How we got here - Part 2

The results of the elections in Kansas were similar to the results in a lot of other states, particularly in the south, the midwest and the "rust belt" states, where Democrats took a beating. The conventional wisdom from the Beltway pundits - a "wisdom" rightwingers are happy to parrot and promote - is that President Obama governed too much from the left, and that his reliance on "big government" solutions got away from what the country wanted when they voted him and the Democratic Congress into power two years ago.

Well, I used a certain epithet in my last posting, so I won't use it again here, but I don't agree with this line of thinking at all. When you look at it from with some perspective I think it's pretty clear that Obama and the Democratic Congress did a damn good job for the past two years. A healthcare overhaul - necessary and long overdue - passed for the first time in history; financial reform; a stimulus package that paid attention to dire, long-needed infrastructure needs in this country. Even the auto bailout seems to have worked. Like a lot of progressives, I have my criticisms of what President Obama - which I'll get to in a moment - but he and the outgoing Congress have a heck of a lot to be proud of.

I also remember that in 1994 - the midterms of Bill Clinton's first term - the Democrats were running on a healthcare proposal that didn't get out of committee and a deficit reduction package that was criticized by both left and right but that set the stage for the prosperity of the rest of that decade - and got creamed then too. I don't think anyone today would say that Clinton was governing from too far to the left, but they sure as hell said it then. When you make an omelet, the people who's eggs you're breaking will do what they can to stop you.

So if that's so, what did cause this bloodletting? I'm sure you have cable TV and/or access to the internet, so you don't really need my dime-store punditry. But this is my blog, so I'll give it to you anyway:

• the economy, the economy, the economy and the economy. A lot of people who were inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama started to doubt him when the stimulus didn't magically turn economic water into wine. I don't think there's any question that if unemployment were at 5 or 6% and the economic growth rate were at 3 or 4 percent, the Democrats would still have the House and maybe some of the governors' mansions besides.
•  Obama seemed to lose control of the process in Washington. His refusal to guide the formulation of the various healthcare bills that wended their way through Congress - or at least, to weigh in on them publicly - led to the impression that Congress was in charge, with all the sausage-making metaphors that that implies. The same is probably true of the stimulus package and financial reform. 
• The "vast rightwing conspiracy" that Hilary Clinton named is far more powerful than it was even back in her husband's time. There is an endless supply of rightwing attack dogs on the radio, and of course they have their own dedicated propaganda outlet on cable TV. The Citizens United decision opened the door for unlimited corporate interference in the electoral process, as we saw in the last election - which heavily committed rightwinger used to their advantage. 
• The combination of a ginned up conservative base and a lacklaster turnout from the Obama's 2008 coalition led to what we saw last week.

I said I had some criticism of Obama, and I think these factors had something to do with last week as well: Obama seems so interested in compromise that he keeps giving away chips before they are asked for - the public option being a prime example. He also ignored or backburnered a lot of the issues that progressives care most about - carbon, DADT, ending the wars, civil liberties, the DREAM Act, etc. Obviously you can't do everything, but the feeling in the left precincts is that he did a lot for the insurance industry and for Wall Street, but not so much for the middle and working classes. This seems like a chronic condition in the Democratic Party these days (Bill Clinton suffered from it too), and it'll have to be dealt with if the Democrats are to build their electoral majority again.This will only get worse if, as seems possible or even likely, Obama caves on the Bush tax cuts.

Add to this Obama's unwillingness to tap into populist discontent towards bankers and Wall Street, leaving the field to rightwingers whose only criticism is of government. That is, they're mad at the government for bailing out the bankers, but if you try to go after the bankers, then you're anti-business. A little "give 'em hell" would have gone a long way towards making people feel that the government understood what they were going through, but Obama's too cool for that - to his and our detriment. 

Another aspect of this that has significance for us here in Kansas is that Obama was elected, not as the outgrowth of many years of organization, but as a sort of Knight in shining armor. It wasn't about a movement, or about what the Democratic Party stands for - it was about Obama. That's in part a result of our system and our media lending themselves to personality politics. But without an ongoing organization, electoral success is lightning in a bottle cannot be replicated and politicians who wonder too far from their promises cannot be reined in from the left - only from the right. Is there any question that Democrats are completely dependent in 2012 on Obama getting his mojo back? Is that really how we want things to be?

Let's compare this to the Republicans. Republicans have spent the past 30 years developing bullet points that can be recited in any situation - smaller government, lower taxes, blah blah blah. It doesn't matter that they never do these things when they're in power - what matters is that they have a whole infrastructure of media, think tanks and activists dedicated to implanting these bullet points deep into the American psyche.

And what do we Democrats have? Once in a while, we have a charismatic candidate. As we can see in the current infighting between Blue Dogs and Progressives in the House caucus, we can't even agree on basic principles!

The reason this resonates in Kansas is that in the last few years the statewide success of the party was largely dependent on one single individual - Kathleen Sebelius. When she went away, the whole thing fell apart. Again - is this really how we want things to be?