Noah Baron, Associate Editor
Ideology: Religious Progressive | Writing from: New York, NY

If asked whether I considered myself a pragmatist or an idealist, I would probably pick the latter. But the recent progressive push to oust Arkansas’ Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat, by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party seems to go beyond idealism and to enter the realm of the purely ill-advised. As frustrated I am with “Blue Dog” Democrats preventing the passage of real health insurance reform, I don’t think that targeting moderate Southern Democrats is a good idea – especially in this election cycle.

A cursory review of the polls will reveal that the Democratic majority is at risk in the House, and possibly in the Senate as well.  Four Democratic senators have announced that they will not be seeking re-election. As a lifelong pessimist, and a political science major, (and a person with eyes) I can say that things are not looking good for the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. Without a doubt, many, if not all, of those working at MoveOn.org and the other organizations that have been flooding my inbox asking for donations to support Lincoln’s primary challenger recognize this as well.

This is why I am baffled that they are trying to get Arkansas’ (supposedly) progressive Lieutenant Governor to beat Lincoln in the primary. This is, I repeat, Arkansas. Polling puts either Republican ahead of either Democrat.

I’ll grant that Lincoln is polling particularly badly, but if you want a Democrat to win in Arkansas, Democrats should replace her with a moderate – not a progressive. As one who makes frequent use of it, I know the argument: why bother putting a moderate Democrat in when he won’t vote with us when it counts? The thing is, this isn’t Connecticut (I was a Lamont supporter). This is not a place where progressives generally poll well. Even if the progressive candidate does win the primary, and manages to squeak by in the general election (in a year when the tide is against the Democratic Party), we must ask ourselves: how much good will he do, compared to how much good someone who ran as a moderate would do?

I would argue that progressives would gain very little. A progressive elected by a moderate state would likely reflect his moderate constituency in his votes. Granted, his votes might also reflect his personal progressivism, but a senator elected by a slim majority by a moderate – perhaps even conservative – constituency will likely not stray far from how they would like him to vote (or how he expects they would want him to vote).

What are the benefits of running a moderate? A moderate Democrat is far more likely to win the seat in Arkansas. A moderate Democrat is far better than a conservative Republican. A moderate Democrat will side with the party, at the very least, on procedural votes. A moderate Democrat will count toward the Party’s majority in the Senate.

This last point, in my opinion, is the most important issue right now. While seemingly unimportant, the majority party actually gets to control the rules of the chamber, all of the committee chairmanships, and it gets to have a majority on every committee. Given the Democratic Party’s inability to pass healthcare even with a supermajority, I suspect that if they lose their majority in the Senate they will be able to get even less done. I would much rather have one more moderate Democrat and a Democratic majority than a failed progressive Democratic candidate, and no majority at all.