Democratic electability

I was busy with Condi all morning, and just got back now and read this over at Kevin's, which has its origins in my Democratic suckitude post from several days ago. What I think was a very solid response leapt to mind, but it turns out Yglesias beat me to it.

I would only add that there are pragmatic and philosophical issues at stake here as well. To give Democrats infinite leeway in the 110th Congress because they've got a narrow majority is basically to imply grant them that their hands are tied on all national security matters until their majority becomes invincible; that for now we're stuck with two leaderships--Democrats on domestic issues and Republicans on civil liberties and foreign policy.

The fact is, though, that building a majority comprised of 60 or 65 Democrats in the Senate and, say, 260 Democrats in the House--such that they could immunize themselves against most filibusters and an occasional veto--is extremely difficult to do. It might never happen. It might take decades.

With the help of Democrats in conservative districts, the party could have overcome or avoided embarrassments like Kyl-Lieberman, FISA, Betrayus, Guantanamo, etc during this Congress. Together, they might have been able to end the war, too. Maybe that combined record would have ended their majority in short order. But at least they would have put some egregious policies right, and prevented some others from moving forward, if only temporarily. That's important!

To liberal me, it seems that if they'd done all that, they'd have a fantastic re-election platform. But all they have now is the ability to say--feebly--that they voted with the opposition party on most major issues. And that, frankly, undercuts the single biggest rationale for their election in the first place.