A good indication of the kind of rout that's facing Democrats on Tuesday is how the usual media backers of Dems - bloggers of the NetRoots, TV talkers like Maddow or Olbermann - are strikingly silent on just what part of the blame falls on Democrats themselves. The Tea Party is bad, all that "anonymous foreign money" is bad, Juan Williams is bad... but a critical eye on mistakes made by Dems is pretty much a non-topic to discuss.
The silence itself is a key indication of the problem Democrats have, the one that helped cause the likely failures in this election cycle, ones which were also on display - and also tamped down - during the 2008 cycle, when raising doubts or concerns or contrarian notions about a potential Obama Presidency were pushed aside or ignored.
The trouble is, failing to dissect and assess what's gone wrong in just the short six years since Democrats first retook Congress is a recipe for long term failure. More immediately, it's clear that there's almost no real plan for dealing with the new realities of Washington politics that will be apparent this January: without a clear sense of what Democrats, as a party, want to accomplish on a variety of issues, it will be almost impossible to get any business done. (At the same time, it's worth noting that Republicans have a similar problem, even in victory...which I want to discuss later in a separate post.)
On a fundamental level, the failure of Democrats has been built into the party's resurgence: by focusing on technical tools (like web organizing), relying on a demographic shift that finally gave power to the party's (and the country's) educated elite, and running primarily as the party opposed to and angry with the Bush Administration, Democrats squandered an opportunity to redefine the party's longterm goals for its post-Depression core constituency: working people with less education and lower incomes. And in our sped up times, what seems clearest in this year's looming losses is the result: the technical tools have leveled the playing field, not changed it; anger is not a plan; and the party's educated elite have delivered on the promise they've been carrying since Adlai Stevenson at least - that being armed with good ideas and a sense of superiority is no substitute for practical plans and concrete results.
Making sense of this is crucial, particularly because early assessments of the coming deluge have focused on twin misapprehensions that combined spell continued disaster: one is that the "good work" of the Obama Administration hasn't been properly marketed or explained; and the other is that voters are too uninformed/misinformed/scared to understand why recent Democratic governance has actually helped them.
In plainer terms, the message between the two is: "you, voter, are both dumb and easily influenced."
But part of the lesson here is that both of these assumptions reflect, mostly, the reality of the newfound dominance of educated, elite professionals in the Democratic Party structure: these twin assumptions are not new, but their power to drive the Democrats messaging and planning has never been so stark. There's a mix of class condescension and superiority in the "they just don't get it" notions, and the intellectual elitism and faith in modern technology tools in the "we're just getting the messaging wrong" conclusions. All of it, really, reflects the faith in education, in listening to professional expertise, in trusting that the best way to find a solution is to, well, think it up.
What's been so frustrating about politics for so many these days is how so much of what passes "political debate" has been pointless shouting and name calling over largely esoteric issues that have little practical relevance. People are hurting. For many, their principal investment (a home) has both lost value, and may be stuck in a morass of banking failures and loan issues. The idea of long term retirement planning has been thrown into flux by the fluxes in the stock market (where most retirement money is now invested) and the collapse of traditional expectations of American business success.
The stark developments in the financial markets at the end of 2007 and into 2008 made it clear to many that faith in Republicans (who traditionally have been seen as the party of big business) and the Bush Administration especially was misplaced. The success Democrats had in riding that anger to victory was never an organizing principle, or a plan: it was the "not them, now us" success that, ironically, Republicans in much the same way now.
Much of Democrats recent success, really, was built on the disillusionment of well educated moderates - successful professionals in suburban areas outside major cities who are less bound to a party ideology than to policies that benefit their interests, and some sense of intellectual identification. These are not the people who were voting Republican for a social agenda; they simply wanted the party that opposed taxes, and favored pro-business policies. And it's why the Democrats they elected in 2006 and 2008 looked and sounded a lot like the Republicans they'd elected in the past.
Including Barack Obama.
It's possible the President can make some headway in the weeks after the elections... but I tend to doubt it; he's shown little inclination to lay out an agenda of specifics, ideas meant to benefit a specific constituency in concrete and practical ways. It's worth noting that his month of stump speeches and carefully chosen interviews have come off as both defensive and vague; he probably should have done something differently.... but he's pretty proud of what he's done, and he's pretty sure that the mistake was in not selling it well. All of which is, in the end, almost entirely backwards, and has been all along: more careful attention to developing policies that were popular to begin with (like say, foreclosure reforms that were more about how to streamline the process and put the focus on salvaging people's dreams of owning a home, instead of support for banks), then the sell would neither be so necessary or so hard.
This year, against many of their own best financial or political interests, many people at the middle class line or lower (a line, it should be reiterated, where the median income in this country is $55,000) will vote Republican. Many people with less than a college education - who are a large subset of that income distribution - will do so as well. They will do so because the Democrats have, despite a wealth of promises and hazy sentiments, done little to address in practical ways the problems they face, whether it's the struggle to find employment, to get retrained, to save a house, or merely get by. Though some have convinced themselves that the Tea Party Movement will Make A Difference, many are just pulling a different lever to try something new. That, after all, is what we Americans tend to be inclined to do: out with the old, in with the new, to solve any problem. Any future, in this instance, will serve as a hammer, even if the problems we have are not nails.
The President and Democrats are getting a lot of advice about how to spin the coming losses; the worst, I think, is for the President to go out, shortly, and give a "Message: Received" speech, because it hasn't been received, and it's not clear what the message is, necessarily. Instead, Democrats probably will fall back on the idea that this will all get better - and the Obama Presidency will be saved for 2012 - if we just explain it slower, better, or in a different way. And it won't. Democrats will lose tomorrow, in large numbers, because it's not how you sell it... it's what they're selling. And our solutions don't lie in interesting, if academic, ideas; the solutions lie in getting down to business and doing the work. At best, this election may clear out some dead wood (bye, bye, Speaker Pelosi may be the most productive development yet), and force a reassessment of just what Democrats stand for, and whose priorities matter most. I'm not hopeful... but I'm not planning to go drink the Tea, either. Until a better answer comes along, the hope for working people and liberal ideals lies with Democrats. God love 'em... and God help them. And us.
Making sense of this is crucial, particularly because early assessments of the coming deluge have focused on twin misapprehensions that combined spell continued disaster: one is that the "good work" of the Obama Administration hasn't been properly marketed or explained; and the other is that voters are too uninformed/misinformed/scared to understand why recent Democratic governance has actually helped them.
In plainer terms, the message between the two is: "you, voter, are both dumb and easily influenced."
But part of the lesson here is that both of these assumptions reflect, mostly, the reality of the newfound dominance of educated, elite professionals in the Democratic Party structure: these twin assumptions are not new, but their power to drive the Democrats messaging and planning has never been so stark. There's a mix of class condescension and superiority in the "they just don't get it" notions, and the intellectual elitism and faith in modern technology tools in the "we're just getting the messaging wrong" conclusions. All of it, really, reflects the faith in education, in listening to professional expertise, in trusting that the best way to find a solution is to, well, think it up.
What's been so frustrating about politics for so many these days is how so much of what passes "political debate" has been pointless shouting and name calling over largely esoteric issues that have little practical relevance. People are hurting. For many, their principal investment (a home) has both lost value, and may be stuck in a morass of banking failures and loan issues. The idea of long term retirement planning has been thrown into flux by the fluxes in the stock market (where most retirement money is now invested) and the collapse of traditional expectations of American business success.
The stark developments in the financial markets at the end of 2007 and into 2008 made it clear to many that faith in Republicans (who traditionally have been seen as the party of big business) and the Bush Administration especially was misplaced. The success Democrats had in riding that anger to victory was never an organizing principle, or a plan: it was the "not them, now us" success that, ironically, Republicans in much the same way now.
Much of Democrats recent success, really, was built on the disillusionment of well educated moderates - successful professionals in suburban areas outside major cities who are less bound to a party ideology than to policies that benefit their interests, and some sense of intellectual identification. These are not the people who were voting Republican for a social agenda; they simply wanted the party that opposed taxes, and favored pro-business policies. And it's why the Democrats they elected in 2006 and 2008 looked and sounded a lot like the Republicans they'd elected in the past.
Including Barack Obama.
It's possible the President can make some headway in the weeks after the elections... but I tend to doubt it; he's shown little inclination to lay out an agenda of specifics, ideas meant to benefit a specific constituency in concrete and practical ways. It's worth noting that his month of stump speeches and carefully chosen interviews have come off as both defensive and vague; he probably should have done something differently.... but he's pretty proud of what he's done, and he's pretty sure that the mistake was in not selling it well. All of which is, in the end, almost entirely backwards, and has been all along: more careful attention to developing policies that were popular to begin with (like say, foreclosure reforms that were more about how to streamline the process and put the focus on salvaging people's dreams of owning a home, instead of support for banks), then the sell would neither be so necessary or so hard.
This year, against many of their own best financial or political interests, many people at the middle class line or lower (a line, it should be reiterated, where the median income in this country is $55,000) will vote Republican. Many people with less than a college education - who are a large subset of that income distribution - will do so as well. They will do so because the Democrats have, despite a wealth of promises and hazy sentiments, done little to address in practical ways the problems they face, whether it's the struggle to find employment, to get retrained, to save a house, or merely get by. Though some have convinced themselves that the Tea Party Movement will Make A Difference, many are just pulling a different lever to try something new. That, after all, is what we Americans tend to be inclined to do: out with the old, in with the new, to solve any problem. Any future, in this instance, will serve as a hammer, even if the problems we have are not nails.
The President and Democrats are getting a lot of advice about how to spin the coming losses; the worst, I think, is for the President to go out, shortly, and give a "Message: Received" speech, because it hasn't been received, and it's not clear what the message is, necessarily. Instead, Democrats probably will fall back on the idea that this will all get better - and the Obama Presidency will be saved for 2012 - if we just explain it slower, better, or in a different way. And it won't. Democrats will lose tomorrow, in large numbers, because it's not how you sell it... it's what they're selling. And our solutions don't lie in interesting, if academic, ideas; the solutions lie in getting down to business and doing the work. At best, this election may clear out some dead wood (bye, bye, Speaker Pelosi may be the most productive development yet), and force a reassessment of just what Democrats stand for, and whose priorities matter most. I'm not hopeful... but I'm not planning to go drink the Tea, either. Until a better answer comes along, the hope for working people and liberal ideals lies with Democrats. God love 'em... and God help them. And us.
I think this is a great post. One correction and one question:
Dems retook Congress only 4 years ago, in 2006; when Katrina struck in 2005, the GOP controlled the WH, House and Senate.
I totally hear you on the Dem elite/expert/technocrat thing...but I'm a little fuzzy on your juxtaposition b/w "ideas" and getting down to work. Surely there still need to be ideas and policy interventions guiding the work that needs to be done? I don't think the problem is just about ideas - it's the wrong ideas and less than we'd like to see on execution. Measly stimulus, no jobs bill, weakened financial re-regulation, etc. etc.
Anyway, I just am curious if you think "doers" are pp whose m.o. is to throw stuff up at the wall and see what sticks. That's not exactly reassuring...
Posted by: Leigh | November 01, 2010 at 09:27 PM
I knew you would manage to poke at this piece's weakest links...
"Six years ago"? What was I thinking?... I think I was subtracting 2011 from 2005, or something; didn't we win back the Senate in 2004? Just Kidding (JK, as they say). :) Total slip of the typing fingers... and a good catch.
In terms of what I mean by "concrete" or "practical" "doers"... I mean, there's the whole problem in a nutshell, right? I mean you could argue,as some do (notably, I'd guess, say, a Howard Dean or Tom Daschle), that healthcare "reform" is just chock full of practical and concrete... and yet that new law is example one of the problem, rather than solution...
I suppose what I mean is I wish that Administration officials would stop using using terms like "ambitious" and "agenda" when describing the work of governing; everything is too big, too much... sending in the big guns when we need flyswatters, or something similar. What I mean is... why not call Janet Napolitano in and have her team at ICE sit down and come up with, say, 6 or 7 procedural improvements to the green card process? Starting there - and subsequently identifying problems in the actual, legal process to become a citizen - would then reframe the "immigration debate" into a process improvement discussion. I could think of similar ways to approach education policy, or housing... or having Kathleen Sibelius marshall a task force to streamline Medicare in 5 different ways. It's a small scale approach that takes advantage of their relative strengths - the wonky, analytical, educated expertise - and aims it at what really makes a difference to people and eases fears about government. It can work, it can help... and here's how.
I think the problem when "educated" and "elite" meet is that there's an instinctive sense that things have be that much better, that much more, that much bigger; I think the Obama Administration is too easily swayed by its press - not that they're the second coming, but that they were put there to make big accomplishments, to see "hope" and "change" as bigger than they actually are. Change things at a more basic, more fundamental level... and then see what builds. We're married, as Democrats to wanting Roosevelt or Kennedy (or perhaps, more prosaically, Johnson) - size accomplishments and great people striding the big stage. And I've argued all along that Obama is bigger, really, when he starts from being average size. Experience, I think, would have been a good teacher for him on that. But he didn't get that... and now, here we are.
Posted by: weboy | November 02, 2010 at 05:35 PM
You are an incrementalist, it sounds like...
http://www.archonfung.net/docs/temp/LindblomMuddlingThrough1959.pdf
Posted by: Leigh | November 02, 2010 at 11:15 PM