Democrats and the vision thing
A lot of ink has been spilled over the incredible collapse of the “hopey, changey thing” that Democrats rallied around two years ago.
It’s one of the most remarkable turn-abouts in American political history, one that I certainly didn’t foresee.
The humbling of Barack Obama’s movement is the more stunning because it comes at the hands of a Republican political party that is itself deeply unpopular.
It’s not terribly original to suggest that a major weakness of the Democratic approach over the last nineteen months has been a lack of big-picture vision.
But as Democrats work to rebuild ahead of the big 2012 vote, there is no more crucial mission for their leadership.
Here are the big agenda items they’ll have to tackle:
1. Paint a clearer picture of how our lives get better. Polls show that individual Democratic policies are popular, but it’s unclear what it’s all supposed to add up to.
Republicans are offering a very attractive vision: more individual freedom, more entrepreneurship, a path to prosperity.
In frightening times, that’s very attractive — even if the details remain pretty fuzzy.
Unless the Dems can rally around a similar agenda, it’s hard to see how they can recapture the momentum.
2. Find more charismatic and confident leaders. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are accomplished legislators.
A generation ago, that would have been enough. Pushing through big bills was the single-minded goal of House Speakers and Majority Leaders.
But in the post-Gingrich era, in an age of 24/7 cable, top lawmakers also have to be the public face of their parties.
Whatever their other qualities might be, Reid and Pelosi have been disastrous standard-bearers.
Part of the problem here, of course, is that the Democrats are an old-fashioned big tent party.
The various wings of the movement — from the East Coast MoveOn.orgers to the northern Plains Blue Dogs — don’t agree on much.
But Democrats have to stand for something going forward, or 2010 will only be a foreshadowing of more dark days in 2012.
Tags: election10
.jpg)
David says, “Polls show that individual Democratic policies are popular”
Of course. It is popular to say, “We intend on taking money out of someone else’s bank account and giving to you”. Who wouldn’t want that!!?
It is popular to say, “We will take money from someone who earned it, and give it to you so you don’t have to work for it”. Who wouldn’t want that!!?
Were these the popular policies you were referencing?
Is it always about vision and optics?
I mean maybe the policies put forth by the Obama team just don’t work? If Democrats had results they would not need to run on a vision but could run on the record. Maybe they need to be more clear and more proud of what they have accomplished?
Brian M.,
I’m a bit lost when you say above, “Republicans are offering a very attractive vision: more individual freedom.”
Please clue me in. What “more individual freedom” are the Republicans offering?
More entrepreneurship? Sure but that is an individual choice which is mostly curtailed by banks and the cost of health insurance, and local zoning which doesn’t want that kind of business here in our town.
Forgive me for saying this but I have never understood why small business, town and county governments haven’t gotten on the bandwagon to push for National Health Care. Relieve local governments and small businesses from including health insurance in their budgets and money could be saved. Are Republicans in favor of this? Not to my knowledge.
Many people take jobs for no other reason than to get health insurance. If you had national health insurance, some small businesses would find it easier to find people who would be willing to work for them. It would create a level playing field and more people would take the risk of starting a business if they didn’t have to consider how much it would cost them to insure them and their families.
Yes, I know, national health insurance added to the national budget would cause a percentage increase in federal taxes but with such a large pool, only the very rich would end up paying more for health insurance and some compensation would be seen in lower property taxes.
Brian,
I gotta disagree on almost all of this. I think you’re reading too much Politico again, manufacturing a positive agenda for Republicans where there really isn’t one. It’s ” OMG here comes socialismnazizombiedeathpanels” on top, with a God-Gays-Guns wedge issue slate underneath that’s the real mobilizer of the people at the rallies, as pointed out here (really worth watching the video of the Tea Partiers pressed on how Holder is going to take their guns away):
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/29/5372410-if-and-when-democrats-wise-up
There aren’t jobs, and people are scared, and the GOP, with a lot of money at its disposal, is really good at selling fear. Hats off to them.
And the Democrats’ half-measures on the economy are working too slowly to aid them this cycle.
To Mervel’s point, the biggest Dem losers in midterms are going to be Blue Dogs who ran away from Obama the fastest.
One last thing, Brian: What has Pelosi done wrong, other than be demonized by the right, mostly because she had a lot of legislative victories, which is to be expected? I can see arguments for dumping Reid, but not Pelosi. She muscled her agenda through the House, skillfully and unapologetically. And she didn’t divorce anybody on their deathbed while doing it.
JDM,
Why don’t we get rid of the entire safety net in the USA. Let so-called “personal responsibility” be the rule. Afterall, children of single mothers could certainly fend for themselves, especially if we can do away with some of those darn child labor laws. Let the mentally -ill and -deficient work those jobs in the fast food industry, especially if we can get rid of that darn minimum wage law. Let “those” people (the one’s that say “wheres mines”, you know the one’s we’re talking about) fend for themselves when disaster hits. Heck, we don’t need a government that cares for those in need – that’s what churches and those good christians that profess to believe in love your neighbor are for.
Here is what is coming. Tax cuts which will increase our deficit. Spending cuts – nothing substantial. An economy which only gets worse. You can count on it.
oa,
As we both know, Pelosi didn’t do anything wrong. She did the job of Speaker, keeping her party together on votes. Boehner was doing the same thing with his party – filibustering almost everything. If republicans gain control of the House, I wonder how many conservatives will complain that republican members vote 100% of the time with their speaker? I’m guess we will not hear any complaints.
The Democrats should have a vision for ethical government. Both parties shoud, in fact.
Which would exclude some like Darrel Aubertine who advised local government officials to break state ethics law, in order to allow for the construction of windmills.
When the Republicans can’t deliver, the voters will turn on them too.
Clarification: Brian used my computer this morning to write this post. So it ended up with my authorship. Sorry about the confusion! Back to your regularly scheduled commenting…
Brian,
The fundamental problem is something that well-intentioned liberals refuse to recognize: the Democratic Party is no longer a vehicle for progressive change. Yes, there are individual, rank-and-file Democrats who believe in the progressive agenda. But the Party, the folks in power or seeking it, represent a corporate agenda. They do so because they are dependent on corporate America for their funding. Bear in mind that industries like Big Pharma and Wall St. donated overwhelmingly to DEMOCRATIC candidate Obama in 2008. They did so expecting something in return. He who pays the piper calls the tune. We know have two major corporate parties. This is why we need real multipartyism, and the Greens are the only viable option at this point.
PNelba:
I am with you on most of your policy proposals, whether or not you actually meant them.
I even agree with your conclusion that tax cuts without spending cuts will lead to higher deficits.
Boehner is in the House, where filibustering isn’t allowed, however.
The best book I’ve ever read on the discussion above & I highly recommend it – it’s not from the left or right – is “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael Sandel. A fantastic read about our “current” [continual] dislike and anxiety toward politics and policy solutions.
“I’m a bit lost when you say above, “Republicans are offering a very attractive vision: more individual freedom.””
I think he meant that they are offering the ILLUSION of more individual freedom, the rhetroic of it. That’s what they are claiming to sell, even if it’s really nothing of the sort.
The whole thing is fascinating.
I don’t think most Democrats thought we would still have 9.8% unemployment (18% in reality) in late 2010.
The Democrats only had about 18 months in total power, but they did have a huge legislative accomplishment regardless if you agree with it or not, health care reform. The thing that I think really is hurting is how health care reform was structured. Democrats should have something that would be a great accomplishment to run on. But they don’t, they passed something that does not really start until 2014 in addition health care affordability and availability is actually worse than it was before the bill was passed; which to many people seems pretty bogus.
My bad on Boehner, of course filibustering comes from the Senate. The House is the home of the government shutdown.
The Obama agenda, was one that would have been popular in 2007. Democrats did not pivot when the economic collapse happened, they never deviated their legislative agenda in the face of economic turmoil, spending most of their last 18 months expanding entitlements. It was one of a million signs to the nation that Democrats were out of touch with the nation.
There is much, much more but it would take a long time to go over. But looking back, that is what impacted me most, earliest.
However, do not buy into the, “we didn’t package it right.” It’s not that it wasn’t packaged right, it’s that it was the wrong package.
@Pete Klien – Small entreprenuers could care less about health care, because they don’t provide it. Health care is a non issue for entrepreneurs…except for now that health care reform has created that absurd 1099 provision and that there are penalties if you have more than 50 employees creating a disincentive to hire more than 49 people.
Perhaps you were referring to large corporations with huge legacy health care benefits weighing down their P&L’s…like say GM.
Local governments? Maybe, but you are just shifting the burden from one level of government to another.
I’m also puzzled by this post. Do you really think that the Reps are up because they have a better “vision” that they’re selling? Sure doesn’t seem that way from here – all I see is the simple message “Throw the Bums Out” – content-free anger masquerading as an idea.
We’re all angry. We want more jobs, less war, less bureaucracy, a clean environment. Obama has sold us out on some these issues, but I don’t see any coherent strategy for the new Congress to make progress, even if the Republicans get to have a much bigger impact than they do now.
PS. I echo the other commenter who asked – how do you put Pelosi in the same basket with Reid? She seems to have been a much better leader.
Sam Foster says: “Small entreprenuers could care less about health care, because they don’t provide it.”
Good reason not to work them. Good reason not to be married to them unless they provide it for their families while not providing it for their workers.
Gosh! Doesn’t that sound just like Congress and the Senate?
I’ve got mine. Tough luck for you!
The left, I won’t say Democrats because it wasn’t just them, gave us the idea that answer is more Gov’t, more regulation, more nanny state. The right, and they aren’t all Republicans, gives us the idea of less Gov’t intrusion, more personal responsibility, more dependence on individual effort and less taxation to fund a larger Gov’t. Those are the ideas, they may not work out in fact, but that’s not the issue in this discussion. IMO people are looking around, seeing that the economy stinks and isn’t getting better, seeing that they’ve been taken and that they will continue to get taken. So they are at the point of making a decision- some say the heck with it, why try, and will support the left. Others will get their backs up and decide getting screwed just ain’t their bag.
So here we stand. I don;t think the Repubs are gonna do all that well next week overall. I think there are too many “gimme mines” out there to let the gravy train pass them by. The right isn’t benefiting from their wonderful promises because nobody believes them. They’re benefiting from the lefts failures if anything.
My 2 cents.
Sam,
Your assertion that small businesses don’t provide health insurance is not entirely true. Just this week I had a conversation with a friend who owns a trucking company here in Lewis County. She provides health insurance to six of her fifteen employees. Her rates are going up 60 % next year (which was the jist of our conversation). And a very close friend of mine who owns a small business in Croghan provides health insurance to all of his eight employees. And interestingly enough, one of my favorite Rock bands provides insurance to each of its members as well as the road crew. Six people in all. They can afford this because they perform about 250 days a year and are pretty successful in the jam band scene. But they are a small business for sure. It’s unique in that most professional musicians don’t have health insurance. Anyway, your assertion that small businesses don’t provide insurance is not accurate.
@ Pete – Ummm…try being an entrepreneur and then think about what you just wrote.
@ Clapton – That’s great that they can provide insurance. I wasn’t trying to be absoutist, just talking in a generality.
I sit on the board of a small business (9 employees). We provide health insurance because it is the right thing to do for our employees. I also know at least 2 other small businesses in SL that provide employee health insurance for the same reason. It’s the right thing to do.
One thing about the conservative small government bait and switch:
What are deficit-hawk taxpayers going to say when the GOP government spends tax dollars policing every pregnancy in America, making sure that even those caused by rape and incest must come to term?
It’s going to be the next Prohibition.
My agency provides health care insurance also and we are pretty small. However it is TOUGH and we have to charge the employee about 30% of the cost, which is still really expensive since our wages are not that great.
However IF we had lower health insurance rates we would hire more people, IF health insurance rates continue up next year we will still provide health insurance but we will probably have to let some people go or not fill positions when they leave.
This is what bothers me about the health care reform bill, why aren’t things getting better with health care insurance and health costs? It seems to me that it makes the White House look clueless to real people. How can you run on that as an accomplishment? If it only makes things worse AND is going to cost us more in taxes what was the point?
If says, “Her rates are going up 60 % next year”
And that is a result of Obamacare. The mandates in the legislation are forcing private insurance companies to raise their premiums.
The end goal of Obamacare is to force private insurance companies out of business and have the government be our only insurance option. (single payer).
Obama is on the record saying he was and is for single payer.
Once the government is our only option for health care insurance, we are all hosed. Going to the doctor will be like going to any government-run service.
And, like all other government-run entities, once budgets get tight, services get cut. Health care services, that is. Rationing, that is. Death panels, that is.
Obamacare is deadly dangerous, and we’d better hope this next Congress overturns it before it ever kicks in.
Here’s the other thing: Most voters, like most Americans, are idiots, not even knowing what they’re voting about–
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/poll-shows-americans-don-t-know-economy-expanded-with-tax-cuts.html
“The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks and has overseen an economy that has grown for the past five quarters.
Most voters don’t believe it.
A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 24-26 finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered. “
If they believed in it and throught it was so important why did they not implement it, but instead passed a bunch of hot air that won’t go into effect until after 2012 election. That is what seems bogus to me, it tells me that they don’t believe it will work themselves they think it will be a big mess and are scared of it.
“government run healthcare” ? Like Medicare which most people seem to like…and by some measures the healthiest people in the US are the 65+ group who are saddled with the awful burdenof “government run healthcare.”
JDM,
Better get offline and get to your rally: http://www.keepfearalive.com/
Why the need for a massive bill? Why not just expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover all Americans who wanted it?
For a Democrat I really like Robert Riech. One of his ideas for an instant raise for most Americans and an incentive for hiring right now was to exempt the first 50k of earnings from Social Security taxes. Right there most Americans would get a 15% increase in pay (the employer and employee share). Then add that 50K or 100K to the upper band of earnings to make up for the lost revenue. Right now the Social Security tax is regressive, big earners pay only a tiny percentage of their salary to Social Security as most of it is exempt. Anyway I think the Democrats should run on something like that, except then it begs the question of why they didn’t do it when they could have?
One of the posters here said their small business provided health care to it’s 9 employees because “it’s the right thing to do”. That’s great that you feel that way. My problem is that not every business can swing insurance no matter how “right” it seems. At what point will the gov’t decide that all businesses have to provide insurance or face fines or imprisonment? And what legal ground will the Federal Gov’t manufacture to justify this? Currently there is no legal ground I know to justify the Health Care bill forcing American citizens to purchase a product. That will have to be hashed out in court.
I would also take exception to the claims the economy had grown. You can support this claim using some data but there is other data the says just the opposite. I would take any claims of a truly growing economy with a grain of salt.
In the article quoted by oa, it is apparent that Obama’s “tax cut” was nothing more than a transfer of wealth. Over-tax one group to pay the taxes of another.
That is not a tax cut, and most Americans are smart enough to know that.
That is dipping into someone else’s bank account to cover your taxes.
Here’s the section of the article.
“A program aimed at families earning less than $150,000 that was contained in the stimulus package lowered the burden for 95 percent of working Americans by $116 billion”
Most Americans are also smart enough to know that media bias exists, so one must read carefully articles from Bloomberg.
JDM payroll taxes were lowered for those making less than $150,000 a year. Taxes were not raised to pay for those tax cuts, it was part of the stimulus bill. No one raised taxes on the rich to pay for the stimulus. And it’s unlikely taxes will be raised on the rich in the near future.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/
PNElba:
2nd to the last paragraph of the article you referenced. Did you stop reading a little too soon?
“According to the analysis, the people who wouldn’t get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners”
Look. Obama is not a tax cut president. He is a redistribution-of- wealth president.
There is no way he would intentionally cut taxes, because it is not in his makeup. All one has to do is read far enough, and you will find Obama is always true to his redistribution makeup.
Your argument is “don’t believe what you see, believe what we tell you”.
Most Americans believe what they see.
If Clampton were God mentions a friend who say their rates are going up 60% next year. If that is true, they are being ripped off by their insurance company.
Anything is too much, considering what they now charge. But the most common increase I’m hearing from local and county governments is about 12%, with about 2% attributed to the new health care bill.
JDM – Sorry I don’t understand how your reasoning works. You keep claiming that President Obama is redistributing wealth. I guess if you consider borrowing from the Chinese redistributing wealth, you are right. President Obama has not raised taxes on the wealthy, at least not yet. And, it doesn’t look like it is going to happen. So where is the wealth distribution?
The fact still stands – those who make less than $150,000 got a tax cut. The rich did not get a tax cut nor did they get a tax increase. They may or may not get a tax increase in the future but it hasn’t happened yet.
My argument remains what happened happened. Your argument involves using a time machine to travel to the future.
Tell me, if Obama is going to lower taxes on those making under $150K (how much and in what way? What tax will be cut and what percentage?), won’t that be offset by letting the Bush tax cuts expire? Cut the child tax credit by $500.00 and then tell me Obamas tax cut will put that $500.00 back in my pocket and I’ll ask you to prove it please.
Bret, Obama already lowered taxes on those making under $150K. IT. HAS. ALREADY. HAPPENED. He cut taxes. That was the point of the article.
And I have no idea what else you’re asking. Not clear how the child credit or the Bush expiration has anything to do with the taxes that have already been cut.
In terms of clarity, bravo Mervel! An actual common-sense fiscal conservative, who actually wants people to have jobs and lower the deficit. I’ve heard about those, but they’re kind of hard to find these days.
Thanks for your input, Merv. It’s a reason I keep coming to the In Box.
One more link, which I think answers a lot of Mervel’s questions on the Dems’ electoral problem:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/10/tpm_reader_jb_looks_to.php#more?ref=fpblg
Takeout quote: “In the face of no theme or foundation, the midterms became everyman for himself and all the democrats again looked weak. Running away from great accomplishments because they had no coherent answer to the noise machine.”
PNElba and oa:
The stimulus money is tax money. (It’s actually tax money borrowed from generations not yet born).
We’re giving away tax money to a group of people making less than $x.xx per year. That is redistributing tax money from one group to another.
One would argue that those making less than $150,000 are, will, or have already contributed to the stimulus money, so it is somewhat redistributed to themselves.
But be sure that the attempt is being made to rob from the rich to give to the poor.
In Robin Hood’s day, it was the people robbing their money back from the government. Now, Robin Hood is the government, and we’re getting robbed from!
Redistributing the wealth is what all governments are about. The only question is: who gets the redistribution?
Every subsidy, every grant, every contract results in someone getting tax or borrowed dollars.
The only argument ever is who gets the tax dollars.
This redistribution includes payments and benefits to everyone who works for the government, including all elected and appointed officials and all in the military.
The only thing the government ever truly makes is war and that is sort of the reverse of making anything because war destroys people’s lives and properties.
Another way to say it is this:
If I earn money and keep more of it, myself, that is a tax cut.
If I earn money, and the government takes it, and gives it back disproportionately to others, that is redistribution of wealth.
What this stimulus kick back is, is redistribution. If it were a tax cut, those making under $150,000 would keep more in their paychecks.
Pete K: War is bad, but such is the fallen condition of man. If not for brave men and women fighting in our place, we would not enjoy the ability to peacefully be typing these high and lofty thoughts on our computers.
The government is not just about redistribution from one group to another.
Without laws, without courts, without the enforcement of property rights, without civil order and protection from invasion and threats AND without public goods the free market could not function.
I believe (warning religion statement), that all good government that gives us peace domestically is a grace and gift of God, which is why we pray for our government, be it Democratic or Republican or Socialist. Just look at the terror and horror of living in places without a sound government. But also consider public goods. There are a range of goods and services that the government provides that will not be provided by the private sector that make our society better and make the free market better. Bridges, roads, police, fire, courts, laws, judges, environmental protections, national defense, prisons, jails, public education and yes even keeping people from starving is a national good that the private market is not going to provide, and it does have benefits to keep people from starving.
I would like to see more of our government used for those things rather than where it is currently being used however. On the stimulus where did it really go? Bailing out GM and keeping the pensions of public employees safe does not sound like a public good to me.
“The only thing the government ever truly makes is war….”
Highways and bridges
Safe air travel
Safe food, medicine, public health
Basic medical and agricultural research
Police, fire, courts, education
Ensuring civil rights and equal treatment
Take care of veterans
Manage and preserve federal lands and parks
Embassies and foreign relations
OA, I’ve read and re-read the article and the links. I see what you mean, I understand that. What I’m saying is if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire it’ll wipe out Obamas tax cut. And there’s still the problem of paying for it- “According to the analysis, the people who wouldn’t get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut. ” So it’s just more borrowed money that our kids will be responsible for so far. He’s going to have pay for it or pass the cost on to someone else.
Let me point out a simple fact in the same way you did. HE. HAS. To. Cut. SPENDING.
The Gov’t produces none of these things-
Highways and bridges
Safe air travel
Safe food, medicine, public health
Basic medical and agricultural research
Police, fire, courts, education
Ensuring civil rights and equal treatment
Take care of veterans
Manage and preserve federal lands and parks
Embassies and foreign relations
What the gov’t does is tax it’s citizens and put that money into some of the above listed items. That’s not producing/making anything. Microsoft, Ford, Case/IH, Caterpillar, Archer Daniels Midland, General Mills, Stanley, etc. produce/make something. When gov’t starts making things then we’ll have a larger problem because gov’t will be in competition with some private industry no doubt.
Please remember a very basic fact- Gov’t has no money of it’s own. It never did, it never will until it becomes something we would not recognize as an American form of Gov’t/
Bret,
How many highways would get built if government didn’t finance them? Public goods have qualities that in general mean that the private market will not provide them, ever.
Not to be personal but I think you said you were a Trooper, you worked directly for the government, the government produced that service, it trained you, it paid you and it organized how you did your job, it was the producer of that service. Services are a good a product, law enforcement is a product that the government produces. Do you think that the fact that the government produces the good called State Troopers, crowd out the private security firms that do exist?
I side with Bret and stick to what I said. In the truest sense, governments don’t make anything but wars.
That said, it could be said that through your taxes and various fees, you do purchase things from the government. Law and order would be a good example.
But the argument is weak because you are not given a choice. If you had a choice, you could pay taxes for only the things you want from the government. Boy, wouldn’t that be fun!?
I am not saying there is no value to government. I’m just saying governmental service are a very, very slippery slope. Hate that phrase but it does apply.
As to the military, I was in the Navy. I never viewed simply being in the Navy as any form of bravery. Fortunately, I never had to find out if I was brave – whatever that is. Mostly what goes on is trying to stay alive and trying to keep your buddies alive because that is the best way for you to stay alive.
Most men and women who have seen combat will agree. You are put in a kill or be killed situation and all you want to do is survive.
While I hate the idea of war, I support what is not a very popular idea today. I believe you kill until someone surrenders or there is no one left to surrender. To me, the idea that our troops should be worrying about civilian casualties is absurd. That’s not to say civilians should be targeted but it is to say asking soldiers to worry over it puts them at risk.
We could never have won in Germany or Japan if we had worried about civilians the way we do today.
I’m all for war, if we could win one. Haven’t won a war outright since WWII, except for maybe Bosnia. (I don’t count Grenada.)
Korea–no. Vietnam–no. Iraq I–no. Somalia–no. Afghanistan–no. Iraq II–no. Afghanistan IA–no. Terror–no.
We won the Cold War only because we never had an actual war. And actually, China and Germany ended up winning the Cold War.