Given the light shone on the White House's disdainful views of organized labor after the recent pyrrhic Lincoln primary victory in Arkansas, we may be reaching a critical, and potentially perilous tipping point in Democratic support for the president. This loss of support clearly now ranges well beyond "educated white progressives," and now includes increasing percentages of the traditional activist Democratic base.
Yesterday the ACLU Executive Director, Anthony Romero appears to have opened a talk at the progressive America's Future Now conference with this statement, as tweeted by Marcy Wheeler: "I'm going to start provocatively . . . I'm disgusted with this president."
I see this as further evidence that president Obama and his White House advisers have entered a Beltway bubble that may end up costing it and the Democratic Party (and by extension, US) dearly both this fall and in 2012.
Romero later clarified the remark, but essentially confirmed it.
In an interview with POLITICO, Romero confirmed the gist of the quote, though he emphasized it wasn't intended as an ad hominem attack.
"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by. It's not a personal attack," Romero said.
While liberals of various stripes have or had gripes with how Obama has conducted himself since taking office, civil libertarians may well be the most disillusioned at this point.
But it's not just the "fringe left" ACLU DFHs that are disillusioned. The White House very publicly failed to repudiate the anonymous, snarky, disdainful "senior official" who said after Blanche Lincoln's bare victory on Tuesday over Bill Halter in Arkansas that:
"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise," the official said. "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."
As we all know, White House Press Sec'y Gibbs' statement, while portrayed by some as "walking back" the unnamed senior official's snarky post-primary comment, certainly did not repudiate it.
Tipping Point for the Activist Base?
And labor's response represents a tipping point, in my mind. Reacting to the "flushed down the toilet" remarks, AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale responded that
"Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party."
Bill Halter was supported by several prominent labor unions, themselves disgusted by Lincoln's obstruction of a number of "Main Street," working folks issues, among them the Health Care Reform legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans (even after the also popular Public Option was stripped from the legislation to mollify conservative Dem Blue Dogs like Lincoln).
The Democratic Establishment has developed a political tin ear, and increasingly risks splintering the Democratic Party with its pro-corporatist agenda and conservative stance -- particularly when such support is so brazenly disdainful of the interests of labor, civil liberties, transparent government (see Jesselyn Raddack's rec-list diary on WH prosecution of gov't whistle-blowers), the environment, offshore drilling, and a host of issues traditionally dear to most (if not all, granted, Bill Clinton and his DLC-sympathizers excepted) of their base.
This is not a minor hiccup in the overall dominance of the Democratic Party. Many of these groups represent the most activist elements in the Party, and though in a minority, their activism has a larger influence on electoral outcomes than their numbers indicate.
The White House may be gambling that "independent" voters and corporate donations will overcome deficits in Democratic "base" enthusiasm that will likely grow, but it is a dangerous gamble. The economy is still on very shaky ground (as exemplified, among other indicators, by very disappointing consumer confidence numbers out today: Fewer Americans Feeling Better About Their Financial Situation), and even though large majorities of Americans blame BP, and not the White House, for the Gulf Oil catastrophe, there are early indications of erosion in Pres. Obama's national support based on this issue (Gallup shows 53% polled believing White House handling of the Gulf crisis as "poor" or "very poor"). And the BP spill political repercussions for the White House are likely to only get worse (my opinion, FYI, given that I believe American's will be looking beyond BP for a scapegoat, once they realize the true extent of this calamity; yes, it is a guess, based on instinct: E.g., Jimmy Carter got to find out the consequences of events beyond his control during the Iran Hostage Crisis).
Point being: At a time when Obama and Co. are looking at some very shaky current political and economic indicators, taking such anti-base, conservative policy positions are going to take a toll at the margins, minimally, at a time when they can ill afford to lose this support. Yes, self-identified "liberals" may be in a minority in the Party, but those, like organized labor (blue collar and white-, teachers, government workers, etc.) are not such a small minority that they can be so arrogantly, easily dismissed by this White House.
Flame on, Kossacks. Please keep it civil and avoid the ad homs, s'il vous plait.
UPDATE: Thanks to Kossack Richard Lyon and DaleA, among others, for pointing out GLBT voters as another important, disaffected segment of the Democratic base that I'd forgotten to include.
And let me reiterate: This is essentially a practical argument: I am not arguing that Obama is a "bad" president, or anything so crude or extreme. I AM arguing that it is in my and all of our interests if the White House makes sensible policy decisions that might help get them reelected in 2012 -- so we can avoid another catastrophe like 2000 and 2004.