Dem predicament in Massachusetts about failure to change economic conditions, not ideological angst

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 17:29


Inevitably, the result of tomorrow's Massachusetts epical election will result in calls from numerous pundits that Democrats have governed too far to the left, and now need to move to the right.  This will be the case whether Brown or Coakley wins, since even in the (increasingly unlikely) event of a Coakley win she will have had a difficult time in a famously blue state.

At the same time, many within the progressive blogosphere will claim that a more populist, progressive campaign from Coakley or leadership from national Democrats would have resulted in more favorable political conditions.

I am here to say that both claims are just crap, at least when they are about ideological positioning in and of themselves.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Dem predicament in Massachusetts about failure to change economic conditions, not ideological angst
If you think the political situation for Democrats would have been better if they had different messaging or passed different legislation, consider a simple hypothetical:

  • Over the past year, instead of saying and doing what they did, Democrats in D.C. and President Obama passed exactly the legislation, and engaged in exactly the sort of messaging, you suggest..

  • Despite doing this, current economic conditions are exactly the same as they are today.
In this hypothetical, if you think the political situation would be any different for Democrats than it is currently, then you are deluding yourself.

The political environment isn't difficult for Democrats right now because the country is opposed to what Democrats are doing in some sort of abstract, ideological and rhetorical sense.  The political situation is difficult because the economy sucks.  Period.

To reinforce this point, try and list the times when the economy was in a downturn, but approval of the governing party was in an upswing.  Outside of post-election honeymoons and the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, you simply are not going to find any examples.  At all.

If you want to argue that a different set of policies would have resulted in different economic conditions, and thus taking that alternate path would have been a better move for the governing party, then you might have a point.  If your policies would have resulted in better economic conditions, then that would have been a smarter move for Democrats to take, and would have resulted in a better political environment.

However, if you think that the political environment is negative for Democrats because the country opposes, on an abstract level, what Democrats have done, then you really need to pull your head out of the beltway's butt.  This is about delivering results, not about being in tune with abstract ideological positioning.

Personally, I believe that a more robustly progressive set of public laws would have resulted in better economic conditions, and thus a better political environment for Democrats.  I do not believe that rank and file Democrats appear likely to sit on their hands because they find minute legislative details and daily Democratic talking points to be insufficiently progressive.  The latter is a truly deluded belief, and should be opposed just as vigorously as arguments that the Massachusetts special election shows Democrats should move to the right.  What Democrats need to do is govern in a way that will improve people's lives, and the current political environment indicates that the country does to believe they are doing that.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Dem predicament in Massachusetts about failure to change economic conditions, not ideological angst | 47 comments
Mostly agree, with one caveat ... (4.00 / 6)
Democratic leadership, from the President on down, that was willing to explain to people the obstacles to getting done what they expect government to do, could have and still can help. In the absence of efforts to communicate obstacles, our "leaders" give the impression of not wanting to do the job we elected them to do. May or may not be true. Doesn't really matter.

Of course most people aren't niggling over legislative details -- or phony controversies like what Harry Reid may have said about Obama. Of course folks just want things fixed. Perversely, they are expressing a need for and confidence in government action by being pissed off.

Can it happen here?

Ideology = Economic Conditions (4.00 / 21)
We've given 12.2 trillion dollars to Wall St and 1.3 trillion dollars to Main St.  I suggest to you that if we had followed an ideology which reversed that ratio that economic conditions would have been significantly different.  Plus, we would have stepped onto the FDR populist stage from day one and been hammering a message that made villains of Wall St, and crushed the Republican Reagan economic voodoo that got us into the mess.
This is true, except... (4.00 / 1)
Slightly harder to square when we just won the NY-23 special election in a, theoretically, much tougher electorate.

It's true that most people aren't looking at every little legislative detail and deciding that they don't like one thing or another and will therefore vote opposite what their normal ideological beliefs are.  Certainly, the overriding factor for people right now is the economy... it sucks, and people want to vote out the people in charge right now.

I suppose this is the only way to explain the NY-23 results, as a Republican was in power before.  Maybe this is the only silver lining here, as people just want to vote out whoever's in power... I just wish that they weren't doing it with Ted Kennedy's former seat.

Big difference (4.00 / 9)
The Lieberman-Nelson deal in December seems to have delivered a HUGE blow to Democratic fortunes. It angered the base and convinced the independents that health care reform was designed to screw them.

The levels of Obama FAIL that we're seeing here are just staggering. I am getting more and more angry at the White House as I consider the implications.

[ Parent ]
See Chris' post... not about ideology. (4.00 / 1)
And from more recent polling, this doesn't seem to be a "base" problem.  I don't think independents have been sitting around seething about the Lieberman capitulation and waiting for a chance to punish Dems by voting in a conservative who will make getting their more supposedly more "progressive" ideals that much harder to implement.
[ Parent ]
Part of the problem... (4.00 / 10)

 ...has been the Democrats' abject failure to discredit conservatism as a working philosophy, despite the Bush fiasco having given them a huge opening to do so.

  The word "conservative" should be an epithet today. If the Democrats had done the proper messaging, it would be. And Scott Brown wouldn't have a chance.

  But, as always, they pulled the boot off the snake's head and let him slither away. Now the Democrats own this economy -- because they tumble straight into right-wing frames every chance.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
That's hard to do (0.00 / 0)
When a significant fraction of Democratic voters self-identify as conservative.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Fine, use another word (4.00 / 11)

 "Reactionary". "Right-wing". "Republican". Whatever works.

 The entire conservative worldview should have been put to death by the performance of that ideology, unfettered, in the first decade of this century.

 The Democrats should have gone out, en masse, and said, "See? This is what happens when you recklessly deregulate everything. It's like a football game without referees. There's a REASON we have a government." And then built from that.

 But no. In the face of the biggest failure of conservative policy since the Great Depression, the Democrats never attacked the core of the ideology, and offered only timid, token alternatives.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
When you regulate everything, you end up like soviet russia or venezuela. Theres no point attacking the extremes. You can't kill conservatism, just like how the fall of the soviet union hasn't killed the idea of "government run __". Its a balance. Conservatism comes in many forms. For example, I guarantee you, most of the country will support the notion of fiscal conservatism.
[ Parent ]
Actually, you CAN "kill" conservatism (4.00 / 5)
and we know because it's been done before.  The New Deal era effectively killed conservatism as a "respectable" ideology to hold.  "Conservative" became as much a dirty word as "liberal" is now.  That's why Barry Goldwater had to go and write a book called The Conscience of a Conservative (one of the best-written political books ever, IMO), where he basically apologizes on behalf of conservatives and says, "hey, we conservatives are decent people too!"

The reason why liberals were able to marginalize conservatives then, and conservatives are able to marginalize liberals now, is because they seize the ideological high ground and they're not afraid of declaring and explaining their beliefs.  Ideological attitudes can, have, and will change.

[ Parent ]
Read my comment (0.00 / 0)
I said nothing about "ideology" and mentioned "independents."

Conversations are more useful when people actually read what was written.

[ Parent ]
I think independents soured on Obama before December (0.00 / 0)
And were convinced that Obama is just another mainstream liberal Democrat who is no different from most other Democratic politicians.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
NY-23 was also crazy (4.00 / 4)
The Republican candidate dropped out and endorsed the Democrat, right after almost every national Republican had endorsed the conservative.

That was a weird election. Probably best not to use as a measure of anything.

[ Parent ]
The stimulus was too small, the bailouts were too big, (4.00 / 6)
unemployment is way too high and HC reform enshrines and enforces the wrong way corporations & is way too weak to be called reform.

Yes, you are right: populist messaging could not have done more, but strong policies strongly advocated by the White House could have paved the way for better results.

What we have now are demoralized Democratic voters and a cadre of motivated Republican, right wing, & tea bag extremists inspiring independents to vote against the incumbent Democratic party.

The political calculus has been all wrong, from Geithner, Summers, Emanuel and all through the ranks. The problem is that Democrats were afraid of driving the militias absolutely nuts.

But Dems forgot: they drive themselves nuts anyway!

They only call it class war when we fight back.

What if (0.00 / 0)
We had leftist militias that Democrats are also afraid of driving absolutely nuts?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
It seems like it is just a matter of a poorly run campaign (4.00 / 3)
15 days ago Coakley was up by about 15 points.

Now she is down by 5 or so.

This can't be explained by anything that was true more than 15 days ago.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

You're right, Chris, but... (4.00 / 8)

 ....good luck getting the DC Democrats to interpret this result as anything but "we need to be more like the Republicans".

  It'll work every bit as well as it worked in 2002 and 2004, but the DC Dems don't do history.

  Me, I just believe that if Obama hadn't wasted time playing to the Broder crowd with his "bipartisanship" overtures and instead had leveraged his early political capital to get the kind of stimulus Krugman and Stiglitz were calling for at the time, the economy would be in better enough shape today that Brown wouldn't be an issue.

  And the coddling of Wall Street by the Obama administration has pretty much destroyed his credibility as an advocate for the middle class. His claims that Brown wants to "park his truck on Wall Street" are true, but ring especially empty and hollow on the heels of his record.

  What a colossal waste.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

eh (0.00 / 0)
I've yet to see bristles of the "Democrats need to be more like Republicans" meme take hold.

the economy sucks, change isn't coming to America, Democrats are ineffective, change needs to happen, and the economy sucks are the big obstacles for Democrats moving forward.  

[ Parent ]
Maybe Democrats just need another 9/11 (0.00 / 0)
Hey, it worked for the Republicans.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Gross (4.00 / 1)


Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/
[ Parent ]
The Obama admin (4.00 / 2)
chock full of former and (no doubt) future banksters gambled that a stimulus on the lower end of estimates would be sufficient.

It wasn't.

And now, even if Coakley pulls out a win, the vaunted "60 seat Supermajority" will be even more spineless in the face of the GOP Media Complex flak that would be put up by a new stimulus since they would be completely spooked by the near miss (not to mention the issues with finally getting HCR, which was already hard enough).

A Coakley loss means nothing happens in the senate before November, when the GOP will then turn around and run on a "Do Nothing Congress".

Seems to me the cost of going too big when they had the chance pales in comparison to the cost for the failure we are now experiencing.  We can know a proper lesson was learned by this if bankster heads roll in the admin, but the lesson that will probably be taken away from this is that Dems really shouldn't have instituted those grandma death panels.

Change - The GOP has won the narrative (4.00 / 9)
Yes, the economy sucks and high unemployment makes a bad environment for the incumbent party. But that's not enough to explain what's happening in Massachusetts.

The Dems and Obama ran on "Change." After one year, on virtually every issue Obama has governed as an establishment insider. Obama and the Dems have no record of quantifiable, easily understandable 'change' accomplishments to present or offer voters. The Democratic base and persuadable independents don't see any deliverables. There's nothing to ratify or support in a referendum on Democratic governance.

Meanwhile, the GOP has successfully hyped every Obama action as dangerous change. Looking back at every wild charge made against almost any Obama action/policy and at its core is a redefining of 'change' into a negative, bad thing for the country. Their base is whipped up into a frenzy and independents, seeing no positive deliverables to counter the narrative, are being swept up into the hype.

What we're seeing is a referendum on Obama and change, not on ideology or purity of agenda.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

Well, sort of. (4.00 / 11)

 Americans voted overwhelmingly for "change" just fourteen short months ago. Americans still want "change". It just that, like you said, Obama hasn't delivered any of it, so he left the field wide open for the Republicans to trample upon. And they have.

 More broadly, what does the Democratic Party stand for? Historically, they've stood for the little guy -- that's the essence of the party's brand. But they've spent the last year frittering away that very brand, most notably with their complete failure to get tough with the banking industry.

 And a Democratic Party that doesn't stand for the little guy is a Democratic Party that has no purpose for existence.

 Voters have noticed.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
They have spent 30 years frittering away that brand. 40 maybe (4.00 / 5)

[ Parent ]
60 (0.00 / 0)
Truman was the last to really understand, position and have the party act as voice for the "little guy." Johnson briefly revived a social purpose for the Federal government until he had his Texas manhood challenged in South Asia. Since then, it's all been reactive positioning -- hippie bashing, DLC/Third Way triangulation -- to soothe the Village and financial establishment.

Let's be clear -- this is Obama's positioning too. They're betting that with the opposition becoming a Bircher, pitch-fork wielding mob, the Village/Financial establishment will stay with him. Because that's what matters to establishment Democrats.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Yeah I'm waiting for a real liberal to be President again (0.00 / 0)
Will we ever have another FDR/Truman/LBJ as President?
[ Parent ]
If Coakley wins (4.00 / 2)
The resulting narrative may be that Obama coming into town was the key difference and that it would be crazy for any Democrat to run away from Obama, especially from the left.  

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
And what does that say if she loses? n/t (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
The narrative will probably be (4.00 / 1)
Either that the Democrats are so hopeless that even Obama can't save them or that Obama is so hopeless as a leader that you should bet on another Great Depression and another 9/11 during the rest of his term.  (Well maybe not quite that dire.)  Either way, the media narrative will still consider Obama to be a mainstream liberal Democrat.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
The only crap is this blog (4.00 / 3)
And I'm guessing, just the like the crap, you pulled this blog outta your kiester.  Where's the beef Chris?  You have any polling to back this up?  The bottom line is that Obama and his corporate lacky friends are working for big business and the people are tired of it.   Mass.  is 3/4 Democrats.  You think they are supporting Brown because they like him?   The bottom line is that people like the real thing.   If a president and congress are going to act like Republicans, then the people will vote for Republicans.  When you can show polling data that true progressives actively supported Coakley, then I'll believe you.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
Shitty policies have consequences..... (4.00 / 2)
.....I'm not sure I totally agree with the supposition that a general lack of economic improvements are the reason for blame for Democratic electoral misfortunes. The main problem I have seen in many polls regarding this election is an "ENTHUSIASM GAP". I don't think the bad economy adequately explains the fact that Coakley had a 10-15 point lead just three weeks ago. The Obama Administration has been largely marked by a continuation of Bush's policies in foreign affairs, bailouts for Wall Street, an ultra-disappointing healthcare "reform" that is largely a subsidy for the insurance industry, and numerous backtracks and outright betrayals. With a party that has significant majorities in both houses (larger than Bush had for his horrific policies), and given the fact that our problems as a nation are dire, MANY people expected more than what we've gotten so far.
Chris, I think you understate the importance of ideology (4.00 / 4)
While I agree that the economy is the most important determinative factor, you can't just dismiss ideological concerns as bull.

The unfortunate thing is, ideology doesn't readily change with economic conditions the way approval of those in government might.  If and when this economy improves, those who hate government now will probably still hate government then.  If you don't believe me, look at how the booming economy of the 1990s did nothing to stem conservative anti-government attitude; if anything, conservatives ended up profiting from the bettering economy, giving credit to private corporations rather than government and electing George W. Bush as President.

This means that ideology is an underlying factor that is more determinative than you might think.  Conservatives loudly declare that government sucks and is the reason that our economy's in the crapper (despite the opposite being true).  Liberals respond with deafening silence - seriously, when in the last ten years have we on the Left ever had pro-government/anti-corporate counter-Tea Parties?  Swing voters, who don't have really any ideological bearings and believe whatever they hear the most of, listen to the conservatives (since there's no counterfire from the Left) and join them in hating government and voting against Democrats.

Yes, of course incumbents are in danger when the economy is bad.  But there's nothing saying that incumbents can only be defeated and replaced by those to their right.  If anything, the bad economy could have been (and could still be) an opportunity to replace mainstream Democrats with real liberals.

But because liberals have basically abandoned the ideological battleground and the debate over the role of government (look how many "sensible" liberals shy away from or dismiss that question) conservatives get swing voters' ears all to themselves.  How else can we explain how the same type of people who were responsible for this economic disaster are now favored to be put back in power to do it all over again, just a year and two months after having their asses kicked?

Consider yourself invited (4.00 / 2)
seriously, when in the last ten years have we on the Left ever had pro-government/anti-corporate counter-Tea Parties?

We have those parties everytime the WTO, or the G20, or the Democratic or Republican parties have a convention.  Sure we aren't liberals in any reconizable sense, but we are the Left.  Now admittedly we are a small, non-representative, undisciplined, unorganized group of people united only by shared enemies, and so are relatively politically impotent.  But the same is true of the Teabaggers.  The difference is that when a couple of thousand socialists, anarchists, environmentalists and other assorted activists get together to protest corporate power and US imperialism the media either politely ignores us or calls us a 'student demonstration' or a 'riot'.  When a couple of thousand racists, homophobes and economic illiterates get together they get lots of attention and get called things like 'a nascent political movement' or 'a microcosm of American political discontent'.

[ Parent ]
Bah (0.00 / 0)
If you actually rioted, maybe the media would pay attention to you.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I know that liberals do have get-togethers (4.00 / 1)
What I was getting at is that (correct me if I'm wrong) 1.) It's not noticed 2.) It's not coherently and overtly pro-government.

Conservatives have no problem of getting their "government sucks!" message across.  Liberals seem to have a hard time even agreeing on a message - all too often we let our own love for nuance and complexity get in the way.  If only I had a nickel for every time I said we need to explicitly say that government can and should do more, only to be interrupted by another liberal who says, "Well government shouldn't get more involved in everything!"  Yes, yes, I know, and anti-government conservatives aren't total anarchists themselves either.  But that's completely missing the point - I'm not brainstorming for a political science dissertation here; I'm trying to find a concise distilled explanation for what liberals stand for that can stick in the minds of Average Joe Swing Voter.  And the bottom line is that liberals, however much they want to deny it, tend to be ideologically and rhetorically receptive to government action, whereas the libertarian Tea Baggers are arguing that government does best for the little guy/gal when it gets out of the way.

Now if a simple "we need big government!" message is actually being championed at these liberal parties, then that's great, we just need more media exposure.  But I highly doubt it's anything so coherent.  The Left seems to be infected with all kinds of nutty conspiracy theorists and fanatics with their own pet issues.  Not that the Right isn't also, but with them their many streams of sundry complaints at least all flow, like so many tributaries, into the great river of Less Government Conservatism.  Liberals never seem to be able to counter with their own pro-government river of thought - partly because we distractingly nag ourselves that no, we don't want Big Brother to police our sex lives!, and partly because even we've bought into the conservative idea that government is always bad, and we're too scared to think or say otherwise.

As for media exposure, I don't buy the idea that the media doesn't cover liberals because the media is conservative.  If there's money to be made, the media can't afford to ignore us.  The better explanation is that liberals aren't making a difference.  And until we do, the only ideas in the ideological arena will be conservative ones.  We can't blame the media for not covering something that isn't there.

[ Parent ]
"if money is to be made" (4.00 / 2)
You are ignoring the millions lost every year by conservative (corporate) media. The corporate world sees midia, especially news, the same as advertizing- just a cost of doing business. Useing programing and lies to brainwash the public to support positions counter to their best interests, but favorable to business exploitation.

As example, remember the excellent coverage of the largest protests ever conducted in history, and worldwide? The ones against the Iraq invasion?......niether does anyone else in the U.S.

Agree that dems could do a much better job of messaging, if they wanted to. Just don't believe they want to. Interferance with "third way" triangulation against the public to curry favor with big doners is the obvious reason for this.

Elected dems know what the voters want, but can't deliver and still be in the elite moneyed class' good graces.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
Liberalism and the Left (0.00 / 0)
I think that as a matter of historical fact this:

And the bottom line is that liberals, however much they want to deny it, tend to be ideologically and rhetorically receptive to government action

is simply untrue.  There is some trickiness here because it is hard to say where the history of liberalism starts, because the word 'liberal' is used in such a peculiar way in American political discourse.  But if you are tracing liberalism all the way back to Locke and other such people, liberalism is certainly not committed to being receptive to government action.  In more recent history many have been, but I don't think this is a trend to be celebrated.  

Liberalism is at heart a position about the importance of individual freedom.  Contemporary American liberals focus a great deal on the material means necessary to enjoy certain basic freedoms, and this is the explanation of their commitment to robust government involvement in commercial activities.  FDR for example defended robust government aid to the poor as a defense of their freedom.  This all seems fine.  The question is whether governments, specifically federal governments like the kind we have, are the most reliable ways to secure the material means necessary to enjoy robust individual freedom.  

And it has become pretty clear that it is not.  Centralized governmental institutions are way to easy for corporate elites to effectively take over.  Regulatory agencies are captured by the businesses they regulate.  Congressmen are bought and sold.  When these governmental institutions work it is only because of well organized, well funded and active grassroots organizations backing the governmental institutions up.  For instance, Republicans don't have to gut OCEA to allow corporations to save money by making the workplace less safe.  They can leave the law just as it is if they manage the break the unions, because no one else will force the government to enforce the laws.  And if the unions are strong, workplace safety can survive a temporary loss of legal protection.  The unions just go on strike.

What I think everyone can appreciate is that if all you have is a federal agency set up to handle a problem, or a law on the books demanding certain behavior from corporate elites, then you don't have much at all.  Governments only work for the people when the people have non-governmental organizations that they can turn to in order to make sure the government does what it is obligated to, because the government is under constant pressure from corporate elites to stop protecting the people as a whole.

What is a bit more contentious is that organizing oneself politically around winning elections, or getting a particular bill passed is not conducive to developing and maintaining the kinds of grassroots organizations that are necessary for the government to actually work well.  In other words, if your focus is on governmental action, government isn't going to work well.  You need institutions that on their own provide a counterbalance to the power of corporate elites, and if you are constantly pumping your money and time into getting people elected you aren't building those institutions the way you could.  This is a lesson lots of people draw from the history of the AFL-CIO.

So to actually get the things that contemporary liberals want, your rallying cry shouldn't be 'government is great'.

Another point to make here is that there is no sense, at all, in which liberalism is anti-corporate.  As a matter of historical fact this is just obvious.  Liberal economic policy in the 40's, 50's and 60's consisted of establishing regulatory frameworks friendly to large near monopolistic corporations.  (See James Gailbraith's book 'Predator State' for a decent chapter on this).  

I think you are confusing liberalism with 'the Left'.  It is true that the left in this country is  both anti-corporate and committed to effecting change by using state institutions.  But these two features of the left have a distinct intellectual and social heritage.  Not only are they distinct, they are hostile to one another.  The anti-corporate element is a descendant of the labor movement and socialism, while the pro-government side is a descendant of a particular kind of liberalism.

I have given a way too brief argument that the pro-government stuff should be abandoned or at least toned down.  I don't expect you to be convinced by it.  It is nothing but the sketch of an argument.  It isn't even my argument.

This is a long way of saying that your invitation is now revoked, because I don't think we are on the same side anymore.

[ Parent ]
that last line was a joke (0.00 / 0)
just to be clear
[ Parent ]
Eh, it's alright, I got better things to do anyway ; ) (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I was equating liberalism with the Left, because for better or worse many Americans do so.

Liberalism is at heart a position about the importance of individual freedom.  Contemporary American liberals focus a great deal on the material means necessary to enjoy certain basic freedoms, and this is the explanation of their commitment to robust government involvement in commercial activities.

Yeah, exactly.  You'll notice that I was pushing for the bottom line, without the philosophical underpinnings that our Average Joe Swing Voter probably won't care for.  So at least this far we can agree on the message.

Governments only work for the people when the people have non-governmental organizations that they can turn to in order to make sure the government does what it is obligated to, because the government is under constant pressure from corporate elites to stop protecting the people as a whole.

Well yes, kinda, but I think that's the whole point.  A key built-in feature of a democratic government is its very tendency to bend to public pressure.  Non-government grassroots organizations facilitate the transmission of pressure, but are hardly a requirement for such transmission.  I also disagree that corporate domination of government is inevitable, which is your reason for saying that "government is good" shouldn't be our message.  The reason why corporate elites can dominate our government now is because our democracy isn't as democratic as it should be.

You need institutions that on their own provide a counterbalance to the power of corporate elites, and if you are constantly pumping your money and time into getting people elected you aren't building those institutions the way you could.  This is a lesson lots of people draw from the history of the AFL-CIO.

Well, I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Moreover, in this case the walking helps the chewing gum.  Imagine if all our efforts were funneled into groups like PDA and PCCC, and candidates like Marcy Winograd and Jennifer Brunner, instead of the usual sell-out Democrats.  These efforts are mutually reinforcing and build on one another.  I don't see any conflict between grassroots organizing and electing good people to office - they go hand in hand.

So to actually get the things that contemporary liberals want, your rallying cry shouldn't be 'government is great'.

I think your argumentative "sketch" is more a bemoaning of what government has become, that ignores all the good that government has done and still does, regardless of the circumstances.  Even during the Reagan and Bush years, Medicare and Social Security still delivered and delivered well.  Is that because of public pressure?  Yes, but that's precisely the point of democratic government.  A government that can completely ignore the people and still do good would be awesome, but is probably too much to ask for.  The very reason why government is (not always, but often) the answer is precisely because of its duties, responsibilities and accountability to the people.

Finally, the whole reason for this exercise was to counter the conservative/libertarian cry of "government is bad!"  Whether you agree with "government is good!" or some variation thereof or not, we (as in liberals, the Left, etc.) HAVE to say something about the role of government.  Otherwise, conservatives and libertarians will continue to dominate that question and use it to bludgeon all the reforms we want to death, as they have done with health care.

[ Parent ]
What this does show (4.00 / 1)
is the extent to which the economy is able to allow the opposition to win in places where you would have never expected them to.  At this moment there are very few safe Democratic Senate Seats.

If unemployment is not clearly heading south by November, things are going to get worse for Democrats, not better.  A Brown win essentially ends any chance of a another stimulus package.

I think the economy will recover over the next 6 months, perhaps in ways that will surprise people.

It is doesn't there is little from a messaging stand point that can work.

Yes and no.... (4.00 / 3)
If they had bailed out homeowners and Wall Street....
If they had passed medicare for all effective immediately...
If they had legalized pot & put more revenue into state government....
If they had extended unemployment compensation "until" a state's UI went below xxxx...

If they had done any of these, they would have changed economic conditions. People don't expect miracles, but they do expect effort.  

That's all they want really:to see that you tried and tried hard (4.00 / 2)
and they haven't seen it from those Dems in DC.

Coupled with the 60 seat majority that seems useless and certainly not getting used and the attitutde is 'what is the point?' and 'maybe this will wake them up' and I am on the ground here in MA.....people are telling me this every day.

The only people having a hard time accepting it are complascent( now panicked) Party insiders.

The WORST WORST WORST thing they  can do is blame it all on Martha


[ Parent ]
"what is the point" and"maby this will wake them up" (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for this perspective. Reports from people on the ground with timely first hand experience always carry more weight other sorces.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR
[ Parent ]
Stimulus left out aid to states (4.00 / 3)
to help with budget shortfalls. This is one of the major problems in MA. Our school budgets, already bare after years of cuts, are being decimated by current situation.

A lot of people are angry. As incomes go down, property taxes are going up -- or we are facing override votes that create horrible choices. Do we attempt to shore up our schools, despite the fact that we are tapped out and can't afford our property taxes as they are now?

National politicians have no idea of how even the moderate middle class has been affected by the last decade. Obama seems to be terribly out of touch on economic issues.

I don't agree that this is not a base election. A large part of the base -- not the activists, but the base nevertheless -- is disaffected. For example, my daughter, who worked for several months at very low pay, 24-7, to get Obama elected, is not coming back to MA to vote today, even though she is on the rolls here.

These are the Obama young people who are just desperately trying to make ends meet and are either disaffected or less engaged in politics than they were a year ago.

The Democrats have totally ignored the people who worked to give them the huge victory last November. Both in the votes, the insider Washington politics that has move legislation further and further right, and in the rhetoric aimed at Democratic voters. There seems to be little or no reaching out to the country. All the rhetoric seems to be aimed at the circles within DC and the elite of the Democratic party inner leadership.

It is appalling.

Can someone please explain.... (0.00 / 0)
....how a shitty candidate like Coakley got the nomination?

Sullivan says we're seeing voter backlash against the Kennedies treating that Senate seat as their personal possession.  Coakley was selected by the Kennedies, and voters don't like it.

Discuss.

How did she get the nomination? She won the primary (0.00 / 0)
I don't know how she did it, though I'd like to know since I supported Capuano (and would care a lot more about this election if he were the nominee).  I think her being the "establishment frontrunner" with the most name recognition probably had a lot to do with it, especially given that the primary election was less than four months long, and Coakley was the first to get into the race.  It's the same reason Hillary Clinton probably would've won the presidential nomination if the Iowa caucuses had been held in April 2007.

I don't know why you think she was "selected by the Kennedies"; AFAIK none of them endorsed her in the primary.  

[ Parent ]
Not what I'm (0.00 / 0)
hearing from people in state, I'm afraid.  People think HCR is a crock, and Democrats are generally demoralized.
Dem predicament in Massachusetts about failure to change economic conditions, not ideological angst | 47 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox