It’s Democratic Cowardice That’s Now the Biggest Problem: Paul Waldman on The American Prospect
A propos of the issues we discussed in the “Why Can’t Liberals Fight” thread….
I have hope that a corner is being turned. Hope, but at this point not so much confidence. It seems to me that the picture will become clearer in the wake of the February 25 health care reform summit that Obama has called: if that event shows him to be as strong and effective in exposing the Republicans’ complete lack of constructiveness (and honesty) as that pow-wow with the House Republicans, and if after that event Obama shows strong leadership in getting the Democrats onto a path to surmount the Republican obstructions and get health care reform passed (and if the Democrats have the guts and the sense to follow that leadership), talk of “Democratic cowardice” may prove to be Yesterday’s News.
As I say, I have hope.
But at the same time, as so many have observed in the weeks since the Massachusetts election, the signs of a coherent and effective fighting strategy on the part of the Democrats have not been consistent or persuasive.
I, for one, have found the past week-plus to be especially dispiriting to observe, so that I can hardly work my way through some of my usual sources of information.
For these reasons, I think that this article, from more than three weeks ago, still bears reading, still helps to illuminate an important part of the reality of power in America today.
I know that my friend, Sam Gruen, believes it is part of the problem, and not part of the solution, for people like me –who look to the Democrats to be our champions– to fault the Democrats for such weaknesses. But it seems clear enough to me that more of the same as what we’ve had can only bring disaster: it is not because of liberal complaints that the Independents have swung back to the Republicans in recent months; it is because the Democrats have failed to show the Republicans for what they are, but have allowed the Republicans to use lies to define the Democrats and their agenda.
Sam has said that the corporate media undermine the Democrats, and that this is a big part of why the Democrats are not more successful. I think he’s right. BUt that’s part of the landscape on which the Democrats must fight and win. As I’ve indicated in my message to Obama late last December, I believe that Obama had the potential to wield much more power than he has done, that he threw away an opportunity to bestride Washington like a Colossus.
The fault, dear Sam, is not ultimately in our stars (or in the media), but in ourselves. Battlefields might be stacked against one side, but this battle is not unwinnable– except if the Democrats refuse to really fight it. Even Howard Dean the other night spoke of the Democrats needing to grow some spine.
There are two aspects of leadership. 1) Being for the right things and 2) being effective in the battle to achieve them. The Democrats have a good deal of the first, and for that reason I devoutly hope –even pray– that they can gain the second.
***************
Crunch Time for Democrats
by Paul Waldman
The American Prospect, January 21, 2010
One of the great fears politicians have is that there will be some wave of strong feeling among the public that they will be oblivious to, until it rolls over them and it’s too late to do anything about it. This happened to Democrats in 1994, and it happened to Republicans in 2006. Right now, a lot of Democrats are worried that there’s another wave of strong feeling coming at them. Republicans have been working very hard to convince them that the teabaggers screaming about socialism represent more than a small minority of the country (they don’t), and that the current voter discontentment doesn’t really have much to do with the economy – which would mean that your average independent voter will still be determined to throw the bums out even after the economy recovers.
But that’s not the wave Democrats should be worried about right now. The most important political event of this week wasn’t Scott Brown’s victory in the special election, it was the reaction of Democrats. They were caught totally unprepared, and as a consequence had no coordinated message to deliver about what it meant. Instead, one Democrat after another came to the cameras and acted as though the Republicans had just won not one, but 20 seats in the Senate, and were now in control. It was a parade of pathetic, cowardly losers, reinforcing every argument their opponents made and going out of their way to proclaim their surrender.
What the Democrats in Congress and the White House need to understand is that there is a wave of disgust spreading through their supporters that is so powerful, if they don’t stop it soon, it will doom them.
I’ve seen Democrats as angry as they are now once before – in November and December of 2000. But although they were frustrated with the passivity of the Gore campaign, much of their anger was directed at George W. Bush. Right now, in contrast, Democrats aren’t angry at Republicans. Every ounce of feeling they have is directed at the people who are supposed to represent them, the people who had – and still have! – historic majorities in Congress, yet act as though they’re powerless. If Democrats can’t show their supporters that they have some spine, those supporters won’t be supporters anymore. This fall, they will decline to vote in huge numbers, and a bad midterm election will become a catastrophe. This is a moment of real crisis for Democrats when it comes to their base of support. And I’ve seen precious little evidence that they realize it.
Democratic cowardice is an old story – not long ago, I wrote a whole book about how they might get past it. And for a while, it looked like they would. Congressional Democrats stood up for themselves, and won back control in 2006. Then the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 ran a brilliant campaign. They seemed to grasp that it’s not enough to have the right policies – you also need to demonstrate to the public that you are strong and principled. But now it’s as if we’ve turned back the clock, and they’ve forgotten everything they seemed to learn in those years.
They had better relearn it, and quick. Or the trouble they’re in now is going to seem like a walk in the park.
February 14th, 2010 at 8:31 am
What I can’t seem to understand clearly is why some people can imagine a ‘politician’ actually has real beliefs .
And that he would actually risk his own comfort and and hoped for ‘security’ ? ? ?
I thought a politician much like the ‘public’ he/she represents . . .
So !
February 14th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Let’s assume that the craven democrats will be cast out in the next election. This is a budding theme, though not quite as overtly defined in corporate medialand. We will once more, if it matters to any other than those who derive their filthy lucre from manipulating the tatters of government, be subjected to an unwillingness if not incapacity to govern.
The media types always handicap the contests, never consider the issues, when there have been issues with policy implications to consider. And so, those who seek office irrespective of party, always work the media-driven campaign process so as to be elected with little focus on what it takes to govern. And do this to the tune of greater & greater numbers of a disaffected citizenry receding.
Or so it seems. I have no idea where or if there is a tipping point amongst all of us, but it seems like the unraveling of governanace is such that Waldman’s notion of malady to come is inevitable, no matter the electoral outcome.
Those “democrats” with spine (the ones that can occasionally inspire me or reinforce my profound disgust with so many of the political class) are marginalized as amusing, bemusing cranks.
February 14th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Why should one assume that all politicians are lesser human beings than you or I?
February 14th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Andy
Thank you for including my position in this posting. I just want to clarify that I have always agreed that the Democrats haven’t been terribly bold. But the media has been much more pernicious than your account states, and I have proposed that liberals on TV and in blogs have aided in the constant negation of the Democrats.
Lliberals don’t complain about the media’s non-stop snarkiness about the Democrats, and their constant ignoring or down-playing of GOP malfeasance. Democrats have no representation on Fox and almost none on CNBC.
And the lack of steadfastness by liberals only reinforces the Democrats’ concern about risking bold action. And Howard Dean’s comment is misguided, in my view.
It’s like we blame the battered wife for being battered. If a Democrat comes out strong, he or she gets on air with Maddow or Olberman a little, but the GOP paints a giant bull’s-eye on him/her, and that’s what the rest of the media focuses its attention on.
Still, the public still views the GOP as worse, and nobody is predicting the GOP will gain control of either house of Congress. And I think the Democrats are waiting to see the whites of their eyes (the actual 2010 election season) to get really tough.
Will rank and file liberals will get behind them or continue to use their problems to undermine them, as we have done since the beginning, when Obama started announcing cabinet assignments?
February 14th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Because, Andy, his black and white world views the American politician diametrically opposed to the American artist. Thank you.
February 14th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I can grant what you say, Sam, about the media. Yet the fact remains: the Democrats’ job –both for the good of the country and for their own political survival (I, for one, do not see a conflict right now between those two– is to be effective in the battle, TAKING THE FORCES ARRAYED AGAINST THEM AS A GIVEN.
Surely, the corruption and irresponsibility of the media have to be taken into account in devising the best strategy, along with the darkness of the Republicans and the defects in the American public.
My point is predicated on this simple proposition: CONSIDERABLY BETTER STRATEGIES HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE DEMOCRATS THAN THOSE THEY’VE EMPLOYED. Much better. That lack of “boldness,” that lack of “spine,” that lack of strategic judgment, that lack of clarity about their BEING IN A BATTLE have led them to give away territory while –in my view– they could have been GAINING territory this past year.
So when you say, “get behind them,” it raises the question: Is the best way of getting behind them to applaud what they’re doing, which is squandering their advantages, or to exhort them into the battle so we can be behind their doing what can succeed?
February 14th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Artist? That confuses me: that doesn’t seem like one of the face cards is David R’s deck.
February 14th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Except that David R’s long time here with all of us on NSB is evidence that he’ll not balk AT USING THE ACE as a face card. I’m not the card parlor type but that’s as plain as the nose on one’s face.
February 14th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Huffington Post had a headline today: “Joe Biden Tears Into Dick Cheney.”
In the article, which is about the appearance of Vice President Biden on MEET THE PRESS, the Biden quote from the interview has him saying, twice, “Dick Cheney’s a fine fellow.”
What’s the point of such a declaration?
Biden had indicated previously, during the 2008 campaign, that Cheney had “done more harm than any other single elected official in memory in terms of shredding the Constitution.”
How fine a fellow can a man be who’d done more than any other to shred the Constitution?
If this is what a Democratic leader sounds like when he “tears into” a liar and criminal and fear-mongerer like Dick Cheney, God help us!
February 14th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Why don’t their (Biden, Obama admin., etc.) lawyers file for a memorandum of understanding RE: how they respond to Cheney? As you say, that cat is out of the bag in terms of how Biden REALLY feels lol ?
February 14th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
The Democrats behave much like a rally I participated in back in 1983 in DC. My eyes were opened to the impotence of the left when it comes to affecting policy. The rally was protesting American involvement in El Salvador, namely arming the government to fight rebels in the civil war. This was the same government that gunned down Archbishop Romero during Mass in 1980. I would think this is a simple message to take to DC. How naive I was.
At the rally before the march, I expected to hear again what we were protesting. Instead each individual group came to the podium with a list of grievances about their own plight; women’s rights, gay rights, environment, etc. Given this was Reagan’s terms, their grievances were valid, but they were missing the point. The chance to say something in a united fashion was given away to remain focused on their own agenda. As we marched to the White House, I felt so disappointed as I saw banners about this issue or that, while my one friend and I seemed to have the only sign actually relevant to the march – No arms to El Salvador.
My example goes to show that the Democrats do this as well. Without unity of purpose, the chance to begin to make change will be squandered. The Democratic Party is filled with special interests and diversity to such an extent that they are blinded to the need to come together FIRST. Then seek redress for their separate issues. Their separate self-interest destroys their message.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Transpose what Therese shares to liberal values as a whole, and different variations abound. There used to be a national organization of progressive funders known as the National Network of Grantmakers and they eventually fell apart because of the same self-defeating “special interests and diversity.” Look at MoveOn right now. Robert Parry does well in treating this flaw from a media strategy perspective.
Therese nails it. The neocons certainly have “come together FIRST” to command the media and its use to push the government-as-the-problem litany. Where is the countervailing strategy amongst those who hold a more humane view of our polity?
February 14th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Therese, you didn’t realize that the aim
of preaching to the young smarties
‘diversity’ as a virtue
was political impotence for the peons?
How ‘learned’ ‘we’ have become !
February 15th, 2010 at 10:58 am
The conservative’s situation is no better than the progressive’s. The “rugged individualist” perspective is just the strangely brown sucker’s end of the Divide and Conquer stick. In both cases the people end up with staggering varieties of trivial choices and the political power of a share cropper.
The only real difference between the two is that the conservative side is bankrolled by deeper pockets, but they’re both inimical to authentic human needs and wants.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:37 am
In thinking about Republican mendacity, I found myself contemplating this quote from Jack Kornfield.
His observation about some “spiritual groups” applies very much to the quicksand in which both political parties seem to be stuck. To what degree this applies to sectors of the voting public remains to be seen.
======================================
“Finally, it must be acknowledged that some communities become so grandiose, so unconsciously duplicitous and fearful that they are unwilling or unable to face their difficulties. Inevitably, some unhealthy systems are exploitive and abusive beyond repair.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What to do…??