WILLIAM GALSTON APRIL 27, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Democrats are on the verge of a fateful choice about their agenda between now and the end of the 111th Congress. Whatever its substantive merits, and regardless of how it will be judged once it goes into effect, the health care bill has not gained popular support since its passage, and the Democratic Party has continued to slip in the polls. The key reason, I’d suspect, is that people came to see the health care debate as a long diversion from their central concern—namely, jobs and the economy.
Elementary prudence would seem to dictate that the leadership would quickly pivot to the economy and would sustain that focus through the spring and summer. The small-bore jobs bill was a start, and the far more significant financial reforms will advance the case. But now, the leadership is moving toward, or backing into, months dominated by some combination of immigration and climate change—and of course there will also be a Supreme Court confirmation battle to fight. It is hard to believe that the people will respond favorably.
No doubt strategists on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will point out that intensity is the key to midterm elections and that right now the intensity gap strongly favors the Republicans. The only way to counter-mobilize a somewhat demoralized Democratic base is to target the issues its components care about the most—immigration for Hispanics, climate change for young people—or so the argument runs.
That sounds too clever by half. In the first place, it’s very unlikely that either immigration or climate change legislation will succeed in this congress. If passing health care did not increase public support for Democrats, why will failing to pass immigration reform or climate change legislation work any better?
Second, Democrats seem to assume that they have nothing left to lose—that all the people who will vote against them this November have already made up their minds—so that focusing on non-economic issues dear to the base will be all gain and no pain. Again, I wonder. Might it not reinforce the message that Democrats are out of touch and unwilling to heed the people’s concerns? Over the past nine months, many independents who supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008 have moved away from the party. More could follow.
No doubt Democrats will try to blunt this reaction by emphasizing the connection between jobs and the economy, on the one hand, and immigration and climate change on the other. Substantive as that argument may be, I still don’t think it will work. In times of deep economic concern, average Americans are more likely to see threats than opportunities. Immigration reform and climate change legislation will always be tough, but they’ll be easier to accomplish when the middle class is feeling less anxious.
Granted, in the long term, the politics of immigration will certainly work in favor of the Democrats. Look at California: Republicans have never recovered from the legislation and rhetoric of Pete Wilson’s governorship. In the short term, however, the issue could push in the opposite direction. While the immigration debate of 2006-2007 divided Republicans, it also divided Democrats, and this year the issue will most hurt endangered Democrats in tough districts.
My skepticism about the Democrats’ emerging strategy has nothing to do with the substance of these issues. What’s been made public so far about the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill sounds sensible, and I served as co-convenor of a bipartisan task force that agreed on recommendations for comprehensive immigration reform. I disagree, rather, with the political calculation that seems to be driving this strategy.
Here’s why: 90 percent of the electorate is not Hispanic, and 85 percent is not young. Relatively modest shifts in voter sentiment outside these two groups could easily swamp increased turnout within them and turn all-but-certain Democratic losses into a rout of historic proportions. While the temptation to adopt a strategy of targeted micro-politics is understandable, Democrats should instead espouse a strategy of macro-politics focused on broad-based public concerns. If that means that Senate Democrats will have to choose a new majority leader next January, so be it. At least they’ll still have a majority.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
12 comments
I think this is an excellent analysis. The Arizona bill will invigorate a discussion in this country. The Democrats should agree that the issue needs to be addressed but only after jobs are addressed. This will not only mobilize the hispanic vote, it will also gain the confidence of Americans who are enduring an economy with 10% unemployment. Democrats are out of touch. Just watch them trying to be angry at Wall Street. They still can't figure out how to succinctly criticize the industry that ate the middle class. Democrats should take up immigration reform until they can demonstrate they can run the economy. We need another stimulus. We can couch some of it in the push for energy independence. But at some point people need to talk about investing in Main Street. Let's fix the sewer pipes underneath it, the schools alongside it and the bridge that takes it over the river. No money? Well maybe we can tax Wall Street in a big way to help fund it. How hard is that to figure out?
- keepin_on
April 28, 2010 at 1:39am
Galston constantly advocates Blue Dog do little policies that got the Dems in deep doodoo in the first place--- inadequate stimulus package, some insurance but no health care reform, commit more to a no-win war in Afghanistan -- and now ho health or climate reform. And when it comes to producing jobs you can bet your booties , the advice will be "but not too much"-- no big immediate effects like a 21st century CCC or WPA-type bill with an 18 month sunset clause (to make sure that the stimulus is large, quick, and not permanent).
- drofnats1
April 28, 2010 at 8:15am
People should be banned from making statements like "we should be focusing on jobs and the economy." Focus how? If you have a bill you'd like to put forward I'd be happy to read about it, but I'm not sure I'd support more generic Keynesian stimulus at this point. If unemployment were 15% or the deficit were only 5% of GDP I would, but I'm not sure things are bad enough to justify running up more debt. And I'm not sure another stimulus would pass congress either. So our choice is really climate, immigration or nothing. And since we likely won't have this many senate seats again any time soon, we should try to pass as much good legislation as possible.
- WillPastor
April 28, 2010 at 10:20am
Sorry, but this is the classic Washington policy-lite analysis of immigration reform that musters absolutely no analysis of the politics of the thing. What does it matter if Hispanics are "only" 10% of the electorate -- does Galston think that they are evenly distributed in every state and every House district, or that every state has a similarly competitive Senate race this year? Does he look at analysis that shows how much their votes meant to those Democratic Congressmen and Senators who are in competitive races this year, or how much it meant in 2006 and 2008 to Senators in similar demographic races? Does he look at survey data that shows how under-motivated Hispanic voters are in the absence of any push on immigration reform (fivethirtyeight.com has an analysis just this morning)? If he can't be bothered to think about any of this, then why is he posting an analysis of the supposed disastrous electoral consequences of pursuing immigration reform?
- wildboy
April 28, 2010 at 10:20am
I should add that I understand that neither bill has a great chance of passing, but it sounded like the Climate Bill had industry support and at least one Republican, and that is promising enough in my book not to abandon it for marginal political advantage.
- WillPastor
April 28, 2010 at 10:23am
"Elementary prudence would seem to dictate that the leadership would quickly pivot to the economy and would sustain that focus through the spring and summer. The small-bore jobs bill was a start, and the far more significant financial reforms will advance the case." Yes, and then what? In case you haven't been paying attention, the financial reform bill is NOW, when it is over what legislation regarding job creation do you have in mind? Honest to God, do you think that they are simply going to run around saying Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and that somehow by repeating this jobs would be created? Or are you honestly saying this whole "I feel your pain" line is going to work to people who think the pain is somehow related to you. It worked for Clinton because he promising to do something about it if they would elect him. It is like you are saying GM should focus on auto sales, but not on production or design as though they can only do one thing. As to the economy there ain't jack the Democrats can do except hope the economy adds plenty of jobs between now and November. There is no appetite for another big stimulus bill, and small ones will barely budge the needle, at best Obama can sell out and give the Republicans a big upper class tax cut in hopes that some of the money will be spent by November, but that would probably cause interest rates to go up. If you want to argue that the stimulus wasn't big enough last year, then fine by me, but so what? Of freaking course the administration should do all it can on the docket, we had enough years of a do nothing Republican congress that pretended that their tax cuts would do wonders and nothing else needs to be done except cut taxes and torture and kill Arabs (in Jesus name, amen also not saying that many didn't need to be killed and all). If you are against either bill on its merits, say so, but to argue that Congress should waste taxpayer dollars on sitting around waiting for some imaginary time that will never come about is just foolishness. As Bobby Kennedy said: If not now, when, if not us, who? Has now become Hey, not now and not us. And being that no matter what we do our position will be weaker after the midterms it comes out to Not now, not us, never. Grow some Goddamn balls, go for it now. If you fail, fail in the attempt to do what is right and necessary. Please, no one listen to this call to surrender by Mr. Galston who seems to think I have any desire to vote for a Democrat who only wants to act as a placeholder waiting for a time that will never occur.
- blackton
April 28, 2010 at 11:18am
By the way, shouldn't some look into the possibility that Mr. Galston's email account was hacked into by Karl Rove and that this is all some Rovein trick? After all, TNR has been fooled before. Betsy McCaughey, cough cough, Stephen Glass, cough cough, Sprezzatura, cough cough. What other explanation can there be for advocating Democrats do nothing except to help Republican prospects long term.
- blackton
April 28, 2010 at 11:25am
blackton. I think we're in general agreement. Pastor: At 10% unemployment, I think Keynesian economists (Krugman, Johnson, DeLong) all say that the loss of revenue due to high unemployment is greater than the cost of a quick, large, direct-jobs-funded stimulus--- that also stimulates the base to vote. It's a win/win if you have the political will --- like break the filibuster now. The Repubs will surely do as soon as soon as they gain the votes to do so -- and the probability of that occurring is enhanced by Dem inaction or inadequate action.
- drofnats1
April 28, 2010 at 11:56am
Blackton, I thought Rabbi Hillel said "If not now, when, etc." some time before Bobby Kennedy.
- wildboy
April 28, 2010 at 12:02pm
ok, wildboy, I guess I stand corrected (if you are indeed correct, I can't be bothered to check), I am just a little more familiar with Bobby is all.
- blackton
April 28, 2010 at 12:53pm
Tell it Brother Blackton! Tell it like it is! I like it. I can see you giving your speech right now ala Mary Gross and her commentaries on SNL Weekend Update many, many moons ago (yes, I am showing my age).
- tnmats
April 28, 2010 at 3:53pm
Are we doing sports commentary? If so, isn't it the team that's ahead that tries to play out the clock? But we shouldn't be doing sports commentary. We pay congresspeople and senators to do the publc's business. Inaction on immigration reform is fomenting an very ugly mood on the border. And global warming puts the planet at unacceptable risk. I root for Democratic party success as much as anybody, but only because I want real problems solved in a realistic, humane way.
- gurwia
April 30, 2010 at 4:02pm