Matt Bai (New York Times, 11/9/10), as a standard-issue corporate media political analyst, sees the Democrats being moved to the right as an upside to their disastrous showing in the ’10 midterms. But he’s worried that the party isn’t learning the obvious lesson.
If there was any sliver of hope for moderate Democrats on a catastrophic midterm election night, it was their assumption that now, at least, the partys leaders would have to focus on recapturing the political center…. A lot of Democrats took it for granted that these defeats marked a repudiation of the speaker and of the party’s liberal agenda….
That is not, however, how Ms. [Nancy] Pelosi’s liberal supporters see it. Even before the votes were cast, a counterargument was already taking hold — that it was the centrist Democrats, and not the liberals in Congress, who had imperiled the party’s majority….
The theory here, embraced by a lot of the most prominent liberal bloggers and activists, is that centrist Democrats doomed the party when they blocked liberals in Congress from making good on President Obama’s promise of bold change. Specifically, they refused to adopt a more populist stance toward business and opposed greater stimulus spending and a government-run healthcare plan. As a result, the thinking goes, frustrated voters rejected the party for its timidity.
There are a few strange things about this argument, even beyond the contention that American voters–41 percent of whom described themselves as “conservative” this year, compared with 32 percent in 2006–somehow deem Congress to be insufficiently liberal.
Aside from the fact that “American voters” are not the same people from one election to the next, and the policies pursued by the party in power influence who those voters are, Bai misses a key point: The goal of a bigger stimulus bill would not be to make voters say, “A big stimulus bill? That sounds like something that accords with my philosophy of government. I’ll vote for that party!” The goal of a bigger stimulus bill, rather, would be to boost the economy, which history indicates is good for the party in power.
Likewise, the goal of a single-payer healthcare system or a robust public option is to deliver cheaper healthcare to more people–it’s the effective delivery of healthcare, not the ideology behind the system that delivers it, that would be rewarded by voters.
Funny, I just read that piece and it annoyed the hell out of me (Matt Bai usually does) and then ten minutes later I came across this on my RSS feed.
The other annoying part of Bai’s article (not excerpted above) was his reference to moderate Dems who were recruited to run by Rahm Emanuel in 2006 as comprising “a slate of less ideological candidates.” This is an obvious point to anyone who works for or reads FAIR, but the notion that being a “centrist” or “moderate” makes you non-ideological is just ridiculous. Even a belief in something as wishy-washy as “political pragmatism” is, in fact, an ideological position, much less belief in things like free markets, low taxes, and limited government regulation–ideas which are generally de riguer for moderate or conservative Democrats.
The standard media argument that ideology is something you only find on the left or the right–usually the former–drives me more and more nuts as the years go by, and I’d like to inject Matt Bai and his ilk with a mild dose of postmodern theory (or something) so they would quit pushing that nonsense.
“There are a few strange things about this argument, even beyond the contention that American voters–41 percent of whom described themselves as ‘conservative’ this year, compared with 32 percent in 2006–somehow deem Congress to be insufficiently liberal.”
That reflects nothing more than how those voters–most of whom are regular folks unaccustomed to applying some label to their politics–see themselves, and of the generation + right-wing campaign to demonize the word “liberal.” When pollsters ask people if they’re “conservative” or “liberal,” the “conservative” label always draws a bigger crowd, even in the most liberal places in the U.S. (Gallup found more people calling themselves “conservative” in even New York and Massachusetts). Get to specifics, though, and the public is not only liberal but, on most issues, overwhelmingly so.
And, of course, Bai could just as easily read the poll result he quotes as supporting the liberal narrative he’s ridiculing, as, even without consideration of what I just wrote, it would indicate more of the “liberals” stayed home this year, thus upping the conservatives’ percentage.
Perhaps the Federal Government has been asleep at the wheel too long when it comes to protecting individual citizens from the enemies from within. Deregulation left us wide open to l predation. Preoccupation with the enemies from without, seems to have blinded us to the slight of hand that has occurred within. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. The problem is that those who stole it, want to keep it for all for themselves and their friends and will use any device to avoid giving up a crumb. The rubrics of “liberal”, “conservative”, “right -to-life”, “middle-class,” “silent-majority”, or “free-market” are either rallying points or myths designed to blow smoke. The wealth and power of corporate persons has an unseemly effect on elected representatives. Instead of a health system that cuts health-care costs for individuals, we have one that makes individuals buy health insurance from corporate persons. The irony is paying some corporate CEO an obcene amount of money to profit from other peoples pain and suffering.
John says: “Perhaps the Federal Government has been asleep at the wheel too long when it comes to protecting individual citizens from the enemies from within.”
The Federal government, as well as State and Local governments are a part of our Democracy. They are not so much “asleep” as they are co-opted by powerful, selfish persons and Corporations while the American public sleeps. Pogo (remember the comic strip anyone?) once said “We have met the enemy and it is us.”. “Aware” and “concerned” citizens are, unfortunately, out numbered and out gunned. That’s why the FAIR Blog. Enough said.
Just shows that the madam speaker, and the prez, and other leftists still don’t get it.This notion floating around(in their little pin heads) of…”if only we had gone harder left”is such a joke. America renounced the very idea, and a conservative ascendency is the result.I always new that to win the next election, all the conservatives had to do was to make Obama and his regime take responsibility for their own actions. Nail the jello to the wall so to speak.Mission accomplished.
michael e: do you read articles before you reply to it? Naureckas explains, point by point and to the nearest ounce, how much shit Matt Bai is full of, and you basically say that Bai is exactly right. The question is whether, on some level, you actually believe the crap you spew.
And We, The PEOPLE PAID for these microphonies to DO THE JOB for US All !
Austin this idea of Dems positioning themselves for maximum gain is in the end a game of smoke and mirrors.Matt and Naureckas talk of this re-positioning as if one is right and one is wrong.Both are wrong!It is called having no core values.Obama during the election was like jello.Filling any mold.We conservatives screamed and pointed at the real Barrock.It took him being president to reveal who he was.Now the Dems return to jello mold and you expect me to agree to this form or that.Sorry no dice.All “we” want is to nail this jello to the wall.
I consider myself a strong Democrat, I know what conservative republicans are, and I want nothing to do with them. However, I consider myself a conservative guy and a strong Democrat who supports everything that the Democratic Congress accomplished in the first 19 months of the Obama administration. In fact, I do not believe that Congress went far enough on health reform and many of my friends feel that is true. The question is “What does conservative mean?” To me it means do not take unnecessary risks like going to war in Iraq for no meaningful purpose. I think that those who call themselves conservative are reckless and will dive into policies that are unproven without even thinking. It seems to me that today, those who call themselves conservatives are radical reactionaries who are in no ways conservative under normal definitions and liberals are certainly not radical, reckless communists as described by so-called conservatives.
Gene you are way off on what conservatism means.For most people it is easy to see the core American values….in constitutionalism.The Declaration.The seeing of Americans as exception, and not in any ways -victimsThe unlimited potential each American has when removed from the shackles of Government and high taxation.But if you have been educated under the scam that is liberalism, you would believe some of the things you stated and far worse.Hope you go the extra mile to step away from the propaganda and delve into the ideals of conservatism.Look at Rush Limbaugh defines conservatism.
Michael e., as per usual, you’re on the wrong side of the argument.
What about the positioning of the Democrats in 2006 and 2008? What’s that you say? It did not happed? Oh, but it did.
And I guess tons of anti-Democrat campaign ads loaded with lies and misinformation didn’t have an effect on the midterms.
The FOX free for all Republican or is that no FEE for all Republican campaign of publicity which was unpaid for just on FOX free for the taking, news programs and all you need is to be a guest and name your website for how to donate to your candidacy.
Free from the FOX and right wing spin machine the demonizing of Democrats and liberals, Obama and any program that he somehow managed to get through Congress in spite of the obstruction, the delaying tactics, saying no to everything, and not adding any ideas to help the situation. The bills that were passed were watered down in trying to get Republican votes and the Republicans, most of which voted against all these bills anyway even after the Dems gave in and compromised. Obama has been anything but a lefty, more like a center right position he’s taken than anything else. Surely that had no influence on the midterms.
How about the fact that the old and white voters and the mostly main audience of FOX noise also old and white voters came out in greater numbers. That had no effect, surely.
Then the Bluedogs, which became half their numbers for the 112th Congress, doing their thing and voting like Republicans instead of being true Democrats.
Gene, John and nellevad, I agree with you all.
Austin, keep up the good work, turning the screws to Michael e. I so enjoy it when you put him in his place, thank you.