Multiple dovetailing articles in Monday's NY Times provide us with interesting analyses, since they support the qualitative reality that a populist (anti-Wall Street, if you're a Dem; anti-D.C., if you're a GOPer) meme is emerging as
the over-arching campaign theme that is gaining the most traction among the voting public, not just in the Massachusetts senate race, but throughout the country, perhaps for the
entire 2010 election cycle. Interestingly, Nate Silver, one of the Democratic party's hottest quantitative gurus, came to similar conclusions, just a few months ago.
Unfortunately, as it's also noted (see below) by
all parties referenced in the previous paragraph, the reality--today--is that both parties have serious hurdles to overcome to enable them to properly position themselves in the public's eye before either lays claim to the credibility to rightfully use either meme. Here's where the NYT's John Harwood spells it all out for us: "
Digging Into Massachusetts Campaign, Democrats Might Find Midterm Strategy."
Digging Into Massachusetts Campaign, Democrats Might Find Midterm Strategy
By JOHN HARWOOD
Published: January 17, 2010
The Massachusetts Senate race offers the clearest demonstration yet of Republican strengths in 2010 -- and of how beleaguered Democrats will try to fight back.
--SNIP--
The Republican candidate, Scott Brown, has shocked political circles with a skillful special-election campaign capitalizing on discontent with Washington. Amid 10 percent unemployment, trillion-dollar deficits, Wall Street bailouts and President Obama's controversial agenda, Mr. Brown is running at least neck and neck in one of the most Democratic states in the country.
But the effort by the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, to salvage her campaign just before Tuesday's election, with help from Mr. Obama, may provide an election-year template for her party, much as Mr. Brown's campaign will for Republicans.
The article then points out President Obama's unveiling, last week, of his proposed "financial crisis responsibility fee." Harwood reports that Coakley was all over this issue as she, "... quickly criticized Mr. Brown as an ally of bankers for opposing the tax."
Harwood tells us that Democratic strategists in D.C. "...consider that Ms. Coakley's strongest message in her effort to hold the seat held the Edward M. Kennedy. She will not be the last Democrat to employ it."
The article then reports upon a statement made by White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, on Sunday, where he tells us it's basically just the same-old, same-old GOPer line, whereby the rethugs "...are embracing the policies that created this economic mess."
Summing it all up, Harwood tells us it's all about whom the voters blame most for our country's current economic woes: the Republicans tell them it's the folks currently running things in D.C.; while the Democrats tell them it's the status quo on Wall Street.
Harwood concludes...
Meet Congressional Democrats' 2010 survival strategy: economic populism to counter the antigovernment populism of the Tea Party movement and its Republican allies.
Interestingly, as Jeff Zeleny notes in the top story in Monday's Times: "Democrats Push to Salvage a Flailing Candidacy," when President Obama spoke at a Coakley campaign event at Northeastern University on Sunday--while the plight of the current healthcare legislation in the Senate is uppermost in the minds of many of our nation's top Democrats--the President focused upon his "...populist proposal to tax large banks, a theme that Democrats intend to carry through the midterm elections."
Democrats Push to Salvage a Flailing Candidacy
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: January 17, 2010
...Democratic leaders in Congress and at the White House were bracing for what they said was a real possibility that Ms. Coakley could lose the race. The most alarming fact in polls and internal research, several party advisers said, was that Ms. Coakley was still falling behind Mr. Brown among voters who had a favorable view of the president.
In a rally here, Mr. Obama did not explicitly say that the overhaul of the nation's health insurance system was on the line, even though Democrats in Washington were devising contingency plans to salvage the bill if Mr. Brown wins. Instead, he highlighted his populist proposal to tax large banks, a theme that Democrats intend to carry through the midterm elections.
Bold type is diarist's emphasis.
So, we're being tacitly told by Zeleny, as he vaguely references "several party advisers' " statistics, that voter frustration and anger towards our Democratically-controlled federal legislative branch is at the heart of Coakley's problems. (Of course, if you've been following this story, there's a lot more to Coakley's problems than just this one issue. As you read the stories to which I link in this diary, the bottom line is that in the bluest of blue states complacency was a Coakley campaign issue, allowing the underdog to frame the debate by, in part, pointing to the congresswoman's incumbency within the D.C. status quo.)
However, in the very next paragraph, there's this from President Obama on Sunday...
"Bankers don't need another vote in the United States Senate," Mr. Obama said over booming applause in a basketball arena at Northeastern University. "They've got plenty."
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but that's a Democratic-controlled Senate that our President's referencing. (Am I the only one second-guessing this logic?)
Apparently, not. Enter Paul Krugman, today: "What Didn't Happen."
What Didn't Happen
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 17, 2010
Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration's political strategy. The conventional wisdom seems to be that President Obama tried to do too much -- in particular, that he should have put health care on one side and focused on the economy.
I disagree. The Obama administration's troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn't tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn't do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did -- namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.
Krugman continue on to remind us that the without the President's leadership on the first stimulus package, things would certainly be far worse today than they are now. But, the reality is the administration significantly underestimated the severity of our current economic downturn.
The same can be said about policy toward the banks. Some economists defend the administration's decision not to take a harder line on banks, arguing that the banks are earning their way back to financial health. But the light-touch approach to the financial industry further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending: bailed-out banks have been reducing, not increasing, their loan balances. And it has had disastrous political consequences: the administration has placed itself on the wrong side of popular rage over bailouts and bonuses.
Finally, about that narrative: It's instructive to compare Mr. Obama's rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It's often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan's 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter.
As Krugman sees it: "Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy's troubles didn't start on his watch."
Krugman concludes by making three observations/suggestions to get the Democratic narrative on the economy back on track:
1.) The administration probably--for budget-related and political reasons--cannot do much more about job creation.
2.) President Obama should be pushing hard for regulatory reform, and he should be portraying the GOP as the enemies of it. (This is just a fact.)
3.) Democrats "...should do whatever it takes to enact a health care bill."
And, this is where we reach the 360-degree point of this diary, since this is all quite similar to where Nate Silver suggested--a few months ago--we'd be as far as the key issues of the 2010 mid-terms were concerned.
If you've been following the regulatory reform efforts in congress, as they're being navigated through our legislative branch, like the softball questions lobbed at four of this country's leading bank executives last week by the FCIC, the exercise is amounting to nothing short of a joke.
News Flash: the voting public reads and listens to what's happening, and while the details of the regulatory reform story might not connect with them, directly, the other party reads what's happening, too. (And, while their rhetoric this year might conveniently overlook the reality that it's their own effort to undermine reform which is the problem, the bottom line is that the public sees a Democratic-controlled government.) Perhaps more importantly, the bottom line is that as far as PERCEPTION is concerned, while the majority of economists agree that unemployment is a lagging indicator in a typical recovery from a garden-variety recession (and this is NOT a garden-variety recession; hell, it's not even a recession, it's a recovery from yet another burst bubble), politically speaking, it's the only economic indicator that really matters to voters.
As Krugman reminds us, above, it's all about passing the health care bill and real regulatory reform. And, on this last item, Nate Silver reminds us that this IS the lightning-rod topic on the table for both parties to drive in their direction this year. Or, not. Or, alternatively, it could be: "The Issue That Could Fracture Both Right and Left."
The Issue That Could Fracture Both Right and Left
10.21.2009
by Nate Silver @ 4:21 PM
It's becoming increasingly likely that regulation of the banking and financial sector is liable to be the issue that dominates the first half of 2010. Why? Well in the first place, it's badly needed -- there is fairly broad consensus among economists and regulators that there is still very profound systemic risk in the banking industry.
In the second place, it's not clear what else the Obama administration will do on the domestic policy front, once the health care issue gets resolved. Although the unpopularity of the cap-and-trade program is greatly exaggerated -- most polls in fact show it receiving a plurality or narrow majority of support -- the swing districts in 2010 tend to be big carbon emitters. Immigration reform, likewise, is liable to be a less favorable issue for the Democrats in 2010 than it will be in 2012, when we'll have a younger, more diverse electorate in which Hispanics play a larger role as swing voters. EFCA -- the White House's support for which has always been questionable -- almost certainly isn't going anywhere. Movement on gay rights issues is a possibility, but is more dependent on the White House's willpower than its bandwidth. A second omnibus stimulus bill is probably out of the question, although certainly there will be piecemeal efforts -- extended unemployment benefits, greater investments in transportation infrastructure -- that the White House will pursue. Still, for a hard-working White House, that leaves plenty of time on the table for a big-ticket item, and that item will probably be banking reform.
And, as we've learned over the past few weeks, if we don't handle the reform issue "for real" (as opposed to kabuki and charades), and if we don't keep our eyes on THAT ball, we'll lose the game.
# # #
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT THIS?
Some related links to organizations fighting for financial fairness and stronger regulatory reform include:
Americans for Financial Reform is one of my favorite activist organizations for financial reform. You may join their email list, signup for events and contact them right from the homepage link in this paragraph.
The Center for Media and Democracy (publishers of PRWatch.org) (They've just launched "The Real Economy Project." Get involved!)
U.S. P.I.R.G. is very much at the forefront of the Wall Street reform effort, as well.