There are two main complaints coming from voters about Congress - and of course, both have to do with getting things done.
On the one hand, you have purists outraged about compromises. On the other hand, you have frustration about the lack of progress being made and the gridlock in Congress at a time of 9+% unemployment, huge trade deficits, etc.
The problem is that the demands for purity are diametrically opposed to the demands for results.
Case in point, health reform. Republican purists are outraged about a "massive government takeover" of healthcare, the increased regulations, the mandates for insurance, and the costs involved. Democratic purists are also outraged about costs, but recognize that only through regulation and a Medicare-like program to rein in costs and set fees, there will be no way to fix what's broken. And Democrats are also concerned that healthcare costs put adequate care out of reach for tens of millions of American citizens, as well as immigrants, guests, and refugees.
But when a March 2009 summit on health reform turned into a year-long process of committee meetings, phone banks, nonstop news coverage, fact checks, attacks, and counterattacks, the American people got frustrated. There were other important priorities, too, that needed to be addressed, such as climate change, immigration reform, and most importantly, job creation.
The ugly, protracted, partisan process turned off many voters and left almost everyone feeling bruised. That is not to blame President Obama for daring to do what others had not. At the end of the day, subsidies, mandates, regulations, and reforms will lower costs, increase access, and improve affordability for American families and businesses, as well as government. But the process was ugly and left purists frustrated and compromisers disillusioned.
We're back in the same place in the lame duck session, as Republicans refuse to compromise on tax cuts. They believe that it is fundamentally unequal to raise rates on the wealthy while lowering rates on the rest of the population. (Only a Republican could see millionaires as an oppressed minority group.) They are unwilling to compromise on tax cuts and believe (counterfactually) that raising taxes will kill jobs and slow economic growth.
Democrats, on the other hand, are unwilling to be responsible for the political ramifications of allowing the tax cuts to expire on the middle class and poor American families. And they are frustrated by the ugly process and the need to make nice with Republicans who have just eaten their lunch at the polls.
The numbers just don't work out. A Republican filibuster only requires 41 Senators to do nothing but ignore their Democratic constituents. Democrats in the House have passed 420 bills (as of October 6) that haven't been voted on in the Senate. But where President Obama recognizes the math and knows that compromise is necessary, purists are hammering Obama for failing to take a strong stand.
But it's not Obama who needs to take a stand. It's the American people. President Obama has been clear about his desire to cut taxes for incomes up to $250,000 (that's for everyone, not just for those who earn less) and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. He's talked about it in his weekly address. The majority of the American people agree with Obama. But the Republican "red states" are typically much smaller in terms of population, and each state has two Senators. The Republican "no compromise" message is inspiring Democrats to do the same, which just leads to gridlock and more turned-off voters.
The vast majority of American voters like Democratic Party ideas. They just don't pay close enough attention to the process details to realize that Republicans are using a 41-vote minority to block progressive legislation and progressive nominees for Federal agencies and court appointments.
That's a message we need to continue to put forward.