JONATHAN COHN JULY 29, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Activists at last week’s Netroots Nation talked about disappointment and disillusionment. The polls show a slow, steady decline in support for the president among Democrats. Neither sample captures perfectly the state of the liberal mind this summer, but you’d have to be pretty oblivious not to see that President Obama, and the Democrats, are losing the love of their base.
It’s a somewhat predictable decline, given lofty expectations for the Obama presidency and the stubbornly slow recovery. It's also a relatively modest decline: After all, it’s not like anybody is talking about starting a third party. Still, the right is energized, the left is ambivalent, and that means Democrats are in big trouble this November.
If you read this blog, then you know I see things more or less the way my colleague Jonathan Chait and some of our friends in the blogosphere do: This seems totally nuts, purely on the merits. Obama and the Democrats passed a major stimulus that cut taxes for the middle class and invested heavily in public works. They saved the auto industry, created a new regulatory framework for the financial industry, and enacted comprehensive health care reform. Compromises watered down each of these initiatives, to say nothing of the ideas (climate change!) that aren’t going to pass. And still this was the most productive liberal presidency in a generation or maybe two.
But liberal ambivalence isn't just foolish substantively. It's also foolish strategically.
The fact is that voting for these measures, particularly health care and (in the House) climate change, was tough for many members of Congress. Liberals consider the Affordable Care Act a watered-down version of a watered-down of something resembling a true universal coverage system. But in Tennessee, Idaho, and a bunch of places in between, it's a government takeover of health care. Liberals think Waxman-Markey was a conservative half-solution to a planetary crisis. In more conservative districts--and, let's face it, plenty of liberal ones too--it's higher energy bills.
But consider what happened after the climate change vote in the House last year. When Democrats went back to their districts, conservatives pummeled them--in person and on the air--while liberals just shrugged. And consider what happened after the health care bill passed: Conservatives went into overdrive about socialized medicine, while liberals kept talking about what a lousy bill it was.
Not surprisingly, members from more conservative parts of the country are pretty frustrated, particularly when they're getting attacked directly by the left. As one senior Democratic aide told me on Wednesday, expressing a sentiment I've heard many times on Capitol Hill,
Liberals have savaged these members and the lesson many will take is don’t stick your neck out because the left will kick your ass regardless.
To be clear, sometimes ass-kicking is good. Call Kent Conrad a hypocrite on the deficit. Blast Joe Lieberman for carrying water on behalf of the insurance industry. Hold Obama accountable for the bureaucratic neglect that enabled the Gulf disaster. Liberals won't get anywhere by meekly accepting every compromise that comes down the pike or looking the other way when Democrats screw up. Politics goes is a two-way street and liberals need their leaders to lead sometimes.
But if the left is going to demand action, it has to do more than sigh when action--even modest action--actually happens. The left has to show some enthusiasm, if not locally then at least nationally. (Truth be told, a Democratic member in a Republican district probably benefits more from higher Obama approval ratings than an ad buy from Moveon.org). Otherwise office-holders, even ones from relatively liberal districts, won't have much incentive to vote liberal next time around. As another congressional aide put it, via email:
I hear this stuff all the time, about climate change, health reform, financial reform--members complaining about having to vote for these things because they were forced to by party leadership with NO upside for them. ... They’re getting hit on all sides. ... these members need more than just the stick, you also have to give them the carrot every once in a while.
It'd be nice if we lived in a world where politicians voted exclusively based on the public interest. But we happen to live in a world where, to varying degrees, politicians vote based on their immediate electoral needs. If liberals don't embrace politicians who vote with them today, then liberals can't expect the same politicians, or their replacements, to vote with them tomorrow.
Update: I tweaked some language for clarity
12 comments
Because the left in America prefers the romantic status of outsider and loser to the responsibility of constructive reform of our society. As Michael Berube says in The Left at War, it looks at politics like a college kid looks at music -- as soon as a group or an artist are in any way accepted by the mainstream, they are uncool and dead. The Left could have dealt with an Obama defeat, as it would have confirmed their unalterable prejudices, but it hasn't been able to deal with his victory.
- ironyroad
July 29, 2010 at 12:48am
If this is about the primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln, or people complaining about Ben Nelson, I agree, that's pointless, even if they make stupid conditions for their votes at the end of the day they voted for most of these major items and so liberals should lay off, if it had been a Republican in that seat, there is no way in hell any of this would have passed.
- vips73
July 29, 2010 at 2:04am
The real cause of disillusionment is the failure of Democrats to actually challenge Republicans. Why don't more liberal Democrats sometimes write a bill that makes sense and just demand a vote or force Republicans to filibuster. So what if some conservative Democrats also vote no or abstain? That way the clear villain would be the Republicans and then the Democrats could negotiate with themselves and pass something. But the problem is that the Democrats always seem to start by negotiating with themselves, and that's demoralizing. Look at the Warren nomination, Chris Dodd, who's retiring starts out by saying, "oh it would be tough fight, so we better not." WTF.
- vips73
July 29, 2010 at 2:25am
I'm with vips.
- WandreyCer
July 29, 2010 at 6:40am
"Those libruls made me cast difficult votes for bills I didn't like." Yeah, that's a great way to sell your agenda. How about something more like this: "Yeah, I cast tough votes, and I'm proud of it. I thought we [the House] had a better package in its totality [on (insert issue here)] than the Senate, which still had a very good package, did, and I regret that the Senate's provisions prevailed. Which is why I'm running for reelection -- to improve the bills where I find them wanting." Doesn't the latter sound just a bit better than the former? That said, I do believe the thrust of this column -- that Democratic voters aren't giving Democratic elected officials credit where it's due. This is by far the most productive Congress since the 1965-66 Congress at advancing progressive legislation, and these member deserve to be rewarded for casting tough votes.
- jimbomoron@yahoo.com
July 29, 2010 at 9:03am
My husband says I'm a true yellow dog Democrat....so that's my pedigree. EYE think that these "disappointed" and "disillusioned" liberals need to get a great big dose of perspective. We can take these legislative achievements and build on them, for crying out loud...but not if these poor disillusioned and disappointed liberals don't get their heads out of their respective GI tracts and wake up to what a Republican-led house will do to the liberal agenda. I do not understand how the energized Republican base and all the craziness we see out there doesn't energize these liberals. What is up with that?
- VBKim
July 29, 2010 at 10:29am
So, let me see ... over 2 or 3 decades of holding their members' feet to the fires of conservative orthodoxy, the right wing has managed to totally change the Republican party, to the point where even when losing a vote (such as in Health Care), they sufficiently contribute to the issues debate that the "progressive" result looks more like their ideas than truly progressive ones, but liberals should take no note of that, and just accept whatever water-down legislation we manage when we control the executive and legislative branches, with no attempt to hold our caucus to liberal orthodoxy. Yeah, I got that. Capitulate in advance, and all will be well. Obama's got close to 80% approval in the party 18 months into his term, after a mix of success and noteable misteps. That ain't bad. And the Congressional picture isn't as bleak as this makes out either, given this is a mid-term election in a failing economy. So, maybe we're a bit less enthusiastic than the yellow dogs would like for their supposed apostasy in supporting their party's agenda. But less enthusiastic than we should be. I'm not buying.
- IowaBeauty
July 29, 2010 at 11:33am
Jonathan, I love 'ya, but you're way off here because you ignore context. This has NOT been the most successful liberal presidency in eons for two reasons: 1) Obama had more political power than others -- he's to be judged not only by what he accomplished but by what he had the potential to accomplish. 2) The bill has come due. Absent transformative spending on new technology infrastructure (you wayyyy overrate the amount in the stimulus bill, which was more accurately described as block grants to states for combined repairs/salaries and pork projects -- I could take you on a tour of some really needless road expansion in my area that would break a fiscal sane person's heart) and an energy policy with teeth (focussed on lowering oil use, not environmental concerns, though the two often go together), America is heading towards serious and permanent decline. Add "green card amnesty" which would solidify and in a few years greatly expand the supply of low skilled workers and you've got a prescription for John Edward's "Two Americas" on steroids and cemented. Yes, the GOP is far worse -- that's the problem, in so many places we have a "worst of both worlds" government.
- Lymon1
July 29, 2010 at 1:13pm
Chait Carter-like blames Progressive/liberal voters and democrats for the failures of the Obama Administration and Dem Senate leaders. Obama has failed strategically in not making a consistent and strong effort to change public opinion (Yes-- REALLY blame Bush and the Republicans for the 2009 Budget deficit and unemployment and openly advocate Keynesian economic solutions.) Obama and the SenatevDems have failed tactically in not recognizing by March of last year that the key to success was in breaking the Senate filibuster. They fail in both areas even now. “With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” — Abraham Lincoln From the beginning (the stimulus bill), Obama has accepted unnecessary limits on the breadth and depth of the changes he advocated. In fact, he has been less of a public advocate as opposed to one of many negotiators around a table. Obama and the Democrats won the election convincingly with large majorities in Congress. Voters, more than they have been in years, are (or at least were)receptive to broad, deep and fundamental shifts in the direction this country is headed. What holds (held) back most of this change is a President more concerned with process and procedure rather than removing major obstacles [especially the filibuster] so as to effectively use his electoral mandate. The most effective presidents have understood that speaking publicly and rallying people is one of their primary powers-- greater than their veto, ability to command armies or crafting regulations. Great presidents have made broad claims of power because of their popular support. Take FDR: “I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” Where is the Obama equivalent of a freshly elected FDR telling Congress that if it does pass not his agenda, he's going to demand something like the Enabling Act of 1933-- or exercising martial powers as great as those that Lincoln used during a period of armed insurrection! ?? Intransigent opposition politicians repeatedly called FDR a dictator, much as they did Lincoln. But in part because public sentiment was mostly with him and their political futures depended on his success, Congress decided it had better pass the New Deal. Not all of it, but most of it. And the beneficial effects of the legislation were easy to immediately discern its --- unlike complicated insurance reform with most benefits (if they survive) obvious four years hence. Reformist presidents, at their best, capture the public sentiment and use it to push through measures that entrenched interests are firmly against. Obama has taken on some very tough and complicated issues. But as a political leader, he has largely withdrawn from engagement and has acted as “Compromiser in Chief”. Democratic government is inherently a political business and any president is inherently a political leader. When making fundamental change, politics must be played—and played to win. For Obama and he Dems, the problem underlying all the partial or complete failures in passing bills for really effective economic stimulus, health care reform, financial system reform, carbon emission reforms, etc., etc.---- is the Senate filibuster requiring 60 votes for cloture rather than a simple majority. Break that--- and effective legislation and popular legislation that has immediate and obvious benefits rapidly follows. The filibuster could have been/can be broken with 50 votes plus Biden. To many, this problem was obvious in early 09. Senate Dems and Obama especially never made the effort. Obama especially still doesn’t seem to recognize the real problem and has made no real effort to move public opinion. Obama and the Democrats are suffering the consequences of not having moved public sentiment that may be very severe in the 11/10 elections and will only get worse after 11/10. From the inadequate stimulus of 2009, to the deficit "concerns" (see the catfood commission) of today (among many other issues), the flinching and cowering of the Obama Administration and the Dems has damaged the country and, ironically, the political fortunes of the Dems. The reflexive hippie punching, the constant refrain of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, the ever present concern of being labeled a gasp, liberal, has led to great suffering in the nation. Simply put, the Dems have not been up to the job. L'Affaire Sherrod has put a face to the cost of this attitude. I hope that the transcendence of this problem is recognized and addressed.
- drofnats1
July 29, 2010 at 6:23pm
"Politics goes is [sic] a two-way street and liberals need their leaders to lead sometimes." I'm just not feeling the tweaked clarity, Mr. Cohn, though your nod to "productivity" is quite touching
- AlSmith80
July 30, 2010 at 2:48am
Maybe your brave anonymous Congressional aide should consider the existence of his/her job thanks to the work of Democratic activists to elect their member as an "upside," no?
- greenmiles
July 30, 2010 at 1:38pm
VIPS and Lymon nailed it. The watered down versions (known as "compromises") didn't need to be made or to go as far as they did. So much wasted time chasing the illusive "bipartisanship" veneer , all for naught (listen to the repug talking heads/talking points). Not to mention some of these Dems who, while creating a check mark in the Dem column, don't espouse true Democratic ideas (these folks, referred to as Blue Dogs, conservative Dems, people from conservative districts, or whatever really aren't helpful because they DON'T help to create/pass a progressive agenda). I'm NOT thrilled about the healthcare reform that was passed and I seriously doubt it will be gradually picked at and amended into something that it should've been from the start (namely Medicare for all). Education reform is about the best thing they've done, it's not getting any play, and everyone is still petrified of the filibuster. This while we still have a majority!
- ericad
August 2, 2010 at 12:15pm