From the mailbag

Reader XH offers some contrary thoughts on a recent pair of posts.

Re: On Centrism:

The "blue dog" Democrats do not generally represent liberal districts, but center-right ones where Republicans can have a pretty easy time displacing them in the next election if they are perceived as beholden to "big government" "tax and spend" and what-not. They simply have to watch their own backs. They have to buck the Dem Party line on certain issues. It's the same reason Olympia Snowe supported the stimulus. If she doesn't appear to be working hard to cooperate with Obama, there are plenty of Rockefeller, socially-liberal Republicans in our northeasternmost state who will happily vote Democrat at next time.

It IS kind of odd how it works out, but it makes sense on a deeper look. We don't see a lot of extreme minorities in two-party American politics (i.e., minorities that are not even sufficient to filibuster in the Senate, etc.), but now that we have one again it makes sense that this is how they would work. The minority party has the easy strategy, politically, as the article you quote makes clear. The Dems
are in the dominant position anyway, so they can pass whatever they want whether you support it or not. So, you might as well NOT support it, and that way if it fails you can claim to have been on the side of the right, and please give our party the keys to the car next time. But the majority party is actually in a stickier situation. Or, rather, the marginal members of the majority party are in a sticky
situation. If you are a Democrat right now from a district full of conservatives that just barely elected you while holding its nose, then you have to tread lightly. Helping Obama WIN on this issue just might be your ticket home next time. These guys have their own careers to worry about, not just helping the president with his.

Re: It's important to know the facts:

I don't understand the connection between rising health care costs and an opposition to tax cuts. If this stuff is getting more and more expensive, then presumably that is an argument in favor of freeing more and more of the people's money so they can afford to pay for the more expensive health care. That might not be the actual wise policy move in every situation, but I don't see where the "new government program" answer has any clear foothold on the problem at all ... because health care keeps getting more expensive, we should create a large government program that will handle it?