PLANK NOVEMBER 21, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
As Democrats gather for turkey or tofurkey in Brooklyn and Berkeley and, yes, even in Birmingham, they should offer thanks for Mitt Romney. Not just for being a clumsy candidate in a year when a more agile one might have knocked off Barack Obama—but for the broader benefit he served the Democratic Party as a powerful clarifying force.
I touched on this after the nominating conventions, but it bears reinforcing now that the election is past. As Ramesh Ponnuru recently reminded us, for decades the Democrats' were voters' preference when asked "which party is on my side?" However, they began to put this at risk over the past twenty years, as party grandees such as Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Chuck Schumer built strong ties to Wall Street. This alliance brought the party heaps of campaign cash and, in some circles, credibility on economic policy, but it exposed the party to a populist critique that it was no longer looking out for the little guy.
Despite strong support from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama appeared ready to set a course correction, at least judging by his tough campaign speeches on financial reform. But the financial collapse intervened, and made matters worse. To save an economy in crisis, Obama felt obliged to bring in Wall Street types like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, and he resisted cracking down on the suddenly fragile-seeming banks. Armageddon was averted, but politically, Obama ended up with the worst of both worlds. Wall Street was irked at him anyway, because even his mild criticisms and moderate reforms bruised egos and crimped profits. Meanwhile, voters saw him and the Democrats as in league with the bailed-out banks. In theory, both things could not be true, but in political reality, they very much were.
Which led to the great demoralization of the 2010 midterms. Voters were angry and frustrated and confused, and Republicans capitalized on that confusion. Even as Wall Street shifted its support toward the GOP, Republicans ran on a populist, anti-establishment platform. The main feature of this platform was an attack on the "bailouts," a phrase they skillfully used to refer to both TARP and the economic stimulus package, thereby tarring that mix of tax cuts and spending with the deep unpopularity of the bank bailouts that both parties had agreed to in late 2008. The brazenness was breath-taking: Club for Growth-backed candidates running as anti-Wall Street crusaders. But it worked. A wave of Wall Street-backed Republican freshmen swept into office under the guise of pitchfork-wielding insurgents. In mid-2011, I met one of them, Georgia's Tom Graves, who was heavily backed by the Club for Growth but emerged as a leader of the Tea Party caucus, on the night of the final vote to bring the debt ceiling showdown to a close. Where did I meet him? At Nationals Park, where he was taking in a game in AT&T's corporate skybox.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
Obama and the Democrats would have been in big trouble if this muddle had lasted into the 2012 election year. Yes, they would've done their best to talk about the need for raising taxes on the rich, but Republicans could have countered, as they did in 2010, with talk of bailed-out bankers and "crony capitalists" like the Solyndra investors. Once again, voters may not have been sure just who was who's side—at best, they'd throw up their hands and figure that both parties were for the big guy.
But that didn't happen. Why? Because the Republicans nominated Willard Mitt Romney. In an era of resentment toward unaccountable financial elites, they put forward the ultimate financial elite, a man who sliced and diced companies, sheltered his income offshore, and, above all, was eye-poppingly incapable of discussing his wealth and the economic anxieties of those less fortunate in ways that might put voters at ease. The muddle that had clouded the political debate since Obama's inauguration parted. On Election Day, when exit pollsters asked voters whom they thought the candidates favored, a plurality, 44 percent, thought Obama favored the middle class, while 53 percent thought Romney favored the rich. Meanwhile, one in five voters thought that a candidate's "caring about people like me" was the most important quality, and 81 percent of them voted for Obama. The benefits for Democrats carry forward post-election: as we head toward the so-called fiscal cliff, there is little doubt who's for raising taxes on the wealthiest—a proposition supported by some 60 percent of voters—and who is not.
So Democrats, as you raise your glass on Thursday evening, say or think a thanks for Mitt Romney, who, like the Wampanoag Indians bringing their five deer to the feast, brought a great gift to America: clarity.
Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
20 comments
Yes, even a black man or a white woman could beat a Republican in 2008 after the feckless Bush administration, and even a black man could beat a Republican in 2012 after the feckless Republicans nominated a plutocrat. Clarity? I'm not so sure. But tomorrow my glass (well, several glasses) of Clicquot will bring clarity if not sobriety.
- rayward
November 21, 2012 at 1:39pm
@Alec: Amen.
- mcmahon.an
November 21, 2012 at 3:20pm
but who else could Republicans have nominated that ran? Santorum? Gingrich? It would have been a colossal wipeout for Republicans maybe even imperiling their house majority.
- blackton
November 21, 2012 at 5:26pm
Yes, yes, yes. As blackton pointed out, Romney was the best of a bad lot. But that doesn't change the fact that, in terms of both substance and style, he was the ultimate plutocrat at a time when the public justifiably wanted someone more down to earth whom they thought cared about them.
- Thunderroad
November 22, 2012 at 1:25am
Jon Huntsman was the best of a bad lot in 2012, but he has no chance of ever being nominated by the self-destructive Republican base, which sees moderates as traitors. I don't think average Americans were confused in 2010, not knowing who was on their side. They knew they could get away with electing a bunch of rabble-rousing Tea Party numb-brains for two years, so they did it just for spite. But by 2012 many of them had sobered up, and they went with the party that's on the side of the average American. God bless 'em, however stupidly spiteful they were in 2010. It helped that an extreme plutocrat like Romney was the GOP candidate, but I don't think he was the deciding factor. Americans can be very ornery in mid-term elections. Look out in 2014.
- magboy47.
November 22, 2012 at 2:24am
"Not just for being a clumsy candidate in a year when a more agile one might have knocked off Barack Obama." If I may offer a discordant note. First, I am not at all certain that Romney was as "clumsy" a candidate as all that. Yes, yes, there is the 47% and the Cadillacs and NASCAR owners, but his performances in the first and the third debate - the surreal about-faces on his entire platform- and his equally surreal "apology" on the 47% comment demonstrated a candidate almost singular in capacity to shape-shift without apparent remorse or shame. He bulldozed not just the electorate at large, but his own Republican Party on the tax issue. He all but annihilated his primary opponents - buffoons and knaves, to be sure, but still, his destruction of Gingrich and Perry was total. These are not the hallmarks of a clumsy candidate. Second, I am not at all sure that Obama was as beatable as all that. Yes yes, in May even Santorum was running ahead of Obama in the national polls. But those who were paying attention to the national polls missed the story altogether. This election was a rerun of Plouffe against Penn: Penn running a national campaign for Hillary, even as Plouffe was racking up an unbeatable advantage in the caucus states. When I read about Obama's ground game preps in the New Yorker - in March, I think - I was convinced that Obama had it in the bag. The fact that only charlatans and knaves ran in the primary tells you the whole story. Huntsman. The American Conservative has an analysis on his candidacy, and I agree with that. On Iran, he was more hawkish than even Romney; he sounded less deranged than the rest, but that is not saying much - and he was no less radical in his policies; he has no charisma; he was not in a position to challenge his former boss on foreign policy; no one knows what kind of skeletons were in his or his dad's closet. Two things, and two things alone, explain this past election. Policy and race (not, mind you, the race of the candidate, but the race of the voter). For all but white males with no college education, and white males in the South, the real issues appear to be driven by policy differences. There is a generational war between seniors and the rest of the country - the opposition to ACA even as they cling to Medicare is just the tip of the iceberg - just as there is a plutocratic war against the middle and working classes. As for Southern white males - they have been voting against Democrats since 1980 - Obama had a better tally than Carter or Dukakis, I believe, so it is not the race of the candidate that appears to be the issue. What is at issue is the identification of the Democratic Party with The Other, and in particular, with the empowerment of The Other. Obama was right in his "clinging" statement that the Democratic Party (Clinton included) has singularly failed to speak to this segment of the population. Perhaps it has failed because this is the segment of the population that thinks like Seattle - oblivious to facts and figures - perhaps it has failed precisely because it talks of empowerment, and Southern whites do not want to give up power. But there, I think, is the challenge going forward. So give thanks for Romney, but for a different reason. He, and he alone, has made it possible for the Democrats, if they are smart, to start a true political dialogue with Souther white males. Let's see what happens.
- icarus-r
November 22, 2012 at 10:10am
Both candidates were the archetype of the current state of their Parties: The Insane vs the Inadequate. The Inadequate One won by 2-3%. Not yet clear if this is a political game changer--- much less, in which direction. For example, it is not clear how the Great Compromiser will deal with continued intractable opposition--- or a projected economic downturn next Spring.
- drofnats1
November 22, 2012 at 11:09am
"Both candidates were the archetype of the current state of their Parties: The Insane vs the Inadequate." ar·che·type noun \ˈär-ki-ˌtīp\ the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also: a perfect example So the Democratic Party is a copy or representation of Obama? If that is the case, why did you think that Obama's loss would benefit the Democratic Party?
- icarus-r
November 22, 2012 at 11:36am
Ick, that's an excellent read on Romney, and I agree that one can make too much of the gaffes and the missteps. I would also add one thing to the Romney side of the register, the full significance of which I'm not sure how to assess: against all expectation and in the face of standard candidate behavior for many years, he refused to reveal more than the most minimum information on income and taxes, and faced down pretty much all demands that he open up. I don't believe this did him any more damage (most people had forgotten that fight by the time mid-October came around) and it might have even saved him some grief if there was really awkward stuff in the records. But it was a surprising step to take -- somthing like a haughty rejection of cultural norms as not pertaining to others but not to him -- and it may have bequeathed a legacy to future presidential campaigns.
- ironyroad
November 22, 2012 at 7:29pm
Sorry: ". . . as pertaining to others but not to him"
- ironyroad
November 22, 2012 at 7:31pm
sure icarus - the Democrats can "start a true political dialogue with Souther white males." Y'all have such fine instincts for juvenile bullying here at tnr.com that I really want y'all to go All In - make sure y'all don't forget to call us racist when we voice our dissent. Don't forget to call us "right-wing nutjobs" at every opportunity, even when we are registered Democrats who no longer recognize the Pelosi Party. And, Alec M leads the Texas-bashing at every opportunity, just to make that "true political dialogue" non-toxic ? ROFL! Isn't Pelosi's husband a private equity multi-millionaire?, and is not Schumer still the Senator For Wall Street (NYT's name for Schumer in"The Reckoning") because without Wall Street tax revenues, New York would be bankrupt?. A Duopoly that makes so many Americans so depressed that they just do not vote - was it 46% who stayed home in 2012?. A Duopoly with a rigged nominating process that destroys representative democracy. All Obama talked about was college loans. Never one word about Age discrimination. As of Jan 1, 2011, Medicare decreed no need to test cholesterol levels more than once every five years - a sure way to kill off more seniors before 2016.
- K2K
November 23, 2012 at 9:19am
"A Duopoly that makes so many Americans so depressed that they just do not vote - was it 46% who stayed home in 2012?" For God's sake K2K, if you insist on making ignorant comments don't complain about being ridiculed for your ignorance. And of all the silly comments to make - to talk about voting participation in the US and blame it on Wall Street or Duopoly or Pelosy and Schumer or whatever? Seriously? There are literally hundreds of books and thousands of academic articles written, by both Americans and non-Americans in a comparative context, in the course of the last fifty years to try to explain voter participation rates (specifically, lower in the US than in many, but not all, other democratic states). The simple answer is that there is no simple answer, and anyone who says there is one it is plainly ignorant. Among the contributing national factors usually cited, voter registration tops the list; another one - empirically and comparatively verifiable - is frequency of elections (see Switzerland - even lower participation rates than in the US and no Pelosi either). A third is a set of demographic and sociological factors that have nothing to do with Pelosi (yes, rural poverty in the South is a major element of it). A fourth is economic and work-force concerns (most other countries require time off for voting). A fifth is ease of voting - seven hours wait to vote in Republican Florida, and you blame Perlosi? And so on. If you want to avoid being ridiculed, stop making ridiculous and easily disprovable assertions. "All Obama talked about was college loans. Never one word about Age discrimination. As of Jan 1, 2011, Medicare decreed no need to test cholesterol levels more than once every five years - a sure way to kill off more seniors before 2016." Speaking of ridiculous and easily disprovable assertions, this one just takes the cake. "All" about college loans? We must have watched different campaigns. I have no idea what you mean by Age discrimination, but given your reference to Medicare, it's absolutely rich for you to mention this. You just proved Arnon right that you have no moral sense. The Romney campaign ran the lyingest age-discrimination campaign, amounting to outright generational warfare, in living memory. They ran against ACA, which provides to 50 million young and lower-middle class Americans a semblance of medical security that older Americans already benefit from. More to the point, they lied, and lied, and lied, about the $716 bn Medicare savings in the ACA, characterising it as a cut - even as they had proposed to make an actual cut of the same amount in Medicare. Even as Ryan proposed to dismantle Medicare for younger voters. And you have the monumental gall to complain that Obama was not talking about age discrimination? As for the test for cholesterol ... are you serious? Are you writing a parody of a demented grasping granny? "Kill off"? Really? How much does a test for cholesterol cost? YOU HAVE THE BRASS TO DENY 50 MILLION AMERICANS BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT HAVING TO PAY FOR CHOLESTEROL TESTS? Really? It is not that your moral compass is skewed; it is that you have none. Your position on the ACA and your complaint about cholesterol testing demonstrate, together, that you have no moral core. You complain about being ridiculed? Well, based on what you have written today, you deserve every bit of it.
- icarus-r
November 23, 2012 at 10:18am
icarus wrote "... the Democrats can "start a true political dialogue with Souther white males." Fine example of icarus idea of dialogue from "11/23/2012 - 10:18am EDT | icarus-r", who lives and votes in Canada.
- K2K
November 23, 2012 at 3:01pm
"Fine example of icarus idea of dialogue" I am not a Democrat; you are Jewish, live in NY and own property in the Bronx - you are not a Southern white male by any measure. In any event, as you note, I live in Canada; I am not a politician seeking your, or a Southern white male's, vote. You made a morally dubious comment, and got called on it. My critique of your asinine comments has nothing to do with what the Democrats should do in gaining votes in the US. Every time I think you have hit rock bottom, you prove me wrong; a more irrelevant, whiney reply I could not have thought possible.
- icarus-r
November 23, 2012 at 3:13pm
"I don't think average Americans were confused in 2010, not knowing who was on their side. They knew they could get away with electing a bunch of rabble-rousing Tea Party numb-brains for two years, so they did it just for spite." If that's how they were thinking, they were being very short sighted. Because the election of all those Republicans in 2010 contributed to the redrawing of Congressional district lines after the 2010 census in a way that heavily favored Republicans and will make it much harder for the Democrats to regain control of the House. And that ensures more gridlock and more delay in things we really need to do, like deal with global warming.
- VAliberal
November 23, 2012 at 4:26pm
icarus: I was born and raised in the segregated south. Once a southerner, always a southerner. We tend to be far more polite than Yankees, and do not respond well to snarky condescension that infects the Pelosi Party. I freely admit the biggest mistake of my life was coming north for college in 1969, and then winding up in New York in 1978 was #2 mistake. Buying the cheapest apartment (cheaper than renting) in the Bronx in 2001 so I could be near my doctors, before they started dropping Medicare patients at the end of 2007, was the final mistake. Death can not come soon enough.
- K2K
November 24, 2012 at 5:31pm
Jesus, you are pathetic, K2K.
- bunthorne
November 24, 2012 at 8:55pm
K2K It is immoral for someone benefitting from Medicare to complain about its shortcomings even as he he opposes providing basic insurance to fifty million people. You sound like the deranged oiks with signs that read 'get you government hand off my Medicare'. I was actually referring to your rental property in the Bronx. In any even, in context, I thought it was pretty clear that by Southern White Males I - and indeed the entire political analysis class - did not mean 'college educated Jewish seniors living in New York,' regardless of where they might be born.
- icarus-r
November 25, 2012 at 9:13am
icarus: 1) I only added my comments to this thread once it became linked at RealClearPolitics, solely to show how intolerant the liberals are. Condescending snark is not the way to have a dialogue with anyone except liberals under 40. 2) I am NOT benefitting from Medicare since late 2007 when it all became what can NOT be done, and, it is not allowed for the patient to pay for anything that Medicare does not permit, 3) I have NO opposition to trying to offer medical insurance to the uninsured, but ACA was the wrong priority at the time, and, as the details keep emerging, hard to see how it will work. It certainly has divided an already polarized country. I have no rental property in the Bronx. I own a very cheap pre-war that I am not allowed to rent out, and no one in the building has been able to sell for three years due to a convergence of law-breaking by the Managing Agent. THIS nightmare is Death by Stress. and not a story I want posted on the internet. Yup, pathetic. I want the multiple nightmares of the past four years to disappear.
- K2K
November 25, 2012 at 6:03pm
^solely to show how intolerant the liberals are. Condescending snark is not the way to have a dialogue with anyone except liberals under 40." Oh for Heaven's sake - liberals are only intolerant of active stupidity, rank ignorance and immoral politics. Your problem is that you come, make asinine comments, and as soon as someone calls you on them, complain about intolerance. This is not intolerance; it is refutation. Different things. And, frankly, someone who studied in NY and has lived there since 1969, and continues consider himself a "Southerner" when thereis discussion of white voters deserves not just condescension but outright ridicule. "I own a very cheap pre-war that I am not allowed to rent out, and no one in the building has been able to sell for three years due to a convergence of law-breaking by the Managing Agent." I thought you had rental property because of what you said during Sandy: "I just tried to volunteer an apartment I own in the least affected bit of the North Central Bronx where there is electricity and, as of Thursday, subway service to 42nd Street in Manhattan via 4, D, 2 subway lines and Metro-North." So you volunteered, for Sandy victims, an apartment you own that is subject to law breaking by the agent? "2) I am NOT benefitting from Medicare since late 2007 when it all became what can NOT be done, and, it is not allowed for the patient to pay for anything that Medicare does not permit," You mean you do not see any other doctors or take any other medicine, take no cholestoreol tests, nothing at all, no medicare benefits at all, because Medicare does not pay for the procedures you want done? If so, that is curious indeed; if not, you are lying when you say you are not benefitting from Medicare. "ACA was the wrong priority at the time, and, as the details keep emerging, hard to see how it will work. It certainly has divided an already polarized country." You mean just as 800,000 people are losing their jobs, AND their health care insurance, every month, it is a wrong priority to seek to ensure that they do not go bankrupt because of medical emergencies? Even as seniors get not only doctor and hospital care, but also their drugs paid for? And the country was not polarised in 2004, when Bush got 52% of the vote, or 2000, when he got less than 50%, or 1992, when Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote? And you ask why "liberals" talk to you with snarky condescension? Don't you pretty mug beg to be condescended to when you make easily disprovable assertions like this?
- icarus-r
November 26, 2012 at 10:07am