Democrats didn't lose the battle of 2010. They won it.

I was intrigued by the article in Slate magazine last Friday because of its title, shown in the title of this post. It seems counterintuitive to all who watched the Congressional elections last week; the Republicans recaptured the majority in the House, a major obstacle to the Democrats' future plans. Despite this, the article musters a little hope for the disheartened Democrats.

It's funny, in a twisted way, to read all the post-election complaints that Democrats lost because they thought only of themselves...That's too bad, because Obama, Pelosi, and their congressional allies proved just the opposite. They risked their jobs—and in many cases lost them—to pass the health care bill. The elections were a painful defeat, and you can argue that the bill was misguided. But Democrats didn't lose the most important battle of 2010. They won it.

The health care bill was violently disputed while it worked its way through the Senate; it was obvious that no one was completely happy with the bill. A rational Congressmen interested in re-election would have avoided dealing with such a hot issue, especially with such negativity surrounding it. It's what Tom Perriello should have done; if what was said in class was true, he should have heeded his constituency and voted against the bill. Nevertheless, he and Democrats like him did vote for it and consequently lost their bids for re-election, even with strong Party support.

Is this proof that ideology is important in legislative decisions, as Kau and Rubin insist? Were the Congressmen inspired by the knowledge that they would change history, despite the risks? The article is strongly implying "yes" to both questions. Perhaps there is something more to modern politics than continually planning for the next election, continually seeking self-preservation, something that encompasses more than a few years or even a few decades.