The Myth of the Blue Dogs
Tags: Blue Dogs, Democrats, United States, Politics

The Blue Dog Coalition is a caucus in the House of Representatives made up of elected representatives from the Democratic Party. The group promotes the cause of conservative and moderate Democrats by supporting their campaigns for Congress, specifically their campaigns for the House. Once elected, these members of the House fight to promote the Democratic values of yore such as protectionism, fiscal liberalism, and social conservatism.

All of what is written above is true, save for the last part. The Blue Dog Democrats, contrary to popular belief, are not a group of protectionist, fiscally liberal, social conservatives. The Blue Dogs, in fact, have never promoted any of those values. Even at the very beginning of the Coalition, in 1994 and 1995, the Blue Dogs were less protectionist and more fiscally conservative than the Democratic Party as a whole and were, in fact, specifically created to promote fiscal responsibility and a strong military. In fact, this group was often observed by some to be fiscally conservative. While members of the Blue Dog Coalition do have individual views on protectionism and social conservatism, the group as a whole was specifically created to address limited issues, rather than to become an ideological group meant to hand down policy positions to its members. The Blue Dogs have always been committed to fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, political independence from both the Democrats and Republicans, and bipartisanship.

With regards to protectionism, the idea that Blue Dogs are protectionists is simply not true. None of the group’s founding documents or their official histories say anything about protectionism. The members of the group, both the early and more recent ones, have always been more pro free trade than the Democratic Party as a whole, which we should remember was quite protectionist in its own right in the time preceding the creation of the Blue Dog Coalition. This is the opposite of the myth that is frequently seen claiming that the Blue Dogs were the last stand against the neoliberalism that the rest of the Democratic Party was going towards. While it is true that the Democratic president at the time, Bill Clinton, was somewhat supportive of free trade, it is not true that the Democratic Party as a whole was or that the Blue Dogs opposed it.

Take into consideration the 1993 vote on the infamous North American Free Trade Agreement, or as it is commonly known, NAFTA. While the Blue Dog Coalition would not formally exist until 1995, after the Democrats crushing defeat in the 1994 midterms, the original members of the Blue Dog Coalition were all in the House at the time of the vote. Because of this, we have an opportunity to use their votes to gauge their views on free trade. The future Blue Dogs would vote in favor of the agreement by a slim 13 to 12 margin (there were 25 original founders of the Blue Dog Coalition). While this was a close vote, it should also be pointed out that the Democratic Party in the House voted against the agreement by a 102 to 156 vote. So the Blue Dogs voted in favor of the agreement with a 52% to 48% margin while the Democratic Party as a whole voted against the agreement by a 60% to 40% margin. This is strong evidence that the Blue Dogs, contrary to the popular myth regarding their policy positions, were actually significantly more pro free trade than the average member of the Democratic Party.

As the evidence presented so far should suggest, when the Blue Dogs formed their Coalition in 1994 and 1995, their qualms with the Democratic party had little to do with the Democratic Parties drift towards neoliberalism and free trade. In fact it would have made no sense for them to have made it a point of focus or an explanation for their defeat in the 1994 midterms, given that, as a group, the Blue Dogs were more pro free trade than the Democratic Party altogether. On the contrary, the Blue Dogs were formed to fight against both tax and spend liberalism and reckless tax cutting conservatism. Protectionism was simply not on the radar for the Blue Dogs.

While the claim that the Blue Dogs were a group of protectionist Democrats might make little sense, the claim that they are fiscally liberal makes even less sense. The Blue Dogs, when they were founded, made a decision to not issue a stance on every policy issue but rather to focus on issues like fiscal responsibility and national defense. In those areas, the Blue Dogs supported balancing the budget, and maintaining a strong military. To quote an article published by the Blue Dog Coalition titled “The Founding Class of the Blue Dog Coalition”: “The Coalition would limit its policy focus to fiscal and national defense policy. In swing districts — where right-leaning independent voters and moderate Republican voters are necessary in order for a Democrat to win — this was key to counter the stereotype of Democrats as “tax-and-spend liberals” or weak on matters pertaining to defense and national security.” A quote from one of the founding Blue Dogs, Representative Glen Browder from the same article also helps illustrate the Blue Dog position on the issue of fiscal responsibility: “I really believe that if you don’t get control of your budget, whether you’re a nation, a country, a business, or a family, you lose control of your destiny… The nation’s interest payments, around 15 percent, were almost as large as the Defense budget. That was crazy. That was keeping us from spending money on good programs that people need — child programs, health care, and so forth.”

The Blue Dogs stuck to their policies then and now. This can be seen in both current quotes provided by the Blue Dogs own official website such as: “As part of its fiscal policy platform, the Coalition has long supported the concept of a Balanced Budget Amendment while protecting key safety net programs, including Social Security and Medicare.” and this quote from the LA Times in a 1996 article about the Federal budget: “The Blue Dogs have a different strategy: Instead of casting their lot with Republicans, they came up with their own seven-year budget plan. But the Blue Dogs included none of the $245 billion in tax cuts that are in the GOP plan, and they called for less severe reductions in projected spending for social programs… The White House objects to the Blue Dogs’ budget on many points — such as its deeper cuts in domestic programs”

The above quotes are not the only evidence that we have regarding the nature of the Blue Dog Coalitions’ position on fiscal issues, but they are representative of the reality of the Blue Dog’s mission. Blue Dogs wished not to spend frivolously like the liberals of the time, but to balance the budget and ensure that neither reckless tax cuts or poorly thought out spending would harm our country’s fiscal position. Such poor fiscal policy would hamper our ability to pay for more important things, especially in the long term. Even today the Blue Dog Coalition supports and promotes policy such as the Pay-As-You-Go rule, which requires new spending to be paid for and the Balanced Budget Amendment which would require the House, Senate, and President to balance the budget every fiscal year unless we were in a war or recession.

Blue Dogs then, are not the group of fiscally liberal protectionists that some like to portray them as. In fact, in many ways, the group is the exact opposite of that. They are a group of conservative and moderate Democrats who focus on fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, political independence from both parties, and bipartisanship. They are largely more pro free trade than the Democratic Party as a whole and are much more fiscally conservative than fiscally liberal, although the group would likely reject both labels. The Blue Dogs look a lot more like moderate Republicans than old school liberal Democrats.

Sources: