The public was in a bad mood this last election. They were hurting and wanted to lash out at anyone in power. In some cases, I think they simply made some bad choices. But their message seemed a clear adaptation of Clinton's famous mantra: “It's the jobs, stupid.”
The Democrats seemed to miss this message. They had many accomplishments, and arguably jobs were among them. The economy had been hemorrhaging jobs under Bush, and Obama's administration stopped the bleeding. Yet they didn't manage to frame that message coherently to voters, who compared the number of jobs to how many jobs they wanted rather than how many jobs could have been lost. In the end, the Republicans controlled the narrative and the game was lost.
In thinking through it all, I keep wondering if the urge to “throw the bums out” and “get us some new faces” could have been sated by running a new Democrat in place of an old one, rather than having the only option for a new face be a Republican.
I wonder what would have happened if in situations where Democrats in at risk in a weak districts had simply stepped down in a spirit of personal sacrifice for a greater good. Rather than selfishly fighting for their political lives, what if they had taken some of the heat personally upon themselves, drawing fire upon themselves in order to create room for a new entrant from the same party?
I think voters are craving a bit of personal responsibility among our leaders. And the public dialog ends up being on the failure of the party because the leaders draw together so tightly in a pack that they can't be distinguished as individuals. They vote as individuals, yet shirk individual responsibility.
Politicians don't want to see themselves as being to blame, of course, but The Public really did want them to see that. If the weaker candidates had noticed this in a timely way, they could have avoided the need for self-indulgently fighting a losing battle and allowed another from their same party to run in their stead. To shift the metaphor, they could have taken one for the team. I wonder if it could have made a difference.
Going forward, I actually think Obama should strongly consider this.
I know he's already talking about becoming Obama 2.0, and totally changing his game, but here's how it looks to me:
The Republicans have mobilized a lot of anger and are much better at shaping anger than the Democrats. Obama rode in on a wave of hope, but the tricky thing about hope is that if not fulfilled, it's easily turned to dismay, and the Republicans are poised to pick that up.
It's said that the economy may come back, and that if it does that will favor Obama. Maybe. But mark my words, if it does, the Republicans will still claim any success as being because they took the House. They will say that people with any sense need to continue their policies. It won't matter that their only real policy in this term is to make it hard for Obama to succeed. They're bent on holding things back, but the public won't care and the news media won't do its homework, and the Democrats won't respond.
If instead Obama decides to step down, early and decisively, it would allow someone else to run instead. This could put the Republicans off balance. They are counting on being able to run against Obama, but if Obama is not running, they have to run on something else. They can't pitch the “throw the bum out” line because he won't be there. And just as Republicans were able to distance themselves from Bush by blaming things on him, the Democrats may gain some cover by putting some of the slownesses and questionable decisions about the recovery onto Obama. There is a lot more room to maneuver in such a landscape.
It seems to me that what stands in the way of such an action is his ego, the belief that he's the best man for the job. I just am not convinced he is. He's a good man. He's done some good things. But there are other good men and some of the things we need now seem like things he's not up to delivering. He needs to avoid falling victim to the Peter Principle by not insisting on a reelection he's not up to winning.
If he thinks he is up to the challenge in 2012, he needs to demonstrate it earlier rather than later.† Because now is the time to start someone new, not later. If we get close to the election and he's behind in the polls, I'm going to write an “I told you so” blog post. It seems obvious from here that that's a serious risk and if he gets there and is surprised, it will just prove my point.
Politics ought not be about whether any given politician wins. It ought to be about whether the right policies win. The politicians are there to get us the policies. And when there's reasonable reason to suppose they can't, they should think about stepping out of the way. We'll be told that he's earned the right to try, but I hate it when anyone says that of a politician. It is we who have earned the right to be represented. Politicians are our soldiers. But the war is not about them, it's about us.
It's not Obama who needs to win in 2012, it's his constituents.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
†I heard recently that George Soros is sending a similar message. My remarks here were not triggered by that call, but I'm glad to see others voicing this concern independently.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
Rated with hugs
r
His actions saved an entire industry and were mocked by the Republicans. His moves saved millions of jobs. Why aren't the airwaves filled with the incredible news of this turnaround? Where are the voices of support? Why isn't Obama himself out there rubbing their noses in it? The Democrats are like scared little children afraid of the bully on the playground. Nobody likes cowards.
I will not be voting for the big 'O' even if he is the only candidate from the Dems. He crossed so many lines for me now, the top one was cyber security. I can thank him for all the extra now.
Will he step down?? Not a chance in hell as far as I can see, unless scandal comes his way.
Kate, thanks for your kind support.
Don, Democrats riding tanks around has been known to backfire. But I do think you're right on that there's a perception issue that is as real as any other problem he could have.
I don't expect substantial policy initiatives to come out of Congress in the next two years, but Obama could put the regulatory and law enforcement powers of the executive branch to good use by cracking down on fraud and other abuses by moneyed elites and by exercising his considerable rhetorical skills to lead the counterattack in the class war, it's the Have-Mores against the working middle class, the bad guys been winning every battle for three decades, and it's time put those facts squarely out front in the national political conversation
The only time I can recall is when LBJ chose not to run in '68, but I hardly think that decision was made for the good of the party or the country -- particularly since he was replaced by Dick Nixon.
No, Obama needs to stand and fight for what's right and let the political consequences fall where they may. Whether he will or not is another question altogether.
In fact, that's what he promised to do, even stating that if that made hims a one-term President, sobeit. How Trumanesque in word! But in deed? The question -- like a Damoclean Sword -- hangs heavy over his head -- and ours.
"There's a lot of startling news in these polls — from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and Time magazine. But one number that could catch significant attention is this: in the Time poll, 46 percent of Republicans said they believe Obama is a Muslim. In the Pew survey, that number came in somewhat lower: 31 percent.
The Time GOP number isn't posted on the Web, as best I can tell, but a spokeswoman for the magazine shared the breakdown of the data at my request.
There are a couple of possible explanations for the Time poll finding that belief to be more prevalent, both in the public at large and the GOP. First, the Time survey was done Monday and Tuesday, at the height of the controversy over the mosque near ground zero in New York. Second, it used different wording from the Pew survey, which gave respondents a smorgasbord of choices for Obama's possible religion. Pew asked:
Now, thinking about Barack Obama’s religious beliefs … Do you happen to know what Barack Obama’s religion is? Is he Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic or something else?
Time asked a question that gave more prominence to the possibility Obama is Muslim, but also may have drawn out more subjective feelings from respondents:
Do you personally believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Christian?
For what it's worth, the Pew sample was substantially larger: 3003 respondents including 842 Republicans. Time had 1002 respondents, talked to 295 Republicans and reduced that number to 272 to reweight the poll.
______
If Obama thinks he can "compromise" with such people, he's not nearly as bright and sophisticated as we've been led to believe. His only chance is to pursue the agenda he promised and hope that enough left-thinking people are un-disheartened (yes, I coined a word) by his audacity to show up at the only polls that count on Nov 2012.
Policies be damned, if any of your readers think the next election (and elections for the foreseeable future) will not be decided strictly by the flood of Citizens United money your kidding yourselves.
1) We need to advocate and work for changes in how elections are done.
2) Without a change to elections, we need to really be considering civil disobediance, although the other thing this brings up is:
3) Some way has to be found to end the concentration of media, including blocking the NBC/Comcast merger. Short of this, #2 above, no matter how large will get no coverage.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0810/Poll_46_of_GOP_thinks_Obamas_Muslim.html
The comments are utterly astounding
As for Obama - he better get tougher because people don't want their leader to be wimpy. The Republicans may be over-playing their had by snubbing his meeting at the White House.
A new face & some fresh paint won't save the Dems - only a turnaround in the economy will and clarity of message can.
You write, “They have to actually show what it is to be Democratic or people will judge them as just being two of the same.”
The same misguided interpretation of what is a Democrat continues to surface in these discussions. Your comment assumes your perception of “what it is to be Democratic” is the only accurate interpretation. But what it is to be Democratic is none other than what the party represents, and what the party represents is what it does while in office. The continued appearance of your interpretation of the Democrat Party calls up the continued appearance of this comment: supporting the status quo reaps the status quo.
How can we argue that the Democrats represent something other than what they do and have done for the past 4 years?
Another interesting point in all of this is that many supporters of Obama and the other congressional Dems supported Obama’s wimpy, compromise-oriented approach early on, even though it was obvious to anyone who was watching and listening that that approach was not going to accomplish ANYTHING. Now, all those people who supported that ridiculous approach on the argument that Obama was being “pragmatic” (I've come to hate that word) recognize the silliness of thinking that capitulation to the enemy is pragmatic in any sense. It might be time to reconsider what it means to be “pragmatic”. I don’t think it means “to capitulate to the enemy”.
As to what Obama et al can do NOW, my view is that it is unlikely anything they do from here on out will significantly help them/us in 2012. You already know what they need to do, or more accurately what they should have done from day 1 back in 2006 when they took over Congress. So, maybe if they start standing for the principles you think they represent, they can start changing public perceptions . But do you think they will do that? Do you see any indication they will?
I think their next great opportunity is in resisting the enemy in the Bush tax cut debate. If they capitulate on that, I think it’s over for them. I think that will likely be their last chance to show any semblance of representing “change”. They should stand firm, not give the Repubs ANYTHING they want on that issue.
They should take the "take no prisoners" approach to dealing the Repubs, which is what they should have done from day 1 in 2006. You can't avoid a war if only one side wants to avoid it unless you are willing to concede victory to your enemy.
You seem to expect me to defend Obama. I don't know why. I don't know what you're talking about when you say my call for him to step down is a defense of the status quo.
The reason I wrote this is that I'm saying it's time for him to give up unless he remakes himself so dramatically that he is not the same man we've seen the next 2 years. I think he is easily capable of that, but has been all along. His rhetorical skills are up to it. He's a compassionate guy. He's in pretty good administrative control of things. I think he just thinks he's in the sweet spot right now, and he's wrong about that.
I basically detect a failure of interest. I suspect he (wrongly) perceives he has been a success for his principles because he (wrongly) perceives people meant to elect someone middle-of-the-road. I think he called himself Purple thinking we would perceive "Centrist" when people thought he was "Progressive" but that he would try to work with people on the other side of the aisle to make progressive things more palatable. Because I think he turns out more conservative than many expected, I doubt he'll move left. But if he wanted to move left, he'd get enormous support. If he makes the mistake of standing still or even moving right, he'll get no support from the people he means to befriend and he'll alienate those who support him.
I think he wants to be senator-in-chief, not president. Senators bargain, presidents lead. I don't think he knows what it is to be president. He's an organizer but not a commander. He thinks he has to bargain, and a leader who thinks he has to bargain wastes too much time. He is shooting at very low goals because he perceives that's all he'll get. They always tell one "aim high" and he's not. Aiming low, he still fails to get everything, but he falls to a much lower place than if he'd aimed high.
I don't choose to defend him. I just wrote a piece saying he should step down. How much more clear can I be about saying I don't expect him to change?
When uou write, “They have to actually show what it is to be Democratic or people will judge them as just being two of the same,” your message doesn't seem consistent with this last comment to me.
The first sentence above is false on its face because you argue that Obama et al should show what it is to be Democratic. Your statement clearly infers that you believe they are something other than what they are. What DOES it mean to be Democratic? Perhaps if you explain to me what you mean by this statement, we can move past this particular point of confusion. My view is that what we see from the Party is what it means to be Democratic.
The second sentence in the above quote is also false on its face. I have expressed repeatedly that the label of Democrat, itself, really has no meaning beyond the actions of those who label themselves Democrat, so for you to suggest that I assume that its a fixed thing flies in the face of everything Ive expressed to you. I have repeatedly referred to the current batch of Dems as opposed to anything permanent or fixed.
But YOU have expressed an idea that Democrats represent something other than what they have been doing. This conclusion on my part regarding what you express is based on statements like they should show what it is to be Democratic -- if this does not infer that you know that what it is to be a Democrat is something other than what they are or what they do, then I have completely misread your statement and we both would benefit by your explanation of what that statement by you actually means. Im hard-pressed to conclude other than you think you know what it is that Democrats represent other than what their actions currently indicate.
To further illustrate this point that you are assigning a fixed definition to Party, I would present to you your own argument regarding the GOP being hijacked:
Rand Paul and Sharon Angle and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich. Those people have hijacked the party and made it be something different
Has the Democrat Party been hijacked, too? I would not use the word hijacked, as you have done, because it indicates a fixed commodity being taken hostage. No, I would state, as I have done specifically in our other communication, that this is what the Democrat Party has become, which indicates what it is to be Democratic today.
You write, my point is that every day is a new day and all it takes for the Democratic party to be otherwise is for the leader of the party to say otherwise.
I dont believe that one member of the Party can change what it is. One great historical example of this is found in T. Roosevelt. While he self-indentified as a Republican, his views and policies did not, for the most part, represent the Republican Party, and the Party made sure that he went down next time around. I dont see a difference in what Obama advocates and what the Dems support. Yet, it is the leader (Obama) whom you blame for the Partys current stature.
Interestingly, the Party was already what it is BEFORE Obama became president. There have been clear indications of this. The FISA vote was an indicator of Party perspective. It was Pelosi who announced Party perspective that holding the Bush regime accountable for their crimes was off the table. Was that what the majority of self-indentifying Dems wanted? I dont think it was. Was that Obamas doing? I dont think it was. Of course, thats not to say that Obama is not responsible for much of the problem. As you well know, I have said all along that he is equally part of the problem. But this brings us around to the very point I make; its that these people ARE showing what it is to be Democratic NOW, today, at this juncture. This is precisely the problem.
You write, I keep hearing that Pelosi is very progressive, but I don't see the effect on policy--the motion has mostly been rightward, and that's Obama.
So, the assertion is that Obama is responsible for what it is to be Democratic NOW, today, at this juncture? But the Party was already this BEFORE he became president. So, I dont think that assertion holds up.
Next, you write, I don't know what you're talking about when you say my call for him to step down is a defense of the status quo.
Ive never said that. I have not addressed your call for him to step down at all. I cant tell if this is a dishonest attempt on your part to distort what I HAVE said or a failure on your part to assimilate what I have actually said; if there is some other interpretation than those two, please, clarify from me.
My reference to the status quo is a statement of the view that supporting the Party is supporting the status quo. It seems especially clear that your suggestion that Obama step down (by itself) would not fall into that reference. But the idea that his stepping down would somehow transform the Party into something worthy of support suggests an adherence to the status quo of support for the Dem Party. Its not your suggestion that Obama step down that suggests support of the status quo, but rather your continued support of the Dem Party.
However, since you brought it up, let me now address more directly your call for Obama to step down: I think its an empty call. Do you think replacing Obama with another Party faithful would change things as they currently stand? If you do, I do not share that view and I think evidence supports my view. The problems currently facing us run deeper than one member of the Dem Party; those problems run deeper than EITHER Party.
Next you talk about Obama thinking that people elected him because he was Centrist. I find that a strange assertion considering that Obamas entire campaign was not focused on Centrist, but rather on CHANGE. You cant interpret change as centrist --- it simply wont work. But if you would like to try to interpret centrism as equvalent to change, I look forward to that effort.
Finally, in my view, the best thing you have said here is that you think he wants to be senator-in-chief I think thats a great description of what his actions indicate. But you assert that if Obama steps down, it would correct the problems with the Dems. This indicates that you think the Dems represent something other than what their actions indicate. I do not see that your assessment is supported by the evidence. If the problem is Obama, why has he not met with resistance from other Party members? I might pose this question; since Obama has NOT met with resistance from the Party, could it be that Obama is less the problem than the Party itself?
You say the label Democrat has no meaning. I have said essentially the same thing. You seem to want to read something different into what I've written than what I intend, but what I'm asking is that he give the word some meaning—I don't know what meaning, but some meaning. If he doesn't, he is not leading. If he does, it's got to be done by setting itself apart from what the Republicans would want, not by merely becoming what the Republicans want. If he wants to do that, he should just call up McCain and say “turns out they wanted you after all.”
If one wants to wonder why they're not rising up more angrily, I think it's more that Obama's presidency has been so busy that he's lost in the minutiae. It's something for everyone at some level, and nothing at all at another. The health care thing was a big thing but so incrementally morphed over so long that it became something else at a pace that was too slow to see. Yet the people involved feel responsible and are forced by cognitive dissonance to support it. Better than nothing? Sure. But a far cry from their mandate. And on the myriad other things he's done, it's just so much energy dissipated on so many things that it's hard for anyone to step back and say "This needs redirection" because there are too many reasons to have doubts.
I don't see anything sinister there, but I see a lack of focus that leads to no perceivable message. Fewer things done would probably have a clearer message, ironically. One must manage the message or the opposing party will be in.
But as to fault, it's Obama's. It's traditional for the party to support the sitting President so I don't expect they'll do otherwise. But I think that tradition is going to turn out to be counterproductive.
Thanks for following up on this. I did not expect that you would, actually.
As for reading things into what you wrote, that was not an intentional act, but a result of something written in such a manner that it could have different interpretations. So, your clarification on that is helpful for me. And while I’m on this point, your assertion that my comment regarding this remark is “not meaningful” is still wrong because I still think you may be overlooking something, so let me pose this as a question. You suggest that Obama should “show what it IS to be Democratic”, but you don’t seem to consider that perhaps that is exactly what he thinks he is doing through his actions.
You do indicate that you think Obama’s idea of change may have been to move to the center, “Purple”, instead of red or blue, and that would seem to be what he has been attempting, so would that not indicate that he might actually think he IS showing what it is to be Democratic or that he IS giving the word some meaning? I see that as exactly what he and the Party leaders have been doing for years, now, by voting to protect wrongdoers and criminals in things like the FISA vote, the refusal to investigate Bush’s criminal regime and hold them accountable, their failure to stop the Bush regime’s approach to dealing with terrorism, their failure to protect whistleblowers and instead prosecuting them even more vigorously than even Bush did, etc --- that list is much longer but I don’t think I need to keep going.
The healthcare debate is another high-profile indicator of my point and it did not change gradually as you suggest, either. Before that even got started, Obama and the Dems signaled capitulation to the corporate entities that own them. There were a few Dem voices that tried to make a stand for single-payer, but they were shouted down by the Party leaders and I’m hard-pressed to see that as anything other than what the Dems are, and Obama et al are showing that this is what it IS to be Democratic.
You suggest that the Dems are looking to be led. Because you do not specify which Dems (public or congressional) I’ll assume you refer to congressional Dems. They should not be looking to be led; they are elected to lead, not to be led. Each of the three governmental bodies is supposed to act independently of each other as a system of checks and balances, so if the congressional Dems did not agree with Obama’s capitulations, all they needed to do was stand for something better. I can’t say with certainty that Obama would sign into law something better if they passed it, but I bet he would. But Dems did not do that; they caved before they had to, willingly giving away the house.
You write, “…what I'm asking is that he give the word some meaning—I don't know what meaning, but some meaning.”
So, here’s my problem. The only way he, or anyone, can give the word some meaning is through their actions. Their words won’t do it if their actions are inconsistent with their words, so actions are the way to give the word some meaning. With that in mind, I say that they ARE showing what it IS to be Democratic. The problem is not that they are not showing us; the problem is that you and I don’t LIKE what they are showing us.
Here is what I think is the most important underlying question in all of this: “Why is THIS what they are showing us?” WHY?
Sure, it might. But I was asserting that unless he shows a vision other than this, it won't be greeted by anyone as a good thing. Republicans will reject it because they are the Party of Rejecting All Things Democratic and the Democrats will reject it as not being distinguishable from what Republicans do. Obama will be lonely if that is what he thinks is Democratic.
Yeah, well, people have been saying this for two years, and I haven't seen any response, so ...
But the thing is, it has not just been Obama, but the other congressional Dem leaders who have failed to see this. It's a Party thing, not one individual.
You ask, “What is a President if not the person people look to in order to set the agenda …”
I don’t disagree that Obama shares blame. You should recall my distrust of Obama’s agenda starting BEFORE he was elected; back when you disagreed with my assessment and defended his actions as being “pragmatic”.
You write, “Senators and Reps could have been elected to lead, but that's a misimpression among voters if so …”
Senators and representatives in the House of Representatives are elected to represent the will of the people who elected them, in which case, their role is something like a messenger to the president (the leader) delivering to him the will of the people that elected them AND him. If all three branches of government are controlled by the same Party, one would logically conclude that there would be consensus about what should occur. Yet, that is not what we have seen. And if they are not elected to lead in this capacity, why do they have the power to override the president’s veto? They have that power because they are, in fact, elected to lead. All three branches are, at least theoretically, elected to LEAD. The problem we face today, in my view, is that the entire process --- the system --- is so corrupt, so distorted, so dysfunctional, that it no longer functions in that capacity.
“…but really only people like Reid and Pelosi are even able to lead …”
These are two of the main culprits in the corruption, distortion and dysfunction to which I refer. They started their complicity in the selling out of America even BEFORE Obama was actually elected. What has happened since his election is merely a continuation of what they were already doing. But other congressional representatives can lead if they are not concerning themselves with campaign contributors, the corporate-controlled media, and Party leaders who control so much of their electability by controlling the Party itself. I guess this all depends on how you perceive the system is supposed to function. Regarding those who lead, are they supposed to lead by representing the will of those that elect them, or not? If they are not, why do we bother electing them at all?
Unfortunately, those who have attempted to do so have been suppressed by the Party leaders and their faithful. This is why I think the Dems, and more importantly, the two-party system, are both failures and not worthy of support.
You have stated that you want to know what we think Obama can do to change all of this. He can’t do anything. The public has to stop electing these people based on their affiliation with one or the other Party. As long as we continue to support the status quo, we will reap the status quo. The only way I see of making that happen is to change the system, otherwise, well, nothing really changes. There are too many players more powerful than you and me (the average voter) that have control of the current system.
I really don't think it's productive to describe these people this way. At that point, there is no reason to talk about it at all. If that's what you believe, I have nothing more to say. That's not me defending them, it's saying that if you really honestly believe that the problem is that the leadership has literally sold out, then there's nothing to be done. I work always on the assumption that there's something to be done and if you want to discuss it on that level, feel free. But for now I am finished.