.

On economic issues, Blue Dogs tend to be pro-business and favor limiting public welfare spending, arguing instead for "individual responsibility". They have supported welfare reform, for example, as well as the Republican backed Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. They do, however, have differing positions on trade issues, including some supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.

A small number of newer Blue Dogs hold positions closer to those of the DLC, and some Blue Dog Coalition members are also DLC members. Blue Dogs share with the DLC a desire to keep the Democratic Party grounded in their view of the political center and to ensure that the party does not drift too far to the left of their own positions and no longer appeal to what they believe to be the majority of U.S. voters.

[edit] Differences between the Blue Dogs and Liberal Democrats

The Blue Dogs' moderate-to-conservative agenda in Congress has upset many in the Democratic party, as it sometimes leads to voting with the more conservative Republicans. In 2005, the members of the Blue Dog Coalition voted 32 to 3 in favor of the bill to limit access to bankruptcy protection (S 256). Congressman Collin Peterson was subjected to a heated round of questioning from colleagues in the Democratic Party over several votes where he strayed from the party line before being nominated as the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, in what would otherwise have been a routine nomination.

On the other hand, some prominent Blue Dogs have also received strong support from liberal activists within the party, most notably Brad Carson of Oklahoma in his unsuccessful 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, John Tanner of Tennessee (whose Republican opponent in 2004, James L. Hart, was a radical eugenics advocate denounced by his own party), Jim Matheson of Utah, and Loretta Sanchez of California in her successful bid to unseat former Congressman Bob Dornan. Online fundraising efforts by liberal weblogs in 2004 named Brad Carson's campaign a top national priority. In some cases this support for Blue Dogs came about because the Republican opponent (former Representative, now Senator Tom Coburn) was seen as holding strong right-wing views; in other cases the support is because in some states like Tennessee (where native son Al Gore lost the state's electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000), Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and Utah, a conservative Democrat is seen as the only kind of Democrat who can be viable at the polls. Some progressive activists also view the Blue Dogs as an important part of a Democratic Party big tent coalition, which will give the party important credibility with rural voters and social conservatives, while viewing the Blue Dogs as perhaps easier to swing to the left on fiscal and trade issues than the DLC.

Others in the party's left wing disagree, and have promoted the idea of running future primary challenges against both Blue Dog Coalition and DLC members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/u/Blue_Dog_Democrat_6513.html"
In other languages