The Democratic Party is most likely going to lose in November. I know it, you know it, leaders of both parties know it. It pains me to say it, but at this point, there isn't a lot that can be done to change perceptions in two months that have been crystallizing for the prior twenty or so. If, and when, the Democrats lose, someone, some group, some policy is going to have to take the blame; it's the nature of politics in our society, and counter-productive as it may be, I can assure you it's going to happen. It's going to be loud, it's going to be ugly, but it's going to happen.
As a matter of fact, this blame game has already begun, pre-emptively, not only (very obviously) here at dailykos, but throughout the left blogosphere, in the tradional media, and even at the highest levels of government. If you think it's bad now, if the Democrats lose the House a mere four years after claiming it back from the GOP, if they lose it to the current not-even-trying-to-hide-its-fascism GOP, the long long-knives are going to be out. Some will come to continue to say what they've been saying: that the last two years has represented a tragedy of epic proportions for our nation, a missed opportunity to effect not only substantial governmental change but also, alongside this, real, genuine cultural change. Some will come to terms with what has happened before our very eyes over the last one and three-quarters year, realize that a large ship has sailed, likely not to return to our port for years, if not decades, a matter of time that represents a large proportion of many of our lives. And sadly, some will retreat further into fantasy and flailing anger, attempting to deflect blame for the most powerful men in our nation with the flimsiest of arguments.
Earlier, I mentioned the blame discussion playing out in the traditional media and the blogosphere. Let me use four prominent examples, three from the pages of the NYT opinion page and one the owner of this very website, to make a point about where I believe the debate over who to blame is headed. The three from the NYT - Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich - have made no effort to conceal who they blame for the sorry state of Democratic politics right now: the administration of President Obama. With Krugman, this is especially apparent, as he constantly criticizes the spun-reality from the administration that we're in some kind of economic recovery, as well as the fact that the stimulus was far too small. Herbert, from my reading, is generally right in line with Krugman's line of thinking. Krugman has also let it be known that the actions and the political posturing of this administration are often inexplicable and highly, highly maddening, not to mention extremely flammable electorally. Essentially, you can only parrot conservative framing and bash your base so many times before the bottom falls out and you're left with (what's already appearing to be) a terminal lack of enthusiasm among the people Democrats rely on to win elections. Alongside these criticisms is another one political in nature: that this White House has done one of, if not the, worst public relations/messaging jobs in living memory. Half-hearted denunciations once a month of their absolutely certifiably insane Republican opponents from the man with the bully pulpit is not going to cut it. You can see this POV expressed at the tail-end of Rich's column the other day about the evil emanating from the Koch brothers, two swine from my hometown of Wichita. Where is Obama countering these memes, calling out these forces of unbridled greed and the useful idiots who can't wait to reduce grandma's Social Security so David Koch can name something else in New York after himself? Saying "we stand against privatizing Social Security when virtually everybody knows that the CFC, appointed by Obama himself, is going to recommend cutting benefits that normal people paid for is siimply not going to cut it. For Christ's sake, where is the fight for not only the morally correct thing but also the politically correct thing?
Why is there no PR campaign drenching the American people with the FACTS about Social Security, that it is solvent now, and needs only modest tweaks to stay solvent indefinitely? Where is the leader of the Democratic Party saying these things, over and over and over, along with the FACT that the Republican Party really does want to put your grandmother, your mom, YOU, out on the street when you're elderly? The FACT that we're not seeing these things leads me to believe that there are two possibilities here: 1) again, President Obama has one of the worst PR teams imaginable in modern American poltics, and they are so fundamentally terrible at their jobs that they are failing to grasp this easy win; or 2) the President is in agreement with the notion of cutting benefits. Judging by the reaction to the Alan Simpson...er, remarks from the White House, I'm forced to believe both. Essentially, if you're not going to fight with all of your might when it's your political future in the balance, and if you're not going to stand up, strongly, for the very core of what it means to be a Democrat in the United States, why the fuck should I?
As for the owner of this website, and the tenor of the FPers here, anyone who can read between the lines even at a marginal level can see what's going on here: Mr. Moulitsas has been pretty upfront with some very damning criticism of this White House and this president. As far as I can tell, he really hasn't tried to hide it. As a matter of fact, I got an email just the other day from dkos action asking me to fight against the looming recommendations for benefit cuts, being pushed by Alan Simpson even now; I needn't remind anyone who appointed Mr. Simpson and who stood by him very recently. Anyone with basic cognitive skills can do the math to see what such an email is obviously implying: lobby a Democratic WH and a Democratic Congress to not cut Social Security. Jesus, what a world we live in. And then today there was the "we should've clapped louder" post. The FPers here have had to be a tad more discreet in what criticism they've had with Obama's White House, generally focusing more on the individual flaps like the Simpson retainment, with little of the overarching themes about what happened to our Democratic Party over the last two years. As the election gets closer, and passes, this will change.
And now, to the people flailing about, looking for a scapegoat, the people convinced that the last two years have represented some kind of sea change in the way this country's elites do business, who have convinced themselves that people who acknowledge reality are reveling in our current predicament. I've seen them say that people who look at the last two years as a blown opportunity are lazy; that those criticizing are themselves to blame for what's happening, not the Democratic politicians who presided over this disastrous turnaround (I actually saw one commenter say that those wishing things were better should stop doing it, it's making Dems look bad. No, it was not snark). Just today, I responded to a user who said that surveyed Dems are dumb to say that they're unenthusiastic about voting this year, ostensibly because those horrible numbers are hurting perceptions. Seriously. We've gotten to the point where many of us are expected to lie to ourselves, to bite our tongues, because we've already done enough damage to the Democrats, we shouldn't try to hurt them anymore by being honest with ourselves and others. But you know what? I'm not going to be quiet anymore. I quit posting here for a good chunk of time because the people constantly casting about to blame everyone except the fucking DC Dems for their troubles literally turn my stomach. But I forced myself to write this diary as a kind of restatement of many of the thoughts that have entered my mind as the Dems fortunes, our country's fortunes, my family's fortunes, have plummeted.
Many others have said what I am saying here, but the line needs to be drawn in advance: the usual suspects are going to blame you for literally not clapping long or hard enough. At first it was Jane Hamsher. Then David Sirota. Then Cenk Uygur. Then Ed Schultz. Then Keith. Then Howard Dean. Then kos. A little earlier, we were told the critics of the WH and the top Dems were not representative of dailykos. Then we were told that dailykos isn't indicative of the base of the Democratic Party. Now, we're told that we can't expect a Democratic president to rule only for the Democratic base. Would've been nice if somebody had explained that rule to Bush. The difference being, of course, that our policy prescriptions are usually correct, unlike the insanity from the right. We're told repeatedly that the critics are an insignificant minority of the Democratic Party, yet we're also led to believe that if and when the Dems lose, it will be our fault. Which is it? We're either insignificant snipers who just don't know how good we have it, or we're a decent portion of the base who have just plain had it.
The bottom line is that it's likely too late to do a lot of mind-changing for this election. Many people have tuned Obama out, and even if they haven't, most of the time he's nowhere to be seen, and when he is seen, he's often pushing things that one would never expect from a Democrat. When the fall comes, there will be a choice to be made: either blame the people who steered the ship into an iceberg, when we were in tropical waters a mere twenty months ago, or blame the passengers who cried out repeatedly that danger this way lies.