The Democrats’ Bush Nostalgia (Guest Voice)
Dec 17th, 2009 | 15 responses
WASHINGTON — Here’s what Democrats need to ponder: Can they prosper in the absence of George W. Bush?
His presidency was a tonic for Democrats and led to a blossoming of political creativity on the center-left not seen since the 1930s. No tactic, no program, no leader ever did more to catalyze the party than the rage Bush inspired.
The whole effort was summarized nicely by the party’s slogan in 2006, “A New Direction for America.” There was no need to specify north or south, east or west, up or down. Compared with Bush, any alternative destination seemed appealing. And by becoming the apotheosis of the fresh and the new, Barack Obama emerged as the most attractive guide to this unknown promised land.
The consequence is that Democrats must govern in one of the most difficult periods in American history while managing a sprawling coalition and working though a political structure near the point of breakdown — largely because of the dilapidated state of that dysfunctional and undemocratic partisan hothouse, the United States Senate.
Especially if you account for the scope of the problems confronted, Democrats could argue they are doing pretty well. It’s no small thing to save the economy from collapse. Winding down two wars is no picnic.
But politically, the Democrats are in trouble. They are at each other’s throats over health care legislation that should be seen as one of the party’s greatest triumphs. They are being held hostage by political narcissists and narrow slivers of their coalition.
When Democrats make deals, they are accused of selling out. When they fail to make deals, they are accused of not reaching out. Moderates complain that their party has gone too far to the left. Progressives chortle bitterly at this, asking what’s left wing about policies that shore up banks and protect drug companies.
Rural-state centrists insist on more fiscal discipline — as long as it doesn’t affect farmers and small-town hospitals. Progressives ask why debt should be the priority when so much more needs to be done to relieve unemployment.
This is a recipe for political catastrophe. An increasingly bitter and negative Republican Party may not be able to win the midterm elections, but Democrats definitely can lose them.
Their fractiousness is dispiriting their supporters, which set off this urgent warning bell in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll: For the first time in his presidency, more Americans strongly disapprove of Obama’s performance in office (33 percent) than strongly approve (31 percent).
Put aside margins of error and the fact that the Dec. 10-13 poll showed a sudden bump in Republican identification that might be a statistical anomaly. The point is that the trend is perilous. In June, strong approvers of Obama outnumbered strong disapprovers by 36 percent to 22 percent. Ardor and energy are switching sides.
There are no instant cures, but there is one thing that must be done fast: Democrats need to agree on a health bill and start selling it with enthusiasm and conviction. Their own turmoil and back-stabbing are making what is a rather good plan look like a failure while persuading political independents that they are a feuding gang rather than a governing party.
They have to focus in 2010 on immediate job creation and long-term economic mobility while explaining how aggressive measures to boost the economy now go hand in hand with eventual deficit reduction.
Congressional moderates must understand that their fate is linked with the party’s ability to govern, and grass-roots progressives have to be less on a hair-trigger to shout betrayal. (I wish I knew what to do about Joe Lieberman.)
For his part, Obama has not appreciated until recently how closely he has been tied to Wall Street and the banks. He has been too reluctant to underscore how much of Washington’s dysfunction has been pushed to new levels by the Republican Party’s decision to grind the Senate to a halt. He has tried to make clear the size of the mess he inherited from Bush, but has not sold the country on the extent to which he has begun to clean it up.
Americans may not be sold on anything until unemployment starts dropping. Even then, Democrats will have a tough time making the sale if the process that produced the health care bill comes to define the image of how they govern the country. Democrats have every right to blame Bush for the fix we’re in. They can’t blame him for the problems they’re creating for themselves.
This column is copyrighted and licensed to run in full on TMV. (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
15 Responses to “The Democrats’ Bush Nostalgia (Guest Voice)”
If the democrats want lasting power, they need to move their party towards the center, same with the GOP. The Center is the key, always has been always will be when your talking more than the immediate short term.
“There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos“
– Jim Hightower
The democrats are in trouble because they are trying to push radical left-wing policies. And they are lead by a far left-wing inexperienced community organizer.
Liberals are good at “rage” and hate “at the man” and their own liberal fantasies. They stink when it comes to doing grown-up things like building an economy, they are too busy tearing down everyone.
Dude, would you care to do a compare and contrast essay about the difference between states that have been run by Republicans for the last thirty years and those that have been run by Democrats for the last thirty years, say Massachusetts vs Mississippi, Minnesota vs Alabama or Vermont vs Louisiana. In every single case you are going to end with the same result, the Democratic Run State will have a higher GPD per capita, longer life expectancy, higher education level, better health care, better schools, and lower teenage pregnancy rates. This is true with a couple of exceptions Utah looks like a Democratic State, and West Virginia and New Mexico look like Republican States.
Comments like yours remind me of this Norwegian Socialists
there is nothing on the side of the road except drainage ditches and sewer lines
–Leonidas
there is nothing on the side of the road except drainage ditches and sewer lines
–Leonidas
There's a bunch of dead animals over there, too.
On the right side, the shoulder is full of road kill, the sewer leaks and a sinkhole is being created, the ditch is full of garbage ,the water in the ditch is stagnant and a breeding ground for all sorts of nasty bugs, on the left side, the shoulder is wide and men are working maintaining the sewer, the ditches and picking up the garbage.
Oh please, what a load. The “center” has already been dragged far enough into the right in recent history. If that's where the “key” is, then we're in trouble. Oh wait, we ARE in trouble eh? As for these ” radical left-wing policies”, they are mostly a myth used to scare budding conservative neophytes. Give me a break here.
The reason for all the arguments over 'left, right, center' is due to incorrect definitions of each.
It's not 'right wing' to collude with big corporations- it's corporatist.
Many on the left are saying that current policies are not leftist enough because they involve deals with big pharma, the insurance industry, banks, Wall Street, etc. OK, but the previous administration's policies also were not right wing because they involved a similar corporatist bent.
And the centrist compromises all involve moves toward appeasing the corporate interests. If independent, centrist minded voters want to change this, they should stop all the flame throwing and accusations of ill intent toward those with whom they have political disagreements and start supporting actual compromise which seeks out the best logical solutions to problems from both sides of the aisle.
Can anyone explain what so right or left about bank bailouts, stimulus packages, deficit spending, corporate welfare and limiting competition? Since when has the government moved left or right when it came to repealing laws?
Nah, those are half-human half-sewage mutants trying to craw out and get reelected. Same as on the right. They are called politicians.
Adequate and sane health care reform will be the new rallying point. Since the GOP stonewalled it into oblivion we will rally around the pheonix of its ashes. Our health isn't going to improve. Our premiums aren't going to get cheaper. The ranks of the uninsured will swell and nobody is going for the “force people to get tax revenues to pay trumped up and unregulated insurance premiums”. That industry has screwed us to this very day and is not strongarming and extorting us into even more and mandated submission.
No, we will galvanize around health care. It isn't going away. It will never go away until true reform happens. Any politician seeking re-election had better “get it”.
Offer candy and the kids, left or right will grab it. It is simple human nature. The system has to be recrafted (some have tried, I know) so the fat cats can't get the kids hooked in the first place. Much as I hate government interference and control, public financing of candidates, less campaigning time and strict control of blind trusts to hand out campaign contributions and any other measures to minimize undue influence on office holders and candidates. Until then, as always, we will continue getting candidates and office holders mostly concerned with either getting elected or reelected, and not with the general welfare. (Patriotic music playing in the background).
I like your vision and enthusiasm Sil, and it is an appeal to common sense as well… but we both know how common that really is.
Part of the problem is determining who's definition of “adequate” and “affordable” you are shooting for. Medical costs (with or without insurance costs) are far higher than they should be, but forcing them down through competition doesn't seem to be an arrow in any politician's quiver. Using nice sounding but ultimately meaningless adjectives doesn't help define the solution.