The Democrats gained control of both Congress and the Presidency in 2008. They then pursued ineffective policies which didn’t fix the economy. They increased deportations of Hispanics. They restricted abortion rights for women. They spat on gays repeatedly. They betrayed unions. They gutted civil rights, going even further than George W. Bush (who never said he had the right to assassinate Americans.) They saved bankers who then rewarded themselves with record bonuses and salaries while average American wages actually declined.
The base was demoralized, not because the Dems went too far left, but because they went too far right. The non-Democratic voters were angered because they elected Democrats to fix the goddamn economy and to not be George Bush, who they were sick of. Dems didn’t do what they were elected to do.
That’s why Dems are losing – because they demoralized their own base in a base election year, because they didn’t fix the economy, and because they thought Americans wanted them to be George Bush, just a bit smarter.
This isn’t a repudiation of liberalism or progressivism or socialism (Americans wouldn’t recognize a socialist if he gave them real universal healthcare) it is a repudiation of a Democratic party which failed to fix the economy and which became identified with bailouts for the rich.
Anyone who doesn’t understand this, is, forgive me, a complete idiot.
Mandos
Well, *this* complete idiot notices how nicely this lines up with a certain set of liberal fantasies about politics, and completely leaves out the actual content of the Republican campaign on display for all to see. I mean, how convenient.
Romberry
Ian, that was short and sweet and to the point. It’s a great summation of what a great many of us have been saying for the better part of two years. Unfortunately, I think we are going to find that there are more than a few among the party elite and among the party apologists on the net who will either not be able to get it or who will refuse to get it. And yes, by definition, they are complete idiots.
In letters in response to Michael Lind’s article on why center left parties are collapsing that was run by Salon today, someone by the moniker of Milton Wiltmellow wrote this:
Tiptoeing down memory lane>
2000 — After losing a partisan Supreme Court decision over a disputed election in a state run by the candidate’s brother, the Democrats said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
2001 — After being warned of an impending attack, and having a culprit in custody a month before a terrorist attack on the US, the Republican president called for national unity. The Democrats said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
2003 — After selling an aggressive war against a sovereign nation based on clearly fraudulent claims of imminent threat and weapons of mass destruction, the Democrats said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
2004 — As revelations of torture, renditions, and black site prisons proliferate, the Democrats, not wanting to appear unpatriotic, said, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
2005 through 2008 Katrina, US attorney’s firings, defiance of Congressional subpoenas, daily revelations of incompetence and corruption in Iraq, NSA spying etc. “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
2008 — After a collapse of investment banks and an impending collapse of the entire financial system brought on by lax banking regulations advocated and enforced by Republicans, the Democrats joined hands across the aisle and voted an 800 billion dollar bailout of the banking sector. “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
2009 — After a strong showing in both congressional and presidential elections, the new Democratic president declared, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
Now, 2010, people seem perplexed when the Democrats are about to get severely spanked in the midterm elections. No doubt, as they take their beatings, the Democrats will whine, “For the good of the country, let’s get along.”
Hah!
You knew the Republicans. You’ve known them for years. They are exactly what you think they are — power hungry amoral corporatists who have sold the country to the highest bidder (courtesy of Citizens United and Wall Street pirates.)
Still you refuse to oppose Republicans honestly, vociferously and with vigor. You want them to look crazy so your deference looks prudent … as if you truly believe we can get along with ferocious Randians, state secessionists, corrupt SC Justices, greedy banking interests, rightwing lunatics, militaristic adventurers and parasitic corporate plutocrats.
You deserve to be thrown out of office.
Too bad it won’t be for the good of the country.
***End***
I can’t argue with that.
Mandos
I mean, it apparently means nothing that what voters are voting for are Republicans who’ve advertised their crazy for all to see. And voters are certainly not responsible for the outcomes of elections—I mean, all they did was vote in the candidates. Nope, the fact that the Democrats are losing by larger margins than they’d normally lose during a first midterm to an opposing party that openly wants to perpetuate everything they did wrong, and then some, has everything to do with the fact that they failed to cater to a base that, every single time a Democratic government comes to power, ends up disappointed that progressive nirvana failed to arrive, and somehow completely forgets what happened every single additional time.
Alright. It’s Ian’s world, then, we just live in it. It feels rather like Groundhog Day.
Z
Which truly liberal or socialist policy/bill are the dems getting punished for? And please don’t give me the misleading names of the bills as proof of the content of the policies.
Z
Mandos
And yes, I think the base is somewhat blameworthy, and it actually does have some responsibility for what will now ensue. It fails to learn from experience. How many times have I heard people comment that by defeating the Democrats, they’ll create an opportunity for a third left-wing party or a Democratic left turn, when exactly the opposite is what has happened historically? Groundhog Day.
Z
Excuse me, “contents of the BILLS” should be the last 4 words in my post above.
Z
Ian Welsh
The Tea Partiers vigorously oppose the bailouts, which they have pinned on Dems. They opposed the health care bill, vigorously. Etc…
They opposed what Dems have done. They OPPOSED.
Again, the point you are incapable of understanding is that if Democratic policies had fucking worked (aka. unemployment was much lower) Dems would be fine. If Dems hadn’t demoralized their base by repeatedly fucking it, Dems would be doing better. Even Charlie Cook, no Democrat lover, says that Republicans backed into power. Americans hate Republicans, they just hate Democrats more right now, because Dems are in power and have failed.
But whatever, you exist to disagree with 95% of everything you read on blogs.
visciouslefthook
Did you read that turd blogger tbogg telling the left to “grow the fuck up”? What a tool.
Ian Welsh
And so your prescription is to keep voting for centrists until the US collapses, eh Mandos? Because only the right wing can challenge a party and succeed, mostly because of people like you, who make excuses for the DLC vision of America every possibility they get.
When the US has its full fledged economic, you’ll be able to run away. But most Americans won’t. And that’s what’s going to happen if left wing policies aren’t pursued.
So if you have solutions, as opposed to critiques, cough ’em up, Mandos. Stop being the eternal gadfly and tell people what the smart “mandos” solution is.
Go for it.
But you can’t. Your “solutions” are even less coherent than you claim mine are.
visciouslefthook
Ian, it seems to me that the villagers aren’t willing to look at the reality of what it takes to GOTV. You can’t just lash out at your base and call them fucking retards and realistically expect them to be enthusiastic about voting for you. They want us to programmed robots who unconditionally support them, but that is simply not in our genes. Go read what Tbogg just posted and you’ll see why I effing hate the Dems so much.
Thomas
I can only add that it creates a strange sort of if not comfort, at least some explanation of cause, if we remember that the standardized IQ test presents a “norm” at 100, and generates a rather typical “bell curve.” If one remembers, that in order to compute this “norm” at a given cycle, for every fool like me walking around, there are about 5 fellow citizens taching up at about 90 to balance out my score.
It was like watching an accident, or one of those “IMPACT: stories of survival” shows. The victim does this stupid stunt which causes massive trauma, and the first words out of his mouth are to promise he’ll be back because this non-sport is his LIFE.
Once again, we find that the pathetic old “saw,” “LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY” can actually prove to be the preferred method of political and social action.
Glen
Good post, all very true, but tomorrow I expect to read how Obama will have to go to the right of Bush to get back to the center.
Romberry
Glen, I think in many areas, Obama is already equivalent to if not in fact to the right of Bush. Whatever else he is, liberal he is not.
Mandos
You want The Mandos Plan?
Contrary to what you seem to think, I’ve given you and others The Plan before, and repeatedly so. The US has a massively hierarchical political system, most elected representatives in it must rise through a political career. As Meg Whitman just proved, not even money will necessarily get you there. If you want politicians who generally represent your interests, or at least make the right noises about doing so, you have to show the wherewithal to sustain political careers over long periods of time. Yes, there is a stick component, but it only works if there is another career politician who better supports your views to replace the discarded one.
The American right has both—the wherewithal to sustain careers for long periods of time (the carrot), and the wherewithal to use the stick. And, for that matter, usually a surprisingly judicious use of the stick—I mean, they know the Republicans are cynical about core issues like abortion.
But at the moment, the American left only potentially has use of the carrot—this very election demonstrates that they lack an effective stick, as did 2000, etc, etc, etc. And this should not be a surprise. I mean, it’s only logical: only when you can sustain career politicians can you actually switch out one for another.
So, yes, it does in fact involve the coherent and consistent support of less than inspiring Democratic candidates to create a breathing space for the left-wing equivalent of Ron Johnson to oust the right-wing equivalent of Russ Feingold. I didn’t make the American political system hierarchical and inflexible, and I didn’t create the distasteful choices for leftists in whose mouths butter won’t melt to choke on.
Mandos
Now, as for why the right has that ability, the answer is not only money, but the judicious use of it, which is partly informed by marketing and voter psychology and a keen understanding of the cognitive biases of reasonably large chunks of the American public using instruments (the tools of market research) that the American left avoids the way kosher-keeping Jews avoid shellfish.
lambert strether
FWIW, I’m guessing it’s actually much simpler: The voters threw out the incumbents because the incumbents suck. As in 2006, 2008, so in 2010. The Ds tried to make the argument that they suck less than the Rs, or at least that they suck in a different way, and the voters didn’t buy that. And they’re right not to.
Incidentally, supporting Ian’s argument that not only must the left must defeat Obama, they must be SEEN be doing so, here’s an interesting stat:
Mandos
That all said, I certainly and fondly hope we immediately make the transition over into the Ponyverse and the Dems learn their lesson from this and start at least looking like they oppose the right in a serious way (…or that somehow some kind of Age-of-Aquarius mass consciousness transformation will occur and the US will get a Green party government in 2012…). If that happens, I’ll not only admit you were right, but that you were right for the right reasons. May you be right in happier circumstances for decades to come.
jeer9
The base did not show up at the polls today. And why should they have? Buy some popcorn and watch Obama play the crazies for all their worth over the next two years. He has just cinched his re-election – unless someone enters the race from the Left to spoil things for him.
Gary
Both parties suck.
lambert strether
I’m guessing that in 2012, the voters will throw out the incumbents again.
dandelion
Yes. Throwing out incumbents is the ONLY way voters have to express dissatisfaction.
DupinTm
When Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer win, while Joe Sestak, Grayson, Feingold, and a whole mess of mid-Atlantic Governors lose, then you know the fix is in. The official OFA answer is ‘fuck it’. My next door neighbor Chris Christie just refused a huge, necessary infrastructure upgrade of the NYC-NJ bridge, and my former Dem governor Ed Rendell (on MSNBC election night) blamed environmental regulations and red tape on such things first, rather than Ayn Rand. We are in a woeful state.
As a fine movie put it, let the right one in – Catfood commission + the ‘break the teachers’ Ted Kennedy prefaced legislation that Waiting for Superman was for. As you said Ian, Jerome was right, and the money influencing this stuff is just so astronomical as to break all conditions of common sense.
Ian Welsh
Far more Blue Dogs lost in the House than anyone who could be considered a progressive.
cl00-by-4
“every single time a Democratic government comes to power, ends up disappointed that progressive nirvana failed to arrive, and somehow completely forgets what happened every single additional time.”
Every time the Democratic party craps on its base, it loses elections. And has done since Truman. Ignore that, and *you’re* the one living in a fantasyland, Mandos.
It really is that simple…..
anon2525
The base did not show up at the polls today. And why should they have? Buy some popcorn and watch Obama play the crazies for all their worth over the next two years.
Why should they have?
– Because they are unemployed (or worried that they are about to be)
– because they have lost their homes (or worried that they are about to be)
– because they are poor, broke, and desperate (or worried that they are about to be)
– because they don’t have and cannot afford insurance for medical treatment that they need or might need soon (or are worried that they soon won’t be able to afford that insurance)
– because they are about to retire and cannot afford the cost of living (or are worried that they soon won’t be able to)
– because they have lost a son or daughter in an illegal occupation in Iraq or Afghanistan (or worried that they might soon)
– because they think that people should be held accountable for the many civil and international crimes that have been committed — the list goes on.
They will not be sitting and eating popcorn and watching the “show.”
Why didn’t they? Because in most cases there are no candidates that represent their interests. Not the duopoly, not the teaparty.
anon2525
…ends up disappointed that progressive nirvana failed to arrive…
I thought that Robert Gibbs owned that straw-man. What next? Did we demand that the Pentagon be shut down? Are we on drugs, too?
The DLC has to admit that it never attempted even to try to put in place any progressive policies or get any left/progressive legislation passed. It didn’t fail to do this. It did not try. It does not believe in them. It considers them to be not Serious proposals by Fucking Retards ™.
The DLC refuses to admit this and instead tries to blame the left/progressives for being unrealistic for not supporting policies that it never wanted in the first place.
Whatever happened to “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”?
Z
anon,
This has nothing to do with your post.
I’m so sick and tired of liberals accepting this “make us do it nonsense” … even if it did come from the hallowed FDR. First of all, you can’t make them do anything if they don’t want to … it’s a canard, just a carrot they want us to chase … and they never truly define what it is that will break the “make them do it” barrier.
One of the reasons that politicians make campaign promises … and frequently break those promises if they get elected … is that there are very few mechanisms/procedures for the people to make the federal government do anything … at least not legally within THEIR system that THEY’VE constructed. That’s why voters want to know what the the politicians will do if they get elected. What a lot of this misleading “make me do it” bullshit tries to obscure ais that what is being asked is to make-them-keep-their-campaign-promises.
Z
PS: Fuck, it’s was hard watching scumbags like boehner and cantor gloat tonight. It makes me hate obama all the more. There is no one that is more responsible for their smiles as obama. And the worst part is, is that obama is likely struggling to hold one back for himself tonight.
anon2525
it’s a canard, just a carrot they want us to chase
Yeah, that was my point. In early 2009, the lie was “I agree with you, now make me do it.” Then when progressives tried to “make him do it,” they got called Fucking Retards. Now the lie is “you DFHs were crazy idealists” and “thanks to the DFHs and their ‘disappointment’ that they didn’t get ‘nirvanna’, we Serious, Responsible Democrats have lost.” This is convenient for the DLC because it means that they don’t have to accept any blame for their failures.
jcapan
Agree that it’s a canard.
“and they never truly define what it is that will break the ‘make them do it’ barrier”
But they shouldn’t be defining shit. That’s passive and weak and moronic on our part (Lucy with the football). We should be defining what it is we expect of them. Our terms. You give us A, B, & C yesterday, and deliver a liberal narrative on these core issues, or we primary your corporate-donkey ass or run a 3rd party candidate against you. If there’s a barrier, it should be what we’re willing to take.
All of this would naturally require a movement, which there isn’t, and leaders who speak for us, not the doe-eyed/tongue-tied bitches who go into interviews with el presidente.
No Blood for Hubris
“Doe-eyed/tongue-tied bitches”?
Laurie
doe-eyed/tongue-tied bitches who go into interviews with el presidente.
Purple prose running away with you?
myiq2xu
Actually, it means a lot. As bad as the Republicans are (they have an approval rating around 25%) the public considered them the lesser of two evils.
The voters have to live with the consequences of their votes. As far as catering to the Democratic base, there is an old saying:
“You gotta dance with the one that brought you.”
Notorious P.A.T.
Mandos, you have blamed every conceivable target except the Democratic Party. Do you really think that reflects reality? Republicans, money, voters, the Democratic base. . . surely the people who have outright run our government for two years bear at least *some* blame?
Notorious P.A.T.
“I’m so sick and tired of liberals accepting this “make us do it nonsense”
Me too. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when FDR said that he was referring to actions that were not broadly popular with the public, yet needed to be done anyway, such as integration. There, it makes sense for a president to say he needs public pressure.
On the other hand, it’s preposterous for a president to say “Make me do it” about something that 70-75% of the country likes, such as a public option, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or shifting immigration enforcement away from impoverished border-crossers to aliens here on expired visas.
Not to mention the fact, already discussed, that Obama doesn’t want to do things like that anyway, and nothing can make him do them.
Mandos
Sure. I hereby pronounce: the Democratic Party must stop being right-wing chundermuffins. Stop it now, Democratic Party.
OK, so, what’s for lunch?
* * *
The point is that, in a representative-style government, a political party is a reflection of what was elected, and more importantly, re-elected, and even more importantly, who was doing the re-electing. Blaming it is well and good, but it’s like blaming Goldman Sachs for being a blood-sucking vampire squid. I mean, sure, it’s terrible and reprehensible that Goldman Sachs is a vampire squid, if only the government would stop giving it money…
Robert Gibbs’ talking point was offensive and alienating to the base, sure. I mean, that was the point. He—and Obama himself not long after—was telling you that you don’t have the ability to elect anyone who would do any better, so all threats are hollow. They’re hollow even if you don’t show up, and Russ Feingold goes down in defeat. Why is this?
It’s because the right figured out how to elect a new public over three decades. The Democratic party is merely reacting.
David Kowalski
Right, indeed, Ian. Exactly three members of the progressive caucus lost (Allan Grayson, Phil Hare, and John Hall). The Blue Dogs lost around nine times that number. Watered down policies and back room deals got voted down. Americans consistently reward definite, clear thought over namby pamby bipartisanship. W won in 2004 because a significant number of voters who disagreed with him found clearly wrong better than waffling but mainly correct.
This could be a chance to clear out the complainers and compromisers and get it right. Unfortunately, it may be the last chance without signifcant damage and I have no confidence in Obama or Harry Reid or Steny Hoyer doing even vaguely the right thing.
Michael Collins
I couldn’t agree more. How did they expect to hold onto seats in the House by doing next to nothing for citizens.
Ironically, those elected to the seats that gave them the majority were exactly the type of politicians who make sure nothing significant gets done.
RIP “move to the middle”
jawbone
As the Obama rescue plan for overbearing and overcharging Big Health Uninsurance Companies was to the final vote in the Senate, two polls were around: One in IA showed that people favored Medicare for All Improved! in the low sixties percentage. Independents were as much in favor of Medicare for All Improved as were self-identified Democrats. Even Republicans, albeit in lower numbers, were in favor of Medicare for All Improved.
A national poll showed the same numbers and relative approval ratings.
But Obama had taken single payer in any form off the table from the git go (probablyduring his courting of big insurers prior to announcing his run for the nomination).
If the legislation had be actual health CARE, and was what the people understood and wanted, we would not have this bloodbath in the election, even if the economy were as bad as it is now.
But, of course, Obama et al could have worked for both real, effective stimulus along with working for real, effective health care legislation. But Obama chose not to do so.
So, voters didn’t get much of anything to help them with their real world, real life problems. Now, some better off people can, hopefully, put their adult children on their own health insurance plans, so they got something tangible.
But the vast majority of Americans? Zero, zilch, nada. Big fat nothing. Oh, almost forgot that great HAMP program to delay and extend their costs and suffering before losing their homes.
That’s not what they, we voted for. Hoped for.
+
idendoit
This has got to be the first time, for me anyway, that someone in the comments section (Mandos) has made a more clearly thought out point and presented it in a better fashion than the blogger to whom it is addressed. If you don’t have your own blog I would urge you to start one, then maybe I can comment to as good an effect in yours.
jawbone
I listened to an interview on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show with the woman who defeated John Hall — she sounded like a full fledged Ayn Rand follower. Commenters noted she babbled polispeak talking points in her debate and on this interview (also her earier interview).
But one thing she’s clear about: The rich deserve their bundles of money and should not face higher taxes. Or much taxation at all.
OMG, what a sorry replacement.
getaclue
Agree completely, Ian. Notably the biggest dem loss were the Blue Dogs and good fucking riddance to em. Let’s dump the remaining 22 in the next election cycle.
Time for Dems to act like dems and not republicans. Obama is the Manchurian Candidate who has poisoned the liberal/progressive well till at least 2020. By then we will have had a succession of one term congresses and presidents and perhaps the American people will have tired of living like serfs and elect people who will return control of this country to the people instead of fictitious people aka corporations and banks.
cl00-by-4
“Robert Gibbs’ talking point was offensive and alienating to the base, sure. I mean, that was the point.”
And the result? Yesterday’s bloodbath. Well-played, numb-nuts.
Russ Wellen
As usual, you have a wonderful way of stripping things down to their essence, Ian.
Mandos
They won’t care about the negative outcomes as much as you do, trust me. The people who control the legislature and all formal power over the apparatus of the state do not really need your support when push comes to shove. They may want it, but for the time being they’re going to be just fine.
Mary Queen of Scots
This sentence is misleading:
“The Democrats gained control of both Congress and the Presidency in 2008.”
The Democrats controlled the Congress prior to 2008. In fact, you could say the Democrat Congress shares part of the blame for anything inherited by Obama.
Just like the Republican Congress shares in the blame for a balanced budget at the end of the Clinton Presidency. It is, after all, the Congress that creates the budget.
Ian Welsh
Congress basically accepts the budget given by the president. The variation is insignificant.
pitt
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Dems lost because mainstream Americans realized that they had elected a radical to the White House. From this thing that you wrote it is easy to tell that you are an elitist. You know what’s best for everyone else. If these stupid racist ignorant crackers would only listen to your wisdom and follow your progressive agenda we could all enter the promised land hand in hand. The only problem is socialism doesn’t work.
Matt Russo
I have to agree with the sense of Mandos’ analysis of the U.S. political regime, if not his politics, and his criticism of American leftism, in particular:
“…you have to show the wherewithal to sustain political careers over long periods of time.”.
To be clear, I am a socialist and never support Democrats (and therefore never support the Republican policies institutionalized by the Democrats). Mandos is only correct in stating that left wing challenges to the Democrats “have produced opposite results” on the basis of the truth of the above quote as it negatively applies to American leftists.
Therefore I would alter and amplify this: You must show the wherewithal to stick to a political strategy and organization for the long haul. There must be an end to left wing amateurism.
Strategically, this means recognition of where that long haul inevitably leads to: out of and in permanent opposition to the Democratic Party. NOT a third party pressure strategy, but an organized movement to destroy that party, and with it the Republicans as well, who can’t live without the Democrats.
I don’t really care where it starts, inside or outside the Democrats, so long as it never stops. Once you start, never stop!
Otherwise, like Mandos says, it’ll be Groundhog Day all over again.
Matt Russo
Well, “pitt”, explain how Obama won so smashingly in 2008? Oh I know, Obama faked right to fool so-called “mainstream Americans” – that Ozzie & Harriet 50’s TV image forever etched in the brains of every Dittohead – then Obama lurched to the “radical left” afterwards.
Congratulations, you are a certified part of America’s political psychosis, where black is white, up is down, the rest of the world doesn’t exist, a state organized private health insurance cartel is socialism and Obama the Friend of Capital is Obama the radical leftist.