We are ideologically diverse. We welcome everyone from the center left to the hard left.

From Getting back on track with the Latino vote by Matthew Yglesias.  The subheading is A decade of bad analysis built on a flawed analogy.

As is common with Yglesias, it is written very much from an inside the D.C. beltway progressive view.  Consequently, while there are some intriguing points and occasional insights, there are also plenty of moments where all you can do is roll your eyes at the absurdity of an assertion.  

Reading it did spark a thought though.  Politics is always and everywhere a management of cliques, factions and alliances.  The individualism of the electorate gets lost to a degree in those elements and that can, at times, drive friction in the political system.  

In my lifetime, the nature of those cliques, factions and alliances within and between the parties have changed.  That is not especially surprising.

But I wonder whether there isn't something else going on.  When I think about it, I have the sense that the national parties, and even at the state level, have become ham-fisted in their management of those cliques, factions and alliances.  They have taken them for granted, treating them as pieces on a chessboard.  

Back in the seventies and eighties, when Congress was more relevant, the newspapers covered the ever evolving maneuvers within and between the parties and their respective cliques, factions and alliances.  Some amazing legislation was crafted out of the compromises and trade-offs which were made to satisfy the cumulative interests of all those cliques, factions and alliances across both parties.  

I have attributed much of our polarization and national strife in part to the increasing delegation by Congress of its authority to unaccountable agencies.  And I think that is still a correct assessment.

But, riffing off of Yglesias, I wonder if there is not something else going on.  I think one could make an argument that both parties have become less effective, though particularly the Democrats, at managing and tending to the interests of their cliques, factions and alliances.  

I think they have ended up making the cliques, factions and alliances into cardboard pieces and no longer interact with them at a personal or meaningful way.  Agendas change but the agency and interaction is missing from the relationships.  

Yglesias is focused on how the Democrats made an error by lumping Hispanic voters into a Hispanic box, presumed an agenda for "Hispanic" voters and then proceeded blithely to implement all sorts of policies incompatible with the values and priorities of actual voters of Hispanic origin.  

Yes, they made a mistake.  But I wonder whether both parties haven't been guilty of the same disregard.  I know they don't pay attention to the individual voter, but I wonder if they no longer pay much attention to the needs and well-being of the complex tapestry of their cliques, factions and alliances as they once did.  

That might explain why there is such a huge gulf between national policies and priorities espoused by national parties (and academia and MSM) and the values and priorities of the median voter.  The median voter can't make much difference as an individual and the political system won't pay attention to them.

They can make their voices heard by belonging to and supporting various entities which aggregate into those cliques, factions and alliances.  Once upon a time those cliques, factions and alliances were both responsive to the individual and effective at incorporating the median voter interests into the political process.  

Possibly those cliques, factions and alliances no longer listen to their memberships but I suspect the bigger issue is that the cliques, factions and alliances are simply taken for granted and no longer have much of an effective voice at the national table.  If that is the case, no wonder there is such national discontent.

Aside from that chain of thought, there was one other redeeming attribute of Yglesias's piece.  Unintended humor.  Yglesias makes the following snort-out-loud assertion without compromise of justification.

In the modern highly polarized Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus stands out as a bastion of ideological diversity, including some very left-wing members but also many stalwarts of the moderate faction of the Democratic Party.

If you are only thinking about and writing for the inside the D.C. beltway progressive view, then this statement sort of can be made to make sense.  

Taken on its own, though, it stands out as an astonishingly clueless assertion.  Particularly given their exclusion of Black Republicans.  Possibly, and only possibly, the Congressional Black Caucus is ideologically diverse within the context of the national Democratic Party.  But in terms of either Congress or the nation, they are not diverse at all, ranging from center left to hard left.