Denial Ain't Just a River in Egypt

There is plenty of bad news in the latest Pew Research findings.

Most of it appears to be bad news for Democrats, since they hold the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. But there is some for the loyal opposition, even though the Republicans wield little, if any, power these days.

"The mood of America is glum," Pew reports. "Two–thirds of the public is dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Fully nine in 10 say that national economic conditions are only fair or poor, and nearly two–thirds describe their own finances that way — the most since the summer of 1992."

That's bad news for the party in power. The Democrats have held majorities in both houses of Congress since the midterm elections of 2006. They've held the White House for nearly a year. In the public's mind, they own the economy. Not George W. Bush. Not the Republicans.

And it isn't just domestic issues that contribute to this negative mood. "An increasing proportion of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is not going well," Pew reports. To make matters worse for the Democrats, "a plurality continues to oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress."

Pew observes that Barack Obama's approval ratings haven't changed since July — but those ratings are far from the glittering numbers he enjoyed in the early days of his administration. "[O]pinions about congressional incumbents are another matter," Pew says — and that should concern congressional Democrats because, unlike 2008, they will not have Obama at the top of the ballot to attract the largely supportive but traditionally non–participatory demographic groups that propelled Democrats last year.

It has been my feeling for quite some time that Democrats would run into trouble in 2010. For one thing, a political party seldom enjoys three consecutive successful elections. For another, history says that midterm elections almost always go against the party in power.

And, if that wasn't enough, Obama and the Democrats have made no effort to encourage job creation in this country. I don't have to hear many words being spoken by Obama or someone in his administration — or one of his diehard supporters — that lead me to the conclusion that the speaker (whoever he or she may be) truly understands what it is like to lose a job in this economy.

Or that they comprehend the price they will pay at the ballot box next year.

I've heard all the excuses. And I've studied my history. And, on the rare occasions when I hear Democrats speak about unemployment, the same word pops into my head.

"Denial."

Yesterday there was a report that Obama has decided that joblessness — which, according to the latest reports, is at 10.2% — is serious enough to warrant a White House jobs summit — next month.

"[W]e have an obligation to consider every additional, responsible step that we can to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country," Obama said.

At the very least, this should have been done 10 or 11 months ago — if not in the first few weeks after last year's election.

Ian Swanson and Jordan Fabian write in The Hill that this is the latest evidence that Obama and the Democrats are getting nervous about next year's elections.

Actually, Swanson and Fabian sort of offer Democrats a new excuse when they write, "Unemployment wasn't expected to hit double digits that soon, and many economists now warn they do not expect the jobless rate to drop until at least next summer; in the most recent recessions, unemployment has not stopped rising until a year after the recession's end."

(I can accept that as an explanation, but not as an excuse for inaction. Not when the better part of this year has been squandered on a banal debate over health care.)

"That could doom dozens of incumbent lawmakers in the House and Senate, jeopardizing the large majorities Democrats enjoy in both chambers," Swanson and Fabian say. "That, in turn, could make it impossible for Obama to move his agenda forward in the latter half of his first term."

It seems to me that the very act of calling for a "summit" is a denial of reality. It suggests that joblessness is something new — a conclusion that has only recently been reached because conditions have suddenly worsened.

The conditions were in place before Obama was elected. He and Joe Biden can protest that they "misread" the economy, but that excuse doesn't hold much water. Their statements on the campaign trail last year clearly implied that they knew how devastating the situation was.

But, even if they didn't, wasn't it Obama who, as president–elect, spoke of assembling a team of experts who would be prepared to deal with every crisis? Where have these guys been all year?

The stimulus package that Congress passed and Obama signed back in February was promoted for its alleged potential to put Americans back to work. But, to those who were unemployed then and remain unemployed today, that sounds like nothing but lip service — just like the talk coming from the White House and Congress about how many jobs have been "saved."

The reality that the unemployed see is the billions being spent to bail out banks and big corporations while the little guys — who did nothing to bring on this economic calamity — are scolded for needing extensions of unemployment benefits because no one is hiring.

Some people do see the urgency. Paul Krugman writes, in the New York Times, that "these aren't normal times. Right now, workers who lose their jobs aren't moving to the jobs of the future; they're entering the ranks of the unemployed and staying there. Long–term unemployment is already at its highest levels since the 1930s, and it's still on the rise."

Krugman observes that long–term unemployment "inflicts long–term damage ... so it's time to try something different." Krugman has been saying, for months, that the stimulus package was not big enough. Now, he says, we must discuss "cheaper alternatives that address the job problem directly."

He concludes that "we need to start doing something more than, and different from, what we're already doing."

But, if you're a Democrat who prefers to live in that cozy cocoon of denial, Peter Fenn has a one–word response in Politico.com to those who wonder if it is possible for Democrats to get through next year's midterm elections unscathed. "Absolutely."

Denial.