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.
Showing posts with label The Hill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Hill. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Mixed Signals
The economy grew 3.5% in the third quarter, the Commerce Department reported today.
But the unemployed probably won't be able to tell that things are getting better for awhile — perhaps for a long while.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the unemployment rate is how most people can tell if the economy is improving. And the unemployment numbers have not been improving. Optimists may be anticipating modest improvement when the next jobs report comes out next week, but I suspect that, if there is any positive news on employment next week, it will be temporary — as it has been on a few other occasions this year. Hopes may be raised a little — only to come crashing down a month later. Just in time for Christmas.
Silla Brush and Jared Allen are pretty blunt in an article in The Hill: "With the midterm election one year away, Democrats in particular are wary of crowing too loudly about good economic news when many of their constituents are struggling. Underlying that concern is the brutal reality that the nation's labor market is worsening with more Americans losing jobs. The unemployment rate, now 9.8 percent, is expected to continue rising. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the unemployment rate will average 10 percent throughout 2010 and will not return to pre–recession levels until 2014."
That certainly may be true, but it isn't encouraging.
The unemployed need reassurance that their elected leaders are trying everything that is humanly possible to, if not actually end their suffering, mitigate it as much as possible while an answer is sought. But no such reassurance is coming through.
Well, perhaps those who are recently jobless haven't yet lost their faith, but those who have been unemployed for a long time are a different story. Many feel forgotten, especially with their unemployment benefits being taken from them.
The humane thing for Barack Obama and the Democrats to do would be to extend unemployment benefits. They have the numbers to do it without their Republican colleagues, who probably would complain about the impact on the national debt.
Well, many people, on both sides of the political spectrum, now say that a small percentage of the billions that were spent to keep the banks and big corporations going will ever be repaid. The investment that is made in keeping millions of struggling Americans going until they can get jobs will be repaid — in the form of tax revenue.
If Obama and the Democrats truly are committed to the nation's health, they will extend the economic lifeline to the least of these.
Until they do that — instead of insisting on blaming the Republicans — the signals to the unemployed will continue to be mixed.
But the unemployed probably won't be able to tell that things are getting better for awhile — perhaps for a long while.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the unemployment rate is how most people can tell if the economy is improving. And the unemployment numbers have not been improving. Optimists may be anticipating modest improvement when the next jobs report comes out next week, but I suspect that, if there is any positive news on employment next week, it will be temporary — as it has been on a few other occasions this year. Hopes may be raised a little — only to come crashing down a month later. Just in time for Christmas.
Silla Brush and Jared Allen are pretty blunt in an article in The Hill: "With the midterm election one year away, Democrats in particular are wary of crowing too loudly about good economic news when many of their constituents are struggling. Underlying that concern is the brutal reality that the nation's labor market is worsening with more Americans losing jobs. The unemployment rate, now 9.8 percent, is expected to continue rising. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the unemployment rate will average 10 percent throughout 2010 and will not return to pre–recession levels until 2014."
That certainly may be true, but it isn't encouraging.
The unemployed need reassurance that their elected leaders are trying everything that is humanly possible to, if not actually end their suffering, mitigate it as much as possible while an answer is sought. But no such reassurance is coming through.
Well, perhaps those who are recently jobless haven't yet lost their faith, but those who have been unemployed for a long time are a different story. Many feel forgotten, especially with their unemployment benefits being taken from them.
The humane thing for Barack Obama and the Democrats to do would be to extend unemployment benefits. They have the numbers to do it without their Republican colleagues, who probably would complain about the impact on the national debt.
Well, many people, on both sides of the political spectrum, now say that a small percentage of the billions that were spent to keep the banks and big corporations going will ever be repaid. The investment that is made in keeping millions of struggling Americans going until they can get jobs will be repaid — in the form of tax revenue.
If Obama and the Democrats truly are committed to the nation's health, they will extend the economic lifeline to the least of these.
Until they do that — instead of insisting on blaming the Republicans — the signals to the unemployed will continue to be mixed.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
If This Was a Football Game ...
The calendar says there are 378 days remaining until the midterm elections of 2010. That's 54 weeks. Many Democrats will tell you there is still plenty of time before the next election.
But there isn't as much time as they want to believe.
As you have probably noticed, politicians like to use sports analogies. You will often hear them say things that suggest a struggling campaign is at halftime or gaining momentum for a fourth–quarter comeback. A candidate who forces a heavily favored opponent into a runoff may say that the race has gone into overtime.
Continuing with such an analogy, most Democrats who must face the voters in 2010 will tell you that, if this was a football game, we haven't even had the opening kick yet. But this game's farther along than they would like to think. And they're losing. Big time.
A political rule of thumb is that voters' attitudes about the party in power and its handling of the economy and foreign affairs and, well, everything harden about six months before the election. After that, very little — short of the Second Coming — will alter those perceptions.
I resisted that nugget of wisdom when I studied political science in college, but my observations since then have convinced me it is true.
So, for Barack Obama and the Democrats, the window of opportunity is not the 54 weeks that remain until the midterm elections of 2010. It is roughly 28 weeks.
If unemployment isn't going down by May 4 ...
If real health care reform — not the watered–down kind that Obama, in his wishy–washy appeasing way, is willing to accept — isn't enacted by May 4 ...
If it isn't clear that America is removing its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by May 4 ...
And if all the other promises that were made have not been kept by May 4 ...
Democrats can kiss their huge majorities in Congress goodbye.
Do I think they will lose their majorities? At this point, it is hard to say. But I do believe they will be dramatically reduced.
In the Senate, it will be possible to derail Obama's proposals with filibusters. All it will take is the loss of a single seat.
Don't think it can happen? Three Democratic senators who represent states that voted for John McCain in 2008 will be up for re–election in 2010 — and that doesn't consider Democratic incumbents who are facing electorates that have been hit especially hard by unemployment (i.e., Barbara Boxer in California) or who are unpopular for other reasons (i.e., Harry Reid in Nevada and Chris Dodd in Connecticut).
Now, before I proceed with this, let me say that I don't think Boxer is in serious trouble right now. A recent poll suggests that she is "comfortably ahead of her Republican opponents," writes Joe Garofoli in the San Francisco Chronicle.
"But Boxer, who was viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of the Republicans in the survey ... does not have an easy path to victory," he writes. "The support of barely half the voters 'is not great' for an incumbent, Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said."
I can almost hear the protests from Democrats: But this is California we're talking about — the state that hasn't voted for a Republican candidate for president since 1988. That's true. But a recent poll showed that only 34% of Californians approve of the job House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done.
California is the largest state in the nation. It has huge employment and budget problems. Pelosi's job performance may only be of concern to people in her district, but the poll results imply the serious problems many incumbents will face in California next year. If the speaker of the House — a left–leaning Democrat from left–leaning San Francisco — gets a thumb's up from slightly more than one–third of the state's voters, how will they vote when Boxer's name is on the statewide ballot?
If things don't get better, the unemployed across the nation will be very unhappy in 2010. Unhappy voters are not stupid. They know that the bad things began when George W. Bush and the Republicans were in charge. But they already punished the Republicans last year. They will be unhappy if they see no evidence that the people who were elected to clean up the mess have done so.
And they will take out their frustrations on the incumbents.
It's "showtime for Democrats," Brent Budowsky writes in The Hill. "If the president fights as he promised to fight, and Democrats stand as they promised to stand, we will make some history. Nobody will ask whether the president is tough enough for the job."
Right now, there are a lot of questions. Obama and the Democrats have until May to provide satisfactory answers.
But there isn't as much time as they want to believe.
As you have probably noticed, politicians like to use sports analogies. You will often hear them say things that suggest a struggling campaign is at halftime or gaining momentum for a fourth–quarter comeback. A candidate who forces a heavily favored opponent into a runoff may say that the race has gone into overtime.
Continuing with such an analogy, most Democrats who must face the voters in 2010 will tell you that, if this was a football game, we haven't even had the opening kick yet. But this game's farther along than they would like to think. And they're losing. Big time.
A political rule of thumb is that voters' attitudes about the party in power and its handling of the economy and foreign affairs and, well, everything harden about six months before the election. After that, very little — short of the Second Coming — will alter those perceptions.
I resisted that nugget of wisdom when I studied political science in college, but my observations since then have convinced me it is true.
So, for Barack Obama and the Democrats, the window of opportunity is not the 54 weeks that remain until the midterm elections of 2010. It is roughly 28 weeks.
If unemployment isn't going down by May 4 ...
If real health care reform — not the watered–down kind that Obama, in his wishy–washy appeasing way, is willing to accept — isn't enacted by May 4 ...
If it isn't clear that America is removing its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by May 4 ...
And if all the other promises that were made have not been kept by May 4 ...
Democrats can kiss their huge majorities in Congress goodbye.
Do I think they will lose their majorities? At this point, it is hard to say. But I do believe they will be dramatically reduced.
In the Senate, it will be possible to derail Obama's proposals with filibusters. All it will take is the loss of a single seat.
Don't think it can happen? Three Democratic senators who represent states that voted for John McCain in 2008 will be up for re–election in 2010 — and that doesn't consider Democratic incumbents who are facing electorates that have been hit especially hard by unemployment (i.e., Barbara Boxer in California) or who are unpopular for other reasons (i.e., Harry Reid in Nevada and Chris Dodd in Connecticut).
Now, before I proceed with this, let me say that I don't think Boxer is in serious trouble right now. A recent poll suggests that she is "comfortably ahead of her Republican opponents," writes Joe Garofoli in the San Francisco Chronicle.
"But Boxer, who was viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of the Republicans in the survey ... does not have an easy path to victory," he writes. "The support of barely half the voters 'is not great' for an incumbent, Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said."
I can almost hear the protests from Democrats: But this is California we're talking about — the state that hasn't voted for a Republican candidate for president since 1988. That's true. But a recent poll showed that only 34% of Californians approve of the job House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done.
California is the largest state in the nation. It has huge employment and budget problems. Pelosi's job performance may only be of concern to people in her district, but the poll results imply the serious problems many incumbents will face in California next year. If the speaker of the House — a left–leaning Democrat from left–leaning San Francisco — gets a thumb's up from slightly more than one–third of the state's voters, how will they vote when Boxer's name is on the statewide ballot?
If things don't get better, the unemployed across the nation will be very unhappy in 2010. Unhappy voters are not stupid. They know that the bad things began when George W. Bush and the Republicans were in charge. But they already punished the Republicans last year. They will be unhappy if they see no evidence that the people who were elected to clean up the mess have done so.
And they will take out their frustrations on the incumbents.
"Remember the fierce urgency of now, the audacity of hope and change we can believe in? Even passing unemployment benefits became a life crisis for politicians in a town that gets little done.
"There is pain and suffering in the heartland but little urgency, audacity or change in Washington. Democrats move from being rolled to giving in.
"Do–nothing Republicans, acting like they are bought and paid for by the status quo, are joined by a handful of Democrats who negate the 2008 election.
"The public burns, Washington fiddles, the president campaigns, Congress dithers, Democrats waver, Republicans obstruct, business as usual continues.
"The result is a Golden Age for Wall Street bonuses, a Gilded Age for insurance profits and a Grapes of Wrath for American workers."
Brent Budowsky
The Hill
It's "showtime for Democrats," Brent Budowsky writes in The Hill. "If the president fights as he promised to fight, and Democrats stand as they promised to stand, we will make some history. Nobody will ask whether the president is tough enough for the job."
Right now, there are a lot of questions. Obama and the Democrats have until May to provide satisfactory answers.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Mr. Deeds
Fast becoming one of my favorite writers on the political scene is a fellow named Brent Budowsky, who writes for The Hill.
A few days ago, in The Hill, Budowsky wrote about the gap between "the idea" of Obama and his actual accomplishments.
Many of Obama's adoring supporters see no gap. But Budowsky does. And he is right. And he is unflinching in his assessment.
"Voters may vote for an idea," Budowsky writes. "Prizes may be awarded for an idea. But war and peace, prosperity and joblessness, legislation and treaties, illness and health, are not decided by the idea of the candidate but the actions of the president who is elected."
Budowsky makes an observation that could so easily have been made about Jimmy Carter in the first — or maybe the second — year of his presidency:
Budowsky believes he has identified the cause.
"The reason so many power centers, at home and internationally, say no to the president is that they do not know his bottom line," Budowsky writes. "They believe he may shift with the winds. They know he accepts a tiny loaf while claiming a big victory. They believe he can be rolled."
And he makes an observation that shows an understanding of the presidency that transcends the times.
Think of any great president you admire. You will see many parallels between that president's record in office and Budowsky's words.
It is clear in the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, whose "team of rivals" approach Obama has tried to emulate. But comparing a 19th century presidency to a 21st century one can be awkward.
So Budowsky spells out a few 20th century examples. "Compare the way Johnson fought for Medicare with the way Obama equivocates on the public option. Compare Roosevelt's 100 days with the lack of financial reform under Obama. Compare Reagan pushing through huge economic policies early in his term with Obama delivering little more than a stimulus written by others."
Obama's supporters can continue to occupy the fantasy world in which they currently live. From now until Election Day 2010, they can protest, to their hearts' content, that all the bad economic news, the escalating jobless rate, the two foreign wars, is the fault of others — and not internal shortcomings.
But history suggests that voters will be unimpressed.
A few days ago, in The Hill, Budowsky wrote about the gap between "the idea" of Obama and his actual accomplishments.
Many of Obama's adoring supporters see no gap. But Budowsky does. And he is right. And he is unflinching in his assessment.
"Voters may vote for an idea," Budowsky writes. "Prizes may be awarded for an idea. But war and peace, prosperity and joblessness, legislation and treaties, illness and health, are not decided by the idea of the candidate but the actions of the president who is elected."
Budowsky makes an observation that could so easily have been made about Jimmy Carter in the first — or maybe the second — year of his presidency:
"It is time to worry when 'Saturday Night Live' makes fun of the president for achieving so little. It is time for alarm when so many power players believe this president can be rolled. Even a Senate where Democrats have 60 votes shows an almost daily disrespect for the president."
Budowsky believes he has identified the cause.
"The reason so many power centers, at home and internationally, say no to the president is that they do not know his bottom line," Budowsky writes. "They believe he may shift with the winds. They know he accepts a tiny loaf while claiming a big victory. They believe he can be rolled."
And he makes an observation that shows an understanding of the presidency that transcends the times.
"The history of successful presidents is clear: They fight for major change. They battle complacency and resistance. They risk losing tactical battles for greater victories. They challenge and inspire supporters to fight great battles for great deeds and inspire fear in opponents who resist."
Think of any great president you admire. You will see many parallels between that president's record in office and Budowsky's words.
It is clear in the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, whose "team of rivals" approach Obama has tried to emulate. But comparing a 19th century presidency to a 21st century one can be awkward.
So Budowsky spells out a few 20th century examples. "Compare the way Johnson fought for Medicare with the way Obama equivocates on the public option. Compare Roosevelt's 100 days with the lack of financial reform under Obama. Compare Reagan pushing through huge economic policies early in his term with Obama delivering little more than a stimulus written by others."
Obama's supporters can continue to occupy the fantasy world in which they currently live. From now until Election Day 2010, they can protest, to their hearts' content, that all the bad economic news, the escalating jobless rate, the two foreign wars, is the fault of others — and not internal shortcomings.
But history suggests that voters will be unimpressed.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Still Waiting for Change We Can Believe In
I have watched, with increasing dismay, as Barack Obama has been traveling a path that other Democratic presidents have traveled in my lifetime.
He's been trying to do everything when what he absolutely, positively needed to be doing was focus on a couple of essential things in his first year in office.
Perhaps he believed that was the way to satisfy everyone. And, yet, it hasn't. In fact, it may very well turn out that he has satisfied no one by trying to be all things to all people.
As I say, it is a mistake I have seen other presidents make. Jimmy Carter made the same mistake and didn't manage to turn things around by the time he sought a second term. Bill Clinton's party lost control of Congress, but he revived his personal political fortunes and won re–election. It took his party another decade to reclaim Congress.
Maybe the temptation to try to do everything at once is too great to resist, even though there is ample evidence of what can happen when a president treats governing like an all–you–can–eat lunch buffet. It's better — for many reasons — to have lunch where you have to choose a single entree instead of nibbling some of everything.
And that's what it feels like Obama has been doing. Sure, he has narrowed his focus lately to health care reform — the same issue that tripped up Clinton in his first year in office — but in the first six or seven months of his presidency, Obama was all over the place. His diehard supporters will tell you that he had no choice, that issues that had been neglected for years needed immediate attention.
I won't argue the point. When Obama took office, there was a veritable laundry list of things that needed to be dealt with. But, even after the passage of the massive stimulus package, people still have advice for him on a whole range of issues.
All those issues are important. But job creation was the most important issue and, because it has been largely neglected, it remains the most important issue. Now, however, there is a certain sense of urgency that didn't exist before.
Maybe that is because unemployment is closing in on 10% nationally. Maybe it is because many of America's unemployed are on the verge of losing their benefits. Both can be embarrassing for a president who just won the Nobel Peace Prize and has enough votes in Congress to do anything he wants without consulting the opposition.
I think it is safe to say that many Americans voted for Obama last November in part because they believed that his message of "change we can believe in" included a more enlightened approach to governing, a departure from the finger pointing and the mud slinging that characterized American politics.
If that was the motivating factor, many Americans have been disappointed, which may account for the steady movement we've seen in recent months of independent voters toward the political center away from Obama and his left–leaning supporters.
It is possible, I suppose, that many of those supporters have been influenced by Democratic strategists who think it is still a good idea to blame the Republicans, even though they haven't been in charge of anything since January.
But rather than remaining stuck in the early days of 2009, many people have their feet firmly planted in the quicksand of today, and they don't exactly see the rosy future that some Democrats continue to take for granted.
In The Hill, Brent Budowsky speaks for many when he writes, "I am fed up with those Democratic strategists who parade to cable–news shows and pollute the pages of newspapers with the pap that the way for Democrats to win in 2010 is to throw mud at Republicans."
He refers to what he calls John Harwood's recent account of the "dumbed–down view of American politics" in the New York Times.
"As James Carville might say: It's the jobs, stupid," Budowsky writes. "Many Democratic strategists don't care much about policy, but for anxious Americans who elected Democrats, it's all about policy.
"Democrats will do more to win in 2010 by creating 2 million new jobs than by spending $20 million to pay Democratic strategists to produce dirt–caked television ads."
Budowsky proceeds to reel off a list of things Democrats need to be doing to promote job creation, then concludes with a paragraph that ought to hit lackadaisical Democrats right between the eyes:
"Democratic strategists must realize that Americans are not stupid people to be manipulated by cheap–shot attacks. They are a good, fair and generous people with mortgages, frustrations, ambitions and dreams who elected Democrats to stand up for them."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
He's been trying to do everything when what he absolutely, positively needed to be doing was focus on a couple of essential things in his first year in office.
Perhaps he believed that was the way to satisfy everyone. And, yet, it hasn't. In fact, it may very well turn out that he has satisfied no one by trying to be all things to all people.
As I say, it is a mistake I have seen other presidents make. Jimmy Carter made the same mistake and didn't manage to turn things around by the time he sought a second term. Bill Clinton's party lost control of Congress, but he revived his personal political fortunes and won re–election. It took his party another decade to reclaim Congress.
Maybe the temptation to try to do everything at once is too great to resist, even though there is ample evidence of what can happen when a president treats governing like an all–you–can–eat lunch buffet. It's better — for many reasons — to have lunch where you have to choose a single entree instead of nibbling some of everything.
And that's what it feels like Obama has been doing. Sure, he has narrowed his focus lately to health care reform — the same issue that tripped up Clinton in his first year in office — but in the first six or seven months of his presidency, Obama was all over the place. His diehard supporters will tell you that he had no choice, that issues that had been neglected for years needed immediate attention.
I won't argue the point. When Obama took office, there was a veritable laundry list of things that needed to be dealt with. But, even after the passage of the massive stimulus package, people still have advice for him on a whole range of issues.
All those issues are important. But job creation was the most important issue and, because it has been largely neglected, it remains the most important issue. Now, however, there is a certain sense of urgency that didn't exist before.
Maybe that is because unemployment is closing in on 10% nationally. Maybe it is because many of America's unemployed are on the verge of losing their benefits. Both can be embarrassing for a president who just won the Nobel Peace Prize and has enough votes in Congress to do anything he wants without consulting the opposition.
I think it is safe to say that many Americans voted for Obama last November in part because they believed that his message of "change we can believe in" included a more enlightened approach to governing, a departure from the finger pointing and the mud slinging that characterized American politics.
If that was the motivating factor, many Americans have been disappointed, which may account for the steady movement we've seen in recent months of independent voters toward the political center away from Obama and his left–leaning supporters.
It is possible, I suppose, that many of those supporters have been influenced by Democratic strategists who think it is still a good idea to blame the Republicans, even though they haven't been in charge of anything since January.
But rather than remaining stuck in the early days of 2009, many people have their feet firmly planted in the quicksand of today, and they don't exactly see the rosy future that some Democrats continue to take for granted.
In The Hill, Brent Budowsky speaks for many when he writes, "I am fed up with those Democratic strategists who parade to cable–news shows and pollute the pages of newspapers with the pap that the way for Democrats to win in 2010 is to throw mud at Republicans."
He refers to what he calls John Harwood's recent account of the "dumbed–down view of American politics" in the New York Times.
"As James Carville might say: It's the jobs, stupid," Budowsky writes. "Many Democratic strategists don't care much about policy, but for anxious Americans who elected Democrats, it's all about policy.
"Democrats will do more to win in 2010 by creating 2 million new jobs than by spending $20 million to pay Democratic strategists to produce dirt–caked television ads."
Budowsky proceeds to reel off a list of things Democrats need to be doing to promote job creation, then concludes with a paragraph that ought to hit lackadaisical Democrats right between the eyes:
"Democratic strategists must realize that Americans are not stupid people to be manipulated by cheap–shot attacks. They are a good, fair and generous people with mortgages, frustrations, ambitions and dreams who elected Democrats to stand up for them."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The 'R Word' Isn't What You Think it Is
While those on the left insist on fanning the flames of racism and those on the right are equally insistent that race is not a factor in their opposition to Obama administration policies, a few people do seem to grasp what is really at stake — the future of the political realignment that left–leaning Americans believed had begun in 2006 and 2008.
Last week, Brent Budowsky pondered the prospects for realignment in The Hill. With more than 40% of Americans identifying themselves as independents, Budowsky writes, "Realignment is dead. President Barack Obama and Democrats blew it. Dealignment has arrived. Republicans blew it, and are now so repellent that Americans increasingly reject both political parties."
That supports something I have heard frequently — that neither party is really interested in the problems of ordinary Americans, that what politicians on both ends of the spectrum really care about is being re–elected, and a new party is needed.
But that isn't an original theme in American politics. Didn't we hear much the same thing when Ross Perot ran for president in 1992? Wasn't that a big part of George Wallace's message when, as an independent candidate for president in 1968, he carried five states after arguing that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties and nearly sent the presidential selection to the House of Representatives?
In fact, these cries for a new political party have been amplified from time to time since the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the major parties in the mid–19th century. The cries seem to be louder when circumstances are bad — and most people appear to agree that things haven't been this bad — economically, anyway — since the Great Depression.
Those who have studied the history of political trends in America aren't surprised by periodic calls for a new party. But neither should they be surprised by the re–emergence of established trends — nor should they conclude that those trends have any special significance.
Which is why I was bemused to read Fred Barnes' piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day.
"Virginia has been kind to Democrats as of late," Barnes wrote, "[b]ut now the Democratic tide is ebbing in Virginia. In January Mr. Obama's approval rating was 62%, according to a Survey USA. By August it had fallen to 42%."
Barnes, a conservative commentator, observed that the Republican candidate leads the Democratic candidate in polls regarding this year's gubernatorial campaign. He wrote hopefully about the possibility that a Republican triumph in November "will demonstrate that 2008 may have been an aberration." But that, to me, is like comparing apples and oranges.
I don't know what the vote in Virginia will say about attitudes toward Obama and his policies. At the moment, I'm not inclined to think there are any conclusions to be drawn — unless either side wins by a landslide.
If the Republican wins in Virginia, I don't think it will necessarily suggest that Obama's coalition has crumbled. I think it is more likely to confirm what I wrote about four months ago — that the party that loses the presidency wins the governor's office in Virginia the next year.
Admittedly, Obama accomplished something unusual for Democratic presidential nominees when he carried Virginia last year. He was the first Democrat to do so since 1964 — and he was the first non–incumbent Democrat to carry the state since Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.
But the gubernatorial trend seems to function independently of the state's preference in presidential politics. Nominees of both parties have won the governor's office in the last 32 years — including Doug Wilder, the first black elected governor in any state — even though Virginia voted for Republican presidential candidates in 10 straight elections before voting for Obama last year.
If Democrat Creigh Deeds wins the election in six weeks, that may be a tangible sign that a realignment is taking place. But if Republican Bob McDonnell wins, it would be wrong to assume that it indicates anything more than business as usual.
And if the theory of realignment is dealt a setback in next year's midterm elections, it would be a serious mistake for Democrats to assume it is due to racism. It will be an indication that another political trend is alive and well, one I wrote about last month.
A president's party almost always takes it on the chin in the midterms. Obama knows what will minimize those losses — job creation — and claims he asks his economic advisers about job creation regularly. But promises he made on the campaign trail appear to have been abandoned in favor of political expedience.
Well, the nation is fast approaching a 10% unemployment rate — something with which more than a dozen states already are dealing. Unless there is clear improvement in the next six months, Obama's party is likely to lose ground in Congress in 2010.
Talk of a realignment will fade — and racism will have little, if anything, to do with it, regardless of how each side chooses to spin it.
Last week, Brent Budowsky pondered the prospects for realignment in The Hill. With more than 40% of Americans identifying themselves as independents, Budowsky writes, "Realignment is dead. President Barack Obama and Democrats blew it. Dealignment has arrived. Republicans blew it, and are now so repellent that Americans increasingly reject both political parties."
That supports something I have heard frequently — that neither party is really interested in the problems of ordinary Americans, that what politicians on both ends of the spectrum really care about is being re–elected, and a new party is needed.
But that isn't an original theme in American politics. Didn't we hear much the same thing when Ross Perot ran for president in 1992? Wasn't that a big part of George Wallace's message when, as an independent candidate for president in 1968, he carried five states after arguing that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties and nearly sent the presidential selection to the House of Representatives?
In fact, these cries for a new political party have been amplified from time to time since the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the major parties in the mid–19th century. The cries seem to be louder when circumstances are bad — and most people appear to agree that things haven't been this bad — economically, anyway — since the Great Depression.
Those who have studied the history of political trends in America aren't surprised by periodic calls for a new party. But neither should they be surprised by the re–emergence of established trends — nor should they conclude that those trends have any special significance.
Which is why I was bemused to read Fred Barnes' piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day.
"Virginia has been kind to Democrats as of late," Barnes wrote, "[b]ut now the Democratic tide is ebbing in Virginia. In January Mr. Obama's approval rating was 62%, according to a Survey USA. By August it had fallen to 42%."
Barnes, a conservative commentator, observed that the Republican candidate leads the Democratic candidate in polls regarding this year's gubernatorial campaign. He wrote hopefully about the possibility that a Republican triumph in November "will demonstrate that 2008 may have been an aberration." But that, to me, is like comparing apples and oranges.
I don't know what the vote in Virginia will say about attitudes toward Obama and his policies. At the moment, I'm not inclined to think there are any conclusions to be drawn — unless either side wins by a landslide.
If the Republican wins in Virginia, I don't think it will necessarily suggest that Obama's coalition has crumbled. I think it is more likely to confirm what I wrote about four months ago — that the party that loses the presidency wins the governor's office in Virginia the next year.
Admittedly, Obama accomplished something unusual for Democratic presidential nominees when he carried Virginia last year. He was the first Democrat to do so since 1964 — and he was the first non–incumbent Democrat to carry the state since Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.
But the gubernatorial trend seems to function independently of the state's preference in presidential politics. Nominees of both parties have won the governor's office in the last 32 years — including Doug Wilder, the first black elected governor in any state — even though Virginia voted for Republican presidential candidates in 10 straight elections before voting for Obama last year.
If Democrat Creigh Deeds wins the election in six weeks, that may be a tangible sign that a realignment is taking place. But if Republican Bob McDonnell wins, it would be wrong to assume that it indicates anything more than business as usual.
And if the theory of realignment is dealt a setback in next year's midterm elections, it would be a serious mistake for Democrats to assume it is due to racism. It will be an indication that another political trend is alive and well, one I wrote about last month.
A president's party almost always takes it on the chin in the midterms. Obama knows what will minimize those losses — job creation — and claims he asks his economic advisers about job creation regularly. But promises he made on the campaign trail appear to have been abandoned in favor of political expedience.
Well, the nation is fast approaching a 10% unemployment rate — something with which more than a dozen states already are dealing. Unless there is clear improvement in the next six months, Obama's party is likely to lose ground in Congress in 2010.
Talk of a realignment will fade — and racism will have little, if anything, to do with it, regardless of how each side chooses to spin it.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Democrats in Denial
Ian Swanson and Mike Soraghan write in The Hill, in what seem to be astonished tones, that the 2010 midterm elections are looking like a "more difficult political environment for Democrats."
I've been saying this for months — I'm not sure when I first wrote about it in this blog, but I know I mentioned it to people after the Democrats made concessions to the Republicans and got next to nothing for their trouble in the debate over the stimulus package in February.
I've been talking about it ever since.
Pooh pooh, my friends protested. Obama just won by a wide margin. Democrats have a 257–178 advantage in the House. When was the last time the Democrats had that many House seats?
Well, actually, Democrats had 258 House seats when Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. In the 1994 midterms, they lost 54 House seats — more importantly, they lost control of the chamber for a dozen years.
Clinton, of course, had to clean up an economic mess made by another Bush. It wasn't as severe as the one Obama inherited from the younger Bush, but it was bad enough. I don't recall anyone seriously criticizing the steps Clinton had to take to right the economic ship — especially since, when he left office, he left behind a budget surplus (which was immediately squandered by the second Bush).
I did hear some squawking by Republicans when the stimulus package was passed — but everyone understood that desperate times called for desperate measures, right?
Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate, my friends say. How long has it been since either party had that many seats?
True, 60 Senate seats is rare and usually short lived. It took the defection of Arlen Specter from the GOP to give the Democrats their so–called "filibuster–proof" majority. But such numbers are very hard to sustain. Prior to the current party division in the Senate, Democrats held 61 seats when Jimmy Carter took office in 1977. His party lost three Senate seats in 1978, then lost control of the Senate for six years when 12 seats flipped to the GOP in 1980.
But what many people forget is that Democrats had been making steadier and more impressive gains before Carter's presidency, in the late 1950s and early to mid–1960s, but they started losing ground in the South (largely because of civil rights) and elsewhere (largely because of Vietnam). Their downward trajectory was interrupted, temporarily, by the political backlash over Watergate.
In 1958, Democrats gained 15 seats, giving them a 64–34 advantage. An interesting footnote is that figure includes both senators from Alaska. The state actually joined the Union after the 1958 elections; although it has established a solid Republican reputation since that time, its first two senators were Democrats.
The party maintained that number in 1960, then increased the total to 67 in the 1962 midterms, thanks to a surge of patriotism following the Cuban Missile Crisis. When Lyndon Johnson won the presidency by a landslide in 1964, his party gained another seat in the Senate, but then it began losing a handful of seats at a time — four losses in 1966, six losses in 1968, four losses in 1970.
Democrats made sure Richard Nixon's coattails were short in 1972; they took back two seats from the GOP, then captured five seats in the election held a few months after Nixon resigned. I'm not sure if it matters, but the 61–seat majority already had been established by the Democrats before Carter won the presidency.
Anyway, Obama isn't unique in terms of his party's share of the Senate, only in how Democrats achieved it — with the help of the defection of a five–term Republican senator from Pennsylvania, voter backlash against a 40–year GOP incumbent from Alaska who was convicted of corruption (a conviction that was overturned by the Obama administration because it uncovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct) and a protracted election in Minnesota that narrowly unseated another Republican incumbent.
Obama is the fifth Democratic president elected since 1960, and only Clinton took office with fewer Democrats in the Senate.
But Clinton lost more senators in his first midterm than any of the others. We'll never know if they might have fared better if they had faced the voters with Clinton at the top of the ballot.
Common sense says they wouldn't, because Clinton appeared to need that wake–up call to devise the strategy that won a second term. After wallowing in the 40% range in his approval ratings through much of 1994, Clinton began to rally in 1995 and went on to win a second term in 1996 — but he didn't do a lot to help congressional Democrats, and that underscores a point that Swanson and Soraghan make:
Then, Swanson and Soraghan remind us who will be voting next year:
There are many variables in elections. As I have pointed out before, George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy both profited at the polls in midterm elections because of patriotic feelings brought on by international crises.
But if the Democrats lose 20 seats in the House, that will be roughly in keeping with the historical trend. In the 17 midterm elections since 1942, the president's party has lost an average of 28 House seats and four Senate seats.
Democrats cannot afford to be complacent.
Both parties spin things in the way that is most favorable to their side, but the fact remains that, even if Obama continues to be personally popular, he won't be on the ballot next year. The coalition that elected Obama — young voters and minority voters — has not proven to be reliable in the past. He needs to motivate those groups so they will show up at the polls. How could he do that? By promoting issues those voters have shown that they care about — job creation, same–sex marriage, immigration reform, marijuana legalization.
But Obama has chosen to press for health care reform — the same issue that rallied Republicans in the early 1990s and paved the way for a GOP congressional takeover that lasted more than a decade. Most young voters are not affected by health care the way most older voters are.
Obama is using a bait that appeals to his opponents, not his supporters.
As Paul Mirengoff observes in the Washington Examiner, "[W]e must ask whether the Republicans will find the kind of coherent message and strong leadership they profited from in 1994. In addition, will the fact that, unlike in 1994, Republicans controlled Congress until recently make voters reluctant to restore them to power? Finally, will Obama's leftist agenda cause voters to cut him and his party less slack than voters cut Republicans in 1982?"
Those are questions that have yet to be answered, but the declining support for Obama's health care initiative suggests movement back toward the center — and possibly to the right of center. It's the kind of thing that should make Democrats think about the near future.
But the Democrats I hear talking about 2010 remain delusional.
Well, good luck with that.
I've been saying this for months — I'm not sure when I first wrote about it in this blog, but I know I mentioned it to people after the Democrats made concessions to the Republicans and got next to nothing for their trouble in the debate over the stimulus package in February.
I've been talking about it ever since.
Pooh pooh, my friends protested. Obama just won by a wide margin. Democrats have a 257–178 advantage in the House. When was the last time the Democrats had that many House seats?
Well, actually, Democrats had 258 House seats when Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. In the 1994 midterms, they lost 54 House seats — more importantly, they lost control of the chamber for a dozen years.
Clinton, of course, had to clean up an economic mess made by another Bush. It wasn't as severe as the one Obama inherited from the younger Bush, but it was bad enough. I don't recall anyone seriously criticizing the steps Clinton had to take to right the economic ship — especially since, when he left office, he left behind a budget surplus (which was immediately squandered by the second Bush).
I did hear some squawking by Republicans when the stimulus package was passed — but everyone understood that desperate times called for desperate measures, right?
Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate, my friends say. How long has it been since either party had that many seats?
True, 60 Senate seats is rare and usually short lived. It took the defection of Arlen Specter from the GOP to give the Democrats their so–called "filibuster–proof" majority. But such numbers are very hard to sustain. Prior to the current party division in the Senate, Democrats held 61 seats when Jimmy Carter took office in 1977. His party lost three Senate seats in 1978, then lost control of the Senate for six years when 12 seats flipped to the GOP in 1980.
But what many people forget is that Democrats had been making steadier and more impressive gains before Carter's presidency, in the late 1950s and early to mid–1960s, but they started losing ground in the South (largely because of civil rights) and elsewhere (largely because of Vietnam). Their downward trajectory was interrupted, temporarily, by the political backlash over Watergate.
In 1958, Democrats gained 15 seats, giving them a 64–34 advantage. An interesting footnote is that figure includes both senators from Alaska. The state actually joined the Union after the 1958 elections; although it has established a solid Republican reputation since that time, its first two senators were Democrats.
The party maintained that number in 1960, then increased the total to 67 in the 1962 midterms, thanks to a surge of patriotism following the Cuban Missile Crisis. When Lyndon Johnson won the presidency by a landslide in 1964, his party gained another seat in the Senate, but then it began losing a handful of seats at a time — four losses in 1966, six losses in 1968, four losses in 1970.
Democrats made sure Richard Nixon's coattails were short in 1972; they took back two seats from the GOP, then captured five seats in the election held a few months after Nixon resigned. I'm not sure if it matters, but the 61–seat majority already had been established by the Democrats before Carter won the presidency.
Anyway, Obama isn't unique in terms of his party's share of the Senate, only in how Democrats achieved it — with the help of the defection of a five–term Republican senator from Pennsylvania, voter backlash against a 40–year GOP incumbent from Alaska who was convicted of corruption (a conviction that was overturned by the Obama administration because it uncovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct) and a protracted election in Minnesota that narrowly unseated another Republican incumbent.
Obama is the fifth Democratic president elected since 1960, and only Clinton took office with fewer Democrats in the Senate.
But Clinton lost more senators in his first midterm than any of the others. We'll never know if they might have fared better if they had faced the voters with Clinton at the top of the ballot.
Common sense says they wouldn't, because Clinton appeared to need that wake–up call to devise the strategy that won a second term. After wallowing in the 40% range in his approval ratings through much of 1994, Clinton began to rally in 1995 and went on to win a second term in 1996 — but he didn't do a lot to help congressional Democrats, and that underscores a point that Swanson and Soraghan make:
"Democrats can't ride Obama's coattails as they did in 2008, when a strong turnout among young and minority voters helped them increase their House and Senate majorities.
"They also can't run against former President George W. Bush, whose unpopular policies were key to their winning control of both chambers in 2006."
Then, Swanson and Soraghan remind us who will be voting next year:
"Instead, they'll face what is expected to be an older and whiter demographic in 2010, which would hurt Democrats in the best of circumstances. President Obama won more than 90% of the black vote in 2008, and he won 66% of the 18–to–29–year–old voting category. In contrast, he lost voters 65 years old and older, taking only 45% of the vote.
"Just as important is that Democrats are losing the messaging war with Republicans on health care, according to David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. It predicted this week that Democrats could lose at least 20 seats in the House in 2010."
There are many variables in elections. As I have pointed out before, George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy both profited at the polls in midterm elections because of patriotic feelings brought on by international crises.
But if the Democrats lose 20 seats in the House, that will be roughly in keeping with the historical trend. In the 17 midterm elections since 1942, the president's party has lost an average of 28 House seats and four Senate seats.
Democrats cannot afford to be complacent.
Both parties spin things in the way that is most favorable to their side, but the fact remains that, even if Obama continues to be personally popular, he won't be on the ballot next year. The coalition that elected Obama — young voters and minority voters — has not proven to be reliable in the past. He needs to motivate those groups so they will show up at the polls. How could he do that? By promoting issues those voters have shown that they care about — job creation, same–sex marriage, immigration reform, marijuana legalization.
But Obama has chosen to press for health care reform — the same issue that rallied Republicans in the early 1990s and paved the way for a GOP congressional takeover that lasted more than a decade. Most young voters are not affected by health care the way most older voters are.
Obama is using a bait that appeals to his opponents, not his supporters.
As Paul Mirengoff observes in the Washington Examiner, "[W]e must ask whether the Republicans will find the kind of coherent message and strong leadership they profited from in 1994. In addition, will the fact that, unlike in 1994, Republicans controlled Congress until recently make voters reluctant to restore them to power? Finally, will Obama's leftist agenda cause voters to cut him and his party less slack than voters cut Republicans in 1982?"
Those are questions that have yet to be answered, but the declining support for Obama's health care initiative suggests movement back toward the center — and possibly to the right of center. It's the kind of thing that should make Democrats think about the near future.
But the Democrats I hear talking about 2010 remain delusional.
"Democrats believe whatever momentum they have lost can be made up if Obama signs a health care bill and the economy is on the upswing in the fall of 2010. Conversely, they acknowledge failure to pass a health care bill will diminish their prospects.
" 'If it passes, our chances are better,' said a Democratic leadership aide. 'If not, they're worse.'
"And vulnerable Democrats in conservative districts have been preparing themselves for fierce challenges, the aide said. For example, they've highlighted their independence by taking stances against leadership on key votes.
" 'This is prognosticators trying to pay the bills,' said a Democratic leadership aide. 'We've been preparing our guys to compete in a difficult climate.' "
Well, good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
