Dem "infighting"

For the record, I disagree with Pelosi's attempts to cut Steny Hoyer out of the House leadership team and I'm glad it was unsuccessful. I also think it's fine for the news media to report on how this reflects the tension with the Democratic Caucus, because that's true. There's tension in every political party at every level, but there's nothing wrong with the media reporting on it when it manifests itself.

But I think it's a little stupid to posit, as E.J. Dionne does here and others have elswhere, that this means the Democrats are too busy fighting each other to address the important issues of the day. Erm, first of all, as Atrios points out, they don't take over Congress till January. Second of all, what are you trying to suggest? That leadership elections just shouldn't be held? Because why, they take up too much time? I honestly don't get it.

Of course, everyone has missed the fact that there were not one but three divisive leadership races among Congressional Republicans (Lott-Alexander for Senate Minority Whip, which came down to one vote; Pence-Boehner for Minority Leader; and Shadegg-Blunt for House Minority Whip). These demonstrate that there are divisions among Republicans too--something which I try to point out all the time but which people don't care to notice.

Look, any time you have election-oriented parties as we do in this country (as opposed to the ideological socialist or nationalist parties you see in other countries) you're going to have some pretty big tents, especially if there are only two of them. Both major American parties encompass a range of political opinions that might translate into several different parties if this were another country. Add on to that the natural impetus to jockey for influence in a legislative body, and yeah, parties aren't going to march in lockstep 100% of the time. Is this really a bad thing or a big deal?