Why are Democrats always upset with Democratic politicians? I've heard many, many theories about this over the years ("Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" comes to mind). But I think the answer is this: Democrats have been upset with Democratic politicians because Democratic politicians have been throwing the middle class and the poor under the bus for 30 years. Now wait! I'm not just saying this based on conjecture. There's proof. In fact, there's compelling proof.
Here is Kevin Drum, of Mother Jones:
American politicians don't care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behavior of US senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.
In addition to Bartel's research, political scientists Hacker and Pierson have made a compelling case that since the decline of labor unions, the poor and middle class have lacked organizations to promote their economic interests and this lack of organizational influence has caused the concentration of wealth at the very top. (Kevin Drum summarizes the thesis here; the article is here; the book ishere.) One of the specific arguments Hacker and Pierson make is that elections are only a small part of the political process - what really matters is policy. And influencing policy requires sustained organization - you need think tanks and lobbyists (and more think tanks and more lobbyists). We have the blue print - business did it brilliantly at precisely the same time the left became interested in post-materialist issues (i.e. civil rights, feminism, gay rights, etc.).
The bottom line is that the evidence is clear: We can elect Democrats forever and nothing will change until we build (or rebuild) organizations that will represent the economic interests of the poor and middle class.
Obama supporters often argue that not supporting Obama is really failing to acknowledge the realities of the two-party system. No matter what Obama does, we don't have a real choice - that is the reality of the two-party system. To these realists I would say that not supporting organizations (over party or politicians) is failing to acknowledge the realities of the two-party system. What the research of Hacker and Pierson shows is that the two-party system is run by special interest groups. Not partially run by special interest groups - it is flat-out run by special interest groups. Because the poor and middle class do not have organizations that are sufficiently robust to represent our interests, we consistently lose.
To those who don't want to support Obama, I would argue that Obama is not the problem. We will never get the magic politician who can defy the system - the game is the game. Obama is not the problem - the fact is, he is responding to special interests. Not because he's bad, but because that's how it works. Because the poor and middle class do not have organizations that are sufficiently robust to represent our interests, we consistently lose.
Politicians are bosses and they're like any other bosses - you can try counting on them to be nice, but, the truth is, you collectively bargain or you get nothing. We need to quit wringing our hands over which boss we have and figure out how to bargain collectively.
The question is not whether to support Obama or not to support Obama. There is only one question: How do we organize?