We’re going to have to come up with a generic name for this type of editorializing. The basic characteristics are always the same. Despite winning two landslide elections in a row and winning the presidency with a black man from Chicago named ‘Barack Hussein Obama’, the public has no thirst for Democratic/liberal/progressive legislation. In this case, the author insists that we are not witnessing a hunger for liberalism, but merely a backlash against a failure to keep order (similar to what sank LBJ/Humphrey in 1968).
No majority is everlasting, and Democrats must know that. But if they use their time in the sun carefully, they’ll have a good run.
Obama’s every other word was “change.” Good luck in effecting it, but remember this: The change a lot of voters wanted was a change back to what they had.
If the American people merely wanted a change back to what they had, they would have elected Hillary Clinton in a walk. And that was always the most likely outcome of this election. During the Clinton years, we mostly had it good. Why not just go back to that?
For most people, that would have been sufficient, but a small group of left-wing activists were insistent that the problems of the last eight years were pregnant in the late Clinton years. The Clinton’s foreign policy in Iraq had failed, it’s banking deregulation led to our current fiasco, it’s stewardship of the party had been a disaster, and DLC-style politics were ill-suited to the times. Add in Bill Clinton’s personal foibles and all that drama, and the country needed something completely new. Clintonism worked for a while, but it ultimately led directly to Bushism.
The country is facing a total failure of its elite institutions. The Congress and the administration have never been more unpopular. Our regulatory agencies have failed. Our government can’t perform basic tasks. Corruption is rampant. The media is in complete ill-repute.
The people don’t necessarily want liberalism. But it’s hard to define what the people want without acknowledging that it is largely in-line with orthodox liberal thought. If the Obama administration runs the government half as well as they ran their campaign, the people will be thrilled. And when you look at both how and why the Obama campaign was successful, you’ll find that it embodied a lot of liberal ideals. Maybe you needed to visit an Obama Headquarters and get involved to really understand how those ideals work in action. But there is nothing conservative about them.
I think these types of articles will fade away sometime soon. We are all about to realize that we don’t live in Bush’s world anymore. We don’t live in the Clintons’ world. We live in Obama’s world, and it just ain’t going to work the same way as we’ve fatalistically learned to expect.
These stupid articles are certainly tiresome. The biggest problem, to my mind, is that it implies an ideological motive to that part of the electorate that eventually makes the decision. I don’t believe they’re center-right (unless Europe is your template) or center-left. They define the center. They aren’t ideologues. Government affects them one way or another. If they perceive that government has failed–they’ll move the other way. No grand philosophical arguments there. The Goopers failed. They’re gone. The Dems are to be given their chance. If they succeed in making government an asset, they’ll stick around–until they fail. And that failure will provide the GOP with their winning argument–just as GOP failure provided the Dems with their winning argument. Bogus complaints of socialism from the bleacher bums won’t matter.
I agree, and I kind of suspect that’s something like how Obama sees it too. He’s not an ideologue, he’s community organizer and a problem-solver. He will be a community organizer on the national level.
Obama announces his Economic Transition Advisory Team
via TPM
what? No Paul O’Neill?
Today was a goooood day. I like what I’m seeing.
Rahm,
Gibbs..he smacked down Hannity.
Economic Advisory Team. The markets need to see a glimmer of confidence.
Yes it was a liberal victory. Period. Full stop. And it was a vote for change. And the change that most folks voted for is not as much a policy change as a process change. They want a change in the way Washington operates.
And Obama is not going to reprise JFK/LBJ any more than Reagan reprised Coolidge/Hoover.
What to call this analysis? Poor and probably self-serving.
The American public got tired of the top 1% percent stealing from the rest of us, with Bush tax give-aways.
Conservative’s need not fear,the only President to run a Budget Surplus was Pres. Clinton and likely to follow in his foot steps is President-Elect Obama.
For some reason I think we will no longer worry about a Senator having to say “I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”
She apparently misreads the term change as turning back. Those two are not synonyms.
With Rahm coming back to rule the White House, it certainly seems like turning back, with the DLC ascendant. Unless Rahm Emanuel is a political chameleon.
I don’t know if the public has a thirst for Democratic/liberal/progressive legislation, whatever that exactly means. What I am absolutely sure of is that the public has have no taste for the kind of radical right crazy legislation, executive privilege and wall of lies and secrecy we’ve suffered under for the last eight years. Let’s concentrate on the bread and butter issues before worrying about the niche issues. There really is a lot of agreement out there about so many things.
After all, “A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future. …” Leonard Bernstein.
Would anyone out there really want less of this?