Why are Main Street Republicans more obedient than Blue Dog Democrats?

[Indy Texas]

I recently read Rule and Ruin by Geoffrey Kabaservice - a study of the decline of liberal and moderate Republicans over the course of the 20th century.

One of the things that struck me was how much more willing the liberals were to go along with the conservative direction the GOP was taking than conservatives in the Democratic Party were as their own party underwent various realignments. While conservative Democrats bolted their party on at least two occasions in the 20th century (Thurmond in '48 and Wallace in '68), the closest liberal Republicans ever came to that level of revolt was John Anderson's inconsequential 1980 presidential bid.

Conservative Democrats had no qualms about openly declaring their support for Republican candidates like Eisenhower and Nixon; George W. Bush in 2004 was the most recent example I can think of of a sitting member of Congress endorsing a member of the other party (then-Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who even gave a floor speech at the RNC). Liberal Republicans virtually never crossed over, even during Goldwater's disastrous campaign. The few who endorsed Obama in '08 were out of office when they did so (Colin Powell, Lincoln Chafee).

Conservative Democrats bolted for the GOP openly and often with a lot of fanfare (Strom Thurmond, Billy Tauzin, Phil Gramm, Dick Shelby). Liberal Republicans quietly served out their careers as Republicans and on the rare occasion one left the party, they became an independent rather than a Democrat (Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, Lowell Weicker). If Arlen Specter is an exception, that is canceled out by the fact that he became a Republican by publicly defecting from the Democrats while serving as Philadelphia's DA.

Today in Congress, centrist Democrats like Dan Boren are more or less free to go their own way as they see fit for their constituents. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe get nothing but scorn heaped on them. Even in races where a conservative Republican simply isn't electable, a more viable moderate gets beat up (see Christine O'Donnell/Mike Castle). Democrats were never  stupid enough to primary Ben Nelson, even though Olympia Snowe is more liberal than he is.

[anvi]

I think a lot of it has to do with local politics that decide it for Democrats.  If someone is in a relatively or largely conservative district, they will take these kinds of departures to maintain a shot at office.  And the Democratic party establishment won't punish them, both because Democratic majorities don't want to alienate votes on potentially close calls and because the Democratic party has thrived in the last two decades largely by moving more center-right.  Republicans might not, by contrast, have just more sheer party loyalty, but they might just be less inclined to buy into Democratic party priorities in a systematic way.  But, when the that do actually buck the party in one way or another, there's a lot more retribution from Pubbies because loyalty is expected a lot more in Republican "culture" than it is in Democratic "culture."  As a party, Democrats are about as disciplined as a parade of stray cats.  Pelosi wasn't praised among the Dem establishment for being an especially adroit person or policy-maker, but because she was able to wrangle the House Dems together, an almost impossible feat under normal circumstances. 

For a long time, I at least internally resisted the idea that the U.S. is still, predominantly, a center-right country.  But, accepting for occasional mood swings and changes of fortune, it still basically is.  So, because that's where a lot of the political gravity still is, that's where a lot of the politicians go.  Moderate Republicans, even when they scoff at what's happening in their party, stay center right, and Dems, especially when they are in conservative districts and states, edge farther right. 

[Brittain33]

Blue Dog Democrats have a conflict between their party's policies and the industries whose donations they court. (Setting aside social issues.) For Main Street Republicans, almost everything except for their own beliefs align with the party so it's easier to obey.

[tpfkaw]

On the contrary, it's the other way around.  There was a much greater difference between a Richard Russell and a Lyndon Johnson than between, say, Mark Hatfield and Ronald Reagan.  And yet Democrats whose own personal views and interests were entirely opposed to the agenda of the national party continued to back it for decades before leaving.  "Moderate" and liberal Republicans (the Jacob Javitses and John Lindsays) often loudly opposed Goldwater, Reagan, and even Nixon, and endorsed their opponents, without punishment or repudiation from the national party (like the Dixiecrats being barred from the DNC).

Nowadays, Olympia Snowe might've been disliked by national Republicans but not necessarily Mainers, and in any case Dan Boren represents a 66% McCain district and votes to the left of his constituents, which isn't really the case with Snowe (who has, in some years, voted more often with Democrats than Republicans - quite a feat considering most votes are procedural).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

My Senator Mark Kirk, Frm Senator Specter, Frm Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Senator Ayotte they are united on taxes and prevention of a tax increase where blue dogs are more concerned about gun rights and gun ownership rights where other issues aren't such a priority like taxes to the GOP party.

[Torie]

At the current moment it has a lot to do with the issues in play. On the key ones, the Pubs are united as never before - next to all of them.

[Paul Kemp]

The GOP has always been better organized and able to have all of their members stick to message better than Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The GOP has always been better organized and able to have all of their members stick to message better than Democrats.

The GOP has moved significantly to the right though. Can you imagine a Dewey/Warren ticket today?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Main Street Republicans have been brainwashed by the Party.

[Reaganfan]

One thing I notice is that almost all the Democrats that I meet, don't really fit into the Democratic base at all.

For example, you'll meet a northeast Ohio resident, a male in his 30s or 40s, union worker, hates George Bush, and is a self-proclaimed Democrat. Then you'll find out he is not only against gay marriage, but also talks about how he avoids the inner cities because of "all the blacks" and if he hears about a criminal somewhere his reaction is, "Give him the chair!" You can imagine his reaction if his teenage daughter wanted to date a black guy. I know I'm not a racist just due to the fact that I meet so many people as blatantly open as that guy. Oh yeah, and nearly all of them voted for Obama.

How in the hell is that similar to the "Democratic base"? I meet "Democrats" who are pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-gay marriage and pro-lower taxes. You give them a political matrix quiz and I guarantee you over half of them would be seen as Republicans.

[Brittain33]

One thing I notice is that almost all the Democrats that I meet, don't really fit into the Democratic base at all.

We've noticed that, too.

[courts]

How in the hell is that similar to the "Democratic base"? I meet "Democrats" who are pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-gay marriage and pro-lower taxes. You give them a political matrix quiz and I guarantee you over half of them would be seen as Republicans.

we haven't met yet

[courts]

On the contrary, it's the other way around.  There was a much greater difference between a Richard Russell and a Lyndon Johnson than between, say, Mark Hatfield and Ronald Reagan.  And yet Democrats whose own personal views and interests were entirely opposed to the agenda of the national party continued to back it for decades before leaving.  "Moderate" and liberal Republicans (the Jacob Javitses and John Lindsays) often loudly opposed Goldwater, Reagan, and even Nixon, and endorsed their opponents, without punishment or repudiation from the national party (like the Dixiecrats being barred from the DNC).

Nowadays, Olympia Snowe might've been disliked by national Republicans but not necessarily Mainers, and in any case Dan Boren represents a 66% McCain district and votes to the left of his constituents, which isn't really the case with Snowe (who has, in some years, voted more often with Democrats than Republicans - quite a feat considering most votes are procedural).

i have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the last paragraph but then who knows what 'left and right' mean when it comes to america these days. even mikado is confused there. i think your larger point here is correct though, even within very recent memory. look at chafee for example back when he was a useless r-ri instead of a useless i-ri. constantly sparring with the party and attention whoring but they still spent tons of resources on him. the tea party is kind of an aberration and i would argue not a very successful one.