Right now, no matter how dreadfully dismal are Democrats' Congressional prospects in 2010, two factors persist in their favor. The first is Republican overconfidence.
As the Times' Adam Nagourney reported from the Republican National Committee's winter gathering, in Hawaii, that state's GOP governor giddily announced to the faithful last week that, all things considered, "You can count on the Democratic majority in the House being toast this fall."
The assembled, wrote Nagourney, "burst into applause," and perhaps for good reason. The governor had just delivered the statistical Good Word from the "latest analysis by a Washington Congressional handicapper"; and about a month earlier, the numbers were already congealing, with Minority Whip Eric Cantor telling reporters that his "pollsters ... had to recheck their numbers because they could not believe [they] looked as good as they did for us." Cantor's deputy whip added that the coming "tidal wave," as forecast by the pollsters, "knocks me on my butt."
As Massachusetts Democrats were recently reminded, this internal sense of inevitability can fatally boomerang. With overconfidence come sloppiness and a failure to look over one's shoulder until it's too late.
No matter how many times that staggeringly prominent political axiom is confirmed, no matter how many times its deafening warning bell is rung, frontrunners tend to ignore it -- out of ego, I suppose, always oversized in politics, as well as their tendency toward self-righteousness unbound.
Working even more in Democrats' favor, however, is that in Republicans' rush to assured victory, they'll trip each other up.
As Nagourney observed, "the Republican Party continues to struggle with disputes over ideology and tactics"; that "here in Honolulu, the strains within the party over conservative principles versus political pragmatism played out in a sharp and public way," principally through interior disputes over the possibly outsized role of Tea Partyers, who nevertheless seem to possess the upper hand.
In short, they're squabbling like toddlers -- what's left of the staid GOP Establishment is offended, if not hysterically distressed, by the street-fighting militancy of its rabble-rousing Armeys -- so in the primary season a whole lot of somebodies could get hurt.
Feelings could well remain that way afterward, leaving the party's candidates bruised and battered and the party itself badly disunified.
And in this there's a priceless instruction for Democrats: In the face of the opposition's dishevelment, an uncharacteristic unity could carry the day. The problem, of course, is that last adjective; after achieving greater Congressional majorities in 2008 by mirroring Barack Obama's wholly pragmatic message of progress, Democrats still don't get it.
Scott Brown's impressive election victory didn't help, for it only sent Democrats splintering off farther in predetermined directions.
Said moderate Evan Bayh: "If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up.... They" -- meaning his fellow moderates, and independents -- "just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing" -- meaning in Bayh's muted opinion the party needs to shift rightward. Conversely, Massachusetts' Rep. Richard Neal "called for a sharper and more confident leftward tack." And so it characteristically goes.
Yet while both pols were only playing to their peculiar bases, both analyses, it seems to me, were woefully off-target for the party's greater good. Any impending mumbo-jumbo about moving to either the left or right will only further enrage the electorate, for it has neither the time nor patience for ideological abstractions.
As Obama informed the sniffling, hyperideological House Republicans last week, he's no "ideologue" -- and that precise message, along with the electorate's profound disenchantment for the reigning ideological power that was at the time, was what catapulted him to a convincing victory. That was Obama's unearthed mojo, and, rather belatedly, he's recovering it to his remedial benefit.
And that, as well, is the key for Democrats at large -- to exalt violently pragmatic solutions, which are, after all, inherently progressive, while rigorously disowning any attachment to ideological labels or any resting spots on the political spectrum.
Let the right prattle overconfidently about moving the nation more to the right; in that, there's a presently hidden danger, but they just can't help their fanatically righteous selves.
We are plagued in the
We are plagued in the Democratic Party by our equivalent of the secessionist right, namely the move-to-France left. Heck, one talk radio personality even claimed hyper-patriotism as preface to expression of desire to leave the country, much as the mainstream secessionists claim to be super-patriots. (Non-mainstream secessionists get into gunfights with police.)
The similarity probably slips right over their heads.
Double-edged sword
The "move-to-France left" wing of the Democratic Party, while only a tiny fraction of the party, was one of the primary reasons Obama was able to get the nomination in the first place. It was entirely predictable (inevitable, even), that they would turn their sights on Obama after he had to more than give speeches and make campaign promises, just as they demonized the Clintons.
Kinda hard to complain about those that brought you to the dance ....
wow. so the Republicans
went to another country for their confab? that doesn't strike me as very patriotic. and is "peculiar" deliberate or could it be "particular"? ("Peculiar" would be quite the tell.)
Splattered With Your Own Whitewash
Ignoring the forest for the trees again, PM?
You chide the Republicans for hubristic celebration of their Fall electoral chances, and then perform the same song and dance on behalf of the Democrats. You clearly can see the trees, else you would not have said "...moving to either the left or right will only further enrage the electorate...". You even offer a cogent explanation as to why this "moving" plan would fail when you admit that the electorate "has neither the time nor patience for ideological abstractions". Yet you trumpet Obama's admittedly brilliant strategy of attacking the Republicans just like the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor (arriving with little notice into a safe haven during a slow moment) as if that one success is going to reverse the wrong heading Obama has taken since he won the election.
All of the moves Obama has proposed since SOTU are merely distractions. Everything that he's announcing which is supposed to benefit Main Street is just political cover for the larger moves he's making for both the Pentagon and for Wall Street. Obama still wants to enslave all Americans with high-priced mandatory insurance while job losses continue to accrue. He still does little but talk while hundreds of thousands are losing their homes to foreclosure. He blatantly aided the effort to wreck all of our credit ratings by allowing the card-issuing banks to change all of the rules well in advance of any so-called reform going into effect. He still increases the war efforts in South and Southwest Asia, and still hasn't produced a viable plan (which can be "verified by believable experts") as to what he's going to do about the inflation which will come as sure as voter disappointment in him already has.
And as Chris Dodd's abandonment of his effort to regulate Wall Street attests, the Party of Hope might as well be the Party of Nope. They are no better than "That One" when it comes to standing up for the people who voted them into the majority.
Someone below states that we would be better off under the Republicans. That may yet happen despite all of the negativity which surrounds the GOP right now. This is a viable probability, because the GOP is not the party in power. The Democrats are, and they are not doing the job. Under a two-party flim-flam scam that pretends to be a political system, the people have no other choice but to return Republicans to power if the Democrats disappoint, as they clearly are.
If the Democrats do as PM is, and laugh off their shortcomings because the Republicans are worse, they will be much sadder and wiser at the cost of the nation this fall when the voters say, "We're mad as Hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!"
I'm with you.
The Democrats have obviously sold out to the corporations to the extent that most of them are unable to stand up for the good of the people. Obama is not better. They know "which side his bread is buttered on". They know if they don't uphold the interests of the powerful, they will be taken down.
I have the opinion that this is quite literal. If I may offer this opinion: The politics of the US has slid far to the right. You agree? I think this slide began with the 60's, with the assasinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. They were all generally "peaceniks", and I think they were killed because of their left-leaning tendencies. (Name one right-leaning politician who has been assasinated since McKinley.) Nothing changes your behavior faster than the threat of death.
Over-confident
When the Republicans fall down because of over-confidence, will the Democrats have their steeltoes on and start kicking them - or will they help them get back up?
You Have To Ask?
The Gallant Democrats will bipartisanly aid the Goofus Republicans to regain their footing and then politely position themselves so that the GOP can kick them where their balls are supposed to be without risking strain to anything vital to standing.
At this point
I'm becoming indifferent. The only substantive difference that I can detect between either of the parties is in the rhetoric they deploy as they go about the business of selling themselves to the highest bidder. To my eyes, this looks like Bush's 3rd term and the Congress may just as well have stayed in GOPer hands, for the good it has done. Obama says of himself that he's pragmatic. I say that label is his way of excusing being unprincipled. "Centrist" "Democrats" many call themselves. "Bribe-O-Crats" is a more fitting term. "Prostitutes" an even better one. "Crooks" also works.
The majority of Democrats do not seem to get it. They no longer represent Democratic values, and they no longer represent or give any indication that they care about those who elected them. The party has become so degraded and corrupt, that those few senators and representatives who do remember that they work for the People are portrayed by their colleagues who have sold themselves out as fringe leftists and nutcases. The corrupt ones are now the norm and the mainstream of the party. I think they are setting themselves up for another long walk in the wilderness, and will have no one to blame but themselves.
I'm with you.
(This is where my comment should have gone.)
The Democrats have obviously sold out to the corporations to the extent that most of them are unable to stand up for the good of the people. Obama is not better. They know "which side his bread is buttered on". They know if they don't uphold the interests of the powerful, they will be taken down.
I have the opinion that this is quite literal. If I may offer this opinion: The politics of the US has slid far to the right. You agree? I think this slide began with the 60's, with the assasinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. They were all generally "peaceniks", and I think they were killed because of their left-leaning tendencies. (Name one right-leaning politician who has been assasinated since McKinley.) Nothing changes your behavior faster than the threat of death.
Not Quite
There were two attempts on Gerald Ford and one attempt on Ronald Reagan. Would never have wished that on either one or JFK, RFK, MLK, but sometimes the left can be as looney as the right.
We need an Exorcism
As I see it, here is the only relevent question to be asked: Is the Democratic Party the party of the people, or the party of Wall St? Because any further subterranean currying of these corporate lobbyist freaks by democrats will be exposed, and the subsequent betrayal of the democratic prime directive--helping the huddled masses--will likely result in another Massachusetts megabomb, depressing democratic turnout everywhere in future elections.
This is the simple tenet I and others have tried to pry into Carp's thick skull for the better part of a year with little success. "We need to be pragmatic" he says. Well Carp, when I hear the word "pragmatic" these days, I seamlessly hear the word "corporatism" instead. This ongoing corporate "pragmatism" you constantly espouse has the potential to split the Democratic Party in half--yet you and other "elite" strategists seem completely blind to it.
Don't get me wrong--I'm all for REAL pragmatism and compromise, just not the fake pragmatism we are being sold by the dems these days.
A few days ago you praised Bob Menendez for distributing talking points to candidates to help them drive a wedge between republicans and tea-buggers. I now submit to you this:
http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/01/senate-democrats-spend-the-weekend-with-fat-cat-lobbyists-at-the-miami-beach-ritz/
This is the lesson Bob Menendez and the senate dems learned from Massachusetts.
Okay, well, perhaps our wise president learned a different lesson:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/78509-after-obama-rips-k-street-administration-invites-lobbyists-to-private-briefings
These meetings occurred AFTER the SOTU Wednesday night. If this is the type of democratic "pragmatism" you're selling, I don't want any. I suspect I will not be alone. And I suspect we will see more hand-wringing and angst over what the next "Massachusetts" really means, when its real meaning sits like a stonewall staring you in the face.
The soul of the Democratic Party is in doubt. We need an exorcism.
We are effectively post-partisan
Its time we stop wasting wind on discussions like this. Chris Dodd's perfidy in favor of the banks on the eve of his retirement from politics underlines the fact that our partisan dichotomy is fiction. Obama's actions during the pasr year, of course, are similarly significant.
There are a few lone progressives out there in widely-distributed elected office, but the congressional leadership and the Whitehouse are all in the business of funnelling more and more of our money to the corporatocracy. The Democrats lose on purpose - taking cheap dives like greedy and untalented palukas.
Republicans/Democrats - its all a Straw man by this point.
Agreed
In fact, there are subtle nuanses or "tells" in the way Obama adresses the party he ostensibly leads--at the SOTU he addressed democrats as "You" rather than "We." I thought that was interesting. I honestly don't believe Obama has any interest in being the leader of the Democratic Party per se--I believe he is cultivating the idea of a post-partisan presidency for the 2012 campaign (while using Dem Party trappings) and a post partisan presidency is what he wants his main legacy to be.
Of course, as you say, since both parties are corporate and Obama is doing nothing to change that, does it really make a difference if he leads the Democratic Party or no party...
That's one interpretation
Another interpretation is that Scott Brown won precisely _because_ the Democrats aren't offering a vision for a better America under Obama's "pragmatism."
Let me put it this way. I may not be religious but I would like to _believe_ that we, as individuals and collectively as a society, can do better. "Better" in my definition extends the Enlightment philosophy of the European philosophers and our founding fathers. There is no "pragmatic" foundation for that belief. It is as much a belief as a belief in God or leprechauns -- just without the superstition. It may very well not come to pass. America may be dead. But I would still like to hold that belief, that "vision" if you will, and I think history has shown that a people need a vision for collective action. The question is whether it will be an evil vision or a constructive vision. By failing to provide a constructive vision, the Democrats create a void where the Republican's vision of greed and excess can flourish.
So far, Obama's "pragmatism" wants to scrap our return to space for continuing war around the world. We shall know "pragmatic" realpolitik by its fruits and I'm not that impressed.
Sitting On The "Pew Of Do-Nothing"
I grew up in the rural south a while ago. One of the preachers we had for our circuit church habitually railed against congregants who "sat on the 'Pew of Do-Nothing'." His intent was to condemn congregants who attended church two or three times a week and kept their theology pure but never engaged in any real world acts of Christianity.
The DC Democrats passed a hell of a lot of legislation, and Obama issued a hell of a lot of executive orders through May of last year. Then they spent the rest of the year arguing over issues of policy (theological) purity which the Republicans used as an opportunity to stop all progress. So the public saw the DC Democrats as sitting on the Pew of Do-Nothing - and kicked their asses.
If they don't get off that Pew of Do-Nothing and start passing legisltion, then it won't really matter how pure their polical principles are.
Are you really a Progressive if you ain't making any progress?
The Path Forward
This is not a time for moving to the Right or Left. It is a time for moving Forward - and swiftly.
Middle of the Road?
Not Left or Right, but Forward? Hasn't that been the PR on Obama's policies all along? Its pretty clear that you advocate a compromise approach between the two parties, despite the fact that Obama has moved the road way over to the right by adopting all kinds of stupid corporatist premises, while appearing to win the arguments he actually concedes from the outset. Pretty damn crafty.
The corporations that Obama, the Republicans, and the Democrats serve so consistantly are not ideological. They will suck the life out of a people through unregulated crony- capitalistic monopoly, or through totalitarian communist police state - they don't care as long as they can continually increase their wealth and power. They cannot survive in what actually represents progress - a strong democracy with a firm handle on its economy - but the new right turn I mentioned above adequately bypasses anything of that sort. The oligarchs can very easily place their vaults right in the middle of this detour, call it a highway, and our shave-tail politicians and corporate media simply flag us off any turns.