Congressional Democrats and the White House are getting a lot of advice today. Almost all of it is self-serving. I might have some advice, but I mainly have a few observations.
As someone who spent 2005-2009 documenting the behavior of the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress, I can tell you that we’ve never suffered from such a period of sustained unethical and even criminal behavior in our nation’s history. That those characters were also almost comically inept and incompetent only made matters worse. They were so bad, in fact, that it didn’t require any kind of ideological battle to defeat them. People just wanted change.
We’ve had bad administrations before. We’ve even had failed administrations before. But we’ve never had quite the toxic brew that we experienced in the second term of the Bush administration. They left the country heavily indebted, with a cratering financial sector, escalating unemployment, a housing crisis, and internationally discredited while bogged down in two unpopular wars in Asia. But you know all this.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Obama administration attempted to treat the Bush administration the same way all other incoming administrations have treated an outgoing administration of the other party. That is to say, they treated them as members of the permanent Establishment in good standing. Their punishment was being stripped of the offices and accouterments of power, nothing more. Where possible, members of the Bush administration were retained in the interest of comity and continuity. Republican members of Congress were invited into the cabinet. Crimes were not investigated, or were put off to another day.
There were many fine reasons, both practical and political, for taking this road, but they ignored they magnitude of the rot at the heart of our country after eight years of Bush and Cheney in power. They ignored the very nature of the Republican Party that Bush and Cheney bequeathed upon the nation.
Obama wanted to rise above petty partisan bickering and rule by consensus. But the other side was so corrupted that this proved impossible. And, I think, this phenomenon goes beyond mere partisan politics to extend to Wall Street, and to our culture more generally after eight years of terrorization and regulatory neglect by our government. Our media is thoroughly corrupted, as well.
Above all, the political cost that Obama has paid has come from his failure to articulate the nature of the beast he defeated. And, I think, this is partly due to his failure to understand the depth and breadth of the cancer that is feeding on our Republic. To be sure, it has metastasized into the Democratic Party, too. But that wouldn’t be a problem if not for the complete rot in the other party.
A narrative needs to be told about the degree to which the Republicans screwed up this country, flouted the law, violated privacy and civil rights, and took the money and ran. Until the Obama administration is willing to tell the American people the truth about the biggest threat we face (which is not the threat of terrorism) and to behave like they are serious about defeating the Republicans and driving them into the ground, we are going to lose elections to lightweights like Scott Brown whenever our own candidates are less than satisfying.
While I agree with all you say, I think most commentators miss the main problem.
Yes, we have a rot. Yes, we had a bad administration.
But the REAL problem was not the rot in that administration. The problem is the rot that exists within the American populace. Probably 45% of the population does not even see the previous administration as ‘bad’, or as incompetent. They would have absolutely no problem having a republican ‘do over’.
When you have a rather large group that is proud that they went and shouted down public officials trying to speak, and are actively protesting in favor of insurance companies screwing THEM, you have a serious cultural problem.
Your damn right there is rot. And it is within us. Our government is just reflecting that.
nalbar
People are mostly the same all over. Our citizens at least have a generalized expectation about having a say. That immediately puts our electorate in a better position than average. What’s key is leadership. You can set up the finest system imaginable and have a highly educated electorate, and poor, evil, leadership will corrupt them and lead them astray.
Or a poorly engaged mean spirited population can elect poorly engaged, mean spirited politicians.
You are correct, people all over are mainly the same.
Mostly stupid. I can prove it;
George Bush was elected to a second term.
Americans right now have the government and the politicians they deserve. You cannot deny that, because they voted for them.
nalbar
I don’t know.
Countless children are raised by brutal, negligent parents and wind up being rotten, venal, terrible human beings. Are they the people they deserve to be?
We expect adults to make free, informed decisions based on some basic agreement on what’s decent. But a government that terrorizes its populace with threats of terrorism, scapegoating, and appeals to their basest instincts can destroy the better angels of any electorate.
I am not sure I get your analogy. But; countless parents are stupid (not that they have low IQ’s, but that they refuse to keep themselves informed) and they teach their children to be stupid. Is it the child’s fault (when they grow up)? Of course not. But that does not change the fact that they are stupid.
There seems to be a fetish in America (maybe everywhere, but I live here) not to ever hold the population responsible for the government they get. I find it strange. Of course they are responsible! They keep voting for fools. They keep voting against their own economic self interest. In fact, 50% of the population INSISTS that their government give the to the rich and steal from the poor.
More proof (as if you need more than Bush)?
This guy;
http://infinitesearch.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mitch-mcconnell-09081.jpg
Who would possibly vote for that guy. He has so much botox in his face he does not feel mosquito bites. He’s a GD freak.
We have the leaders we deserve.
nalbar
Heh, I know of people who love it when their rich bosses get tax breaks because “maybe I’ll get a raise due to his raised compensation in paying less taxes.”
“…a fetish in America (maybe everywhere, but I live here) not to ever hold the population responsible for the government they get. I find it strange. Of course they are responsible!”
Technically, “they” are responsible. But who are “they”? The real problem is that it is very difficult to hold a voting collectivity responsible for anything, especially when the system is as uneven as ours is.
First of all, a majority of American voters did vote for Obama. That alone was historic, and around the world it was recognized as a remarkable achievement. Of those who did not vote for him, there were various reasons. And it is easy to forget that in every state and county that did not go for him, there were many who did vote for him.
Look at Massachusetts. People voted for Brown, or against Cloakley, for all sorts of reasons. Apparently a majority who voted against Cloakley do like Obama, strange as it may seem. And in the long run, they may have done us all a favor — I mean there is that argument, if we see that Obama really understands the wakeup call. We shall see.
Then, we speak of people voting against their own interests. We always assume we know what their interests are better than they do. Maybe they just see things differently. That doesn’t mean I like it, but it’s not so easy to know where difference of viewpoint shades off into downright ignorance and cussedness.
Then there’s the whole issue of gerrymandered districts. Today, the congressmen and the state legislators get to pick their voters at least as much as the voters get to pick them.
Then it’s the disproportionate power of states with small populations, especially in the senate.
Or the winner take all setup of the Electoral College.
Or the stupid “rule of 60” for cloture in the Senate.
Or the mass media always pandering to the lowest common denominator, de-educating the public. Or the “respectable” press with its “he said–she said” structuring of issues. Or the two-party system that is committed to giving a very unpopular party as much respectability as the much more popular party. Or our political campaigns based on the legally-sanctioned principle that corporate money is equal to “free speech.”
So no, it’s not “the population.” It’s just a part of the population, and frankly a lot of the other factors have just manipulated people and/or turned themoff participation.
Sating it’s actually a small percentage does not confront that politicians win with majorities. Which means it is NOT a small percentage.
BTW, when you say;
“frankly a lot of the other factors have just manipulated people and/or turned themoff participation.”
Only stupid peple allow themselves to be manipulated like this. You make my points for me.
nalbar
You miss the point my friend. The Democrats ARE the majority.
In fact, it is not a “rather large group”. It is a small group. Less than 10% in most town hall meetings in August. What was the best they could pull in a nationwide march on DC, with the blessings of the GOP and the promotion of Fox News? 100,000? 70,000?
You have a well televised group being recruited by one or more DC lobbying firms, under the direction of Dick Armey. Plus a small number of neo-Confederates or neo-Nazis who have decided to hang on this group like the Marxist Spartacists tried to hang on to the anti-Vietnam War movement, plus a handful of LaRouchies with inflammatory racist signs, plus a handful of Ron Paul supporters who think they are talking about libertarianism. And a handful of birther hangers-on.
In fact, out in the boonies, there is not the rot that you think based on what you see on TV. Even in the South, we are not overrun with neo-Confederates and Klansmen or Tea Party folk. Rally in the state capital of Raleigh could only draw 300. The Tea Party anti-health-care bus parked for two weeks at the NC State Fair. Less than one in a hundred stopped to talk with them and not everyone who stopped signed their petition. I was waiting for my family for an hour by this bus (yes, I need combat pay for listening for an hour to a godawful tape loop) and take what I saw as a random sample, if anything weighted toward the upward end because it was Senior Day.
The real rot is in government at all levels and the rot in businesses who seek advantage through lobbying government (not all businesses do) and in the business associations and lobbying firms that are the intermediaries. And the legal beagles involved in the revolving door among all of these organizations. The rot is in the self-professed elite.
Right.
50 million plus voted for Bush the SECOND time, when it was apparent he was an idiot.
That is not a small number. Sure, the ‘shouters’ are small, but they are backed by millions.
It’s kinda useless talking about it, because almost everyone refuses to confront a basic fact;
About 50-60 percent of the population is stupid. And they vote for stupid people.
Of course it’s their fault.
nalbar
I would argue that about 25% of the population is incurably stupid. But in November 2004 about 50% or more were still suffering the effects of our government and media’s terrorism scare campaign that started on 9/11/01.
Under such terror, the PR firms managed to convince Scared White People to not only drive their families around in tanks with yellow ribbon magnets on the back but also that a decorated war hero was a wimp who would “wave the white flag of surrender” to The Terrorists and that the other guy, an AWOL cocaine-addicted drunken “fighter pilot” frat-boy is a Strong Leader who cares about protecting us all from The Terrorists. And don’t forget Ashley…
I always thought that ad was the clincher… Plus all the voting irregularities in Ohio.
I have to say that I think the real failure was Al Gore’s in 2000. The news media slimed Clinton for a year and then the Republicans impeached him. On the day he was impeached, a poll showed Clinton had a 66% approval rating. But rather than run against the extremist Republicans who impeached Clinton over nothing, Gore ran against Clinton, even choosing as his running mate the guy in the Senate who had orchestrated the attempt to get Clinton to resign.
When no one called the Republicans out for this bullshit (except Hillary, who got laughed off stage), it gained mainstream status. Gore not only helped validate Republican extremism, he pissed away the advantages of 8 years of successful incumbency and made the election close enough that 4 corrupt members of the Supreme Court and a suddenly-convinced Sandra O’Connor (who had voted against the same arguments a few weeks before) could steal it for Bush. Of course no one called Bush out for his extremism – the leader of the Democrats had already validated it. Now these fascists are just the opposition party – for now. Half of the top of the Bush Administration belongs in prison. The fact that none of them are even on trial – or under investigation (in the US) as far as I know – guarantees that it won’t be pretty the next time the “conservative” “Republicans” are back in power. And it won’t be long now.
50,999,897 Gore
47,402,357 Clinton II
44,909,806 Clinton I
Just sayin’
It’s amazing how DC conventional wisdom about what candidates and Congress should do wind up leading Democrats astray. Blame this one on the conventional wisdom that told Gore that he was in trouble because of Clinton. And the crummy campaign crew that advised him to do stupid things.
And yet he still won both the popular and electoral vote.
The real blame falls on five men and women, all appointed by Republican presidents. And them alone. And I am still convinced that those remaining on the Court should be impeached for this decision. Another example of rot.
And them alone. And I am still convinced that those remaining on the Court should be impeached for this decision.
And you know what’s truly sick. Hasn’t O’Connor basically said that made a mistake. Or wishes she could do it all over again? Basically because Dubya made a mockery of what she believed Conservatism to be.
If that’s true, that’s a confession that the reasoning was bogus and the intent was to (s)elect Bush. It’s the statement of the most activist of activist judges; these five activist judges, from the bench, decided who the president of the United States should be, based on their own ideology.
It doesn’t matter what the consequences of a decision if it is properly within the Constitution. Those decisions are about the process of rule and the restrictions on power.
If that’s true, that’s a confession that the reasoning was bogus and the intent was to (s)elect Bush.
It was bogus at the time it was made. Don’t you remember the Supremes saying this was a one time only decision and should not be used for future precedent?
1992
Clinton 43
Bush 37
Perot 19
1996
Clinton 49
Dole 40
Perot 8
2000
Gore 48
Bush 48
Nader 3
Pissed it away
Rounding introduces minor errors, but the real statistic was in the original post – 66% approval for Clinton AND THEN GORE RAN AGAINST HIM. When you have 66% market share and you only need 50% +1 (electoral) of the votes, why repudiate your existing market share and try to sell a new product? Democrats keep appealing to swing voters. Eight years of Karl Rove should have shown us that the most important thing is to keep your core supporters happy – especially when you have 66% – or 53% of the market.
Why do you repudiate you existing market share? Because you listen to Washington insiders.
About appealing to swing voters, you do that because of the math.
33% Dem (and not all progressives by any stretch of the imagination)
33% Swing (left, right, and center)
33% Republicans
The percentages are generalized because some self-identified “independents” really consistently vote Democrat or Republican and are not swing voters.
Democrats piece together a majority with a Democratic base (including Blue Dogs and New Democrats), an appeal to lefty independents, and an appeal to centrist independents. The balancing act is between losing lefty independents and losing centrist independents. To the extent that there are more lefty independents who vote and are willing to vote for Democrats, that shifts the balance toward progressive Democrats. To the extent that the lefty independence take the George Wallace view (“There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.”), that shifts the balance toward the swing centrist voters and away from progressive Democrats.
The ideological position of lefty independents, centrist independents, and righty independents varies from state to state. The mix of progressives, Blue Dogs, and New Democrats in the Democratic base varies from state to state. Keeping the base happy in most states means keeping the New Democrats happy; they are the swing voters within the party caucuses.
The assumption that progressives are Democrats’ core supporters is a conceit of progressives. It is much more complicated. It is true in some states and not in others. It could be more true if progressives thought more in terms of organization.
And to confuse this even more, what is tolerated as left, center, and right changes over time. Left was more to the left and right was more to the right in the 1930s, when both communists and fascists were considered tolerable swing voters.
I agree with you that a tremendous opportunity was lost to seer the failures of the Bush administrations into people’s memories, to permanently brand the GOP as the party of failure and corruption, but I don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it now. I think the administration underestimated the extent to which people would have such a collective case of amnesia- I guess in hindsight its clear why the Bush administration is virtually forgotten: people remember mistakes and misdeeds committed against them, but they repress violently tragedies that they were complicit in. And given Bush’s 80% approval ratings post 9/11, most of us were complicit in Bush’s failures and corrupt deeds.
Beyond the mistake of wanting a “fresh start” approach, Obama also was guilty of “fighting the last war” with respect to his approach to health care, which very well may be, as Jim Demint threatened, his Waterloo. All the buzz amongst my friends who had ties to the incoming administration was the desire of the Obama team to get right everything that the Clintons got wrong with healthcare and their first two years of office. And Obama, like the French in the leadup to WW II, had the perfect strategy to pass healthcare in the political world of 1994. The Obama team’s strategy, which they indeed put into effect, was to bargain with the corporations and other key stakeholders into a broad form of healthcare that everyone could support- rather than flailing against the powerful corporations, they would get them on board and then let the supermajorities in congress carve out the details. And like the Germans in 1941 invading France by way of Holland and bypassing the French fortifications on the franco-german border, the GOP decided to change the rules of the game of american politics. The GOP managed to transform and organize itself into a parliamentary party (you keep referring to them as obstructionist, etc, but I think that ignores the larger point- they are just acting like any healthy, normal parliamentary party). A top down, unified and disciplined parliamentary party through a massive wrench in the gears of our legislative institutions and the Obama administration had no ability to shift gears once it had already struck some pretty unpopular deals with the corporations. This is actually pretty complicated stuff and I have no idea how you explain this development to the American public. All i can come up with is the “Republicans hacked democracy” but it needs work.
Anyway the GOP is playing a very cynical game right now (refusuing to give the majority party any “wins” no matter what in hopes that a frustrated public will throw the ineffective bums out in november), but because its politically savvy and allows the village to dust off one of their favorite fairy tale narratives called “Why the Dems lost in 1994” no one who knows better is calling them on it.
I really think the Dems have two options to avoid losses in 2010 and a one term presidency for Obama: either the dems need to (i) steer themselves and morph into a party that is as disciplined and top down as the GOP, and be willing to use some nontraditional legislative tricks like reconciliation or (ii) embrace populism.
?
He can’t possibly be that stupid. Nobody could be that stupid. Who are the Republicans who appeared ready to stop bickering and reach for consensus? Name them.
The election of ’08 was about leadership. The nation thirsted for it and Obama has not provided it.
The easiest place to curb a problem – in this case, the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party and movement “conservatism” – i.e. right-wing radicalism – is at the early stage. So, while I think Al Gore could and should have done the job fairly easily in 2000, the Democrats could have done the job in 2009: 1) Point out – repeatedly, in chorus, for an extended period of time, in every available venue – “All of those ‘new’ ideas about de-regulation, letting the marketplace rule, etc. that the Republicans have been selling for the last 28 years are wrong and have been proven wrong by the economic disaster they have created.” 2) Give the Republicans ONE opportunity to be bi-partisan on something very visible and necessary – e.g. the stimulus package – and then let them have their little temper tantrum in public and tell everyone, “Here is your modern Republican Party: they don’t care about you, they don’t care about the country, they only care about themselves.” 3) In the Senate, make them filibuster at the first threat – stay on the floor and read the phonebook on TV as long as they want until everyone in the country sees who they are. 4) Make clear to Democrats (especially in the Senate) that their future in leadership is dependent on their reliability in voting for, forwarding and whipping for the Democratic agenda. 5) Propose Medicare for All as the Health Care Reform package. 6) Have Obama go on TV every time there was any wavering, and ignore stupid comments from the brain-dead media that he was getting “over-exposed.” Probably still could be done, but it would take some courage and vision, so …
The easiest place to curb a problem…is at the early stage.
In retrospect, not electing warmongering Hubert Humphrey in 1968 was the point of failure in curbing right-wing radicalism. The YAFers of that day are the current Republicans in Congress and the folks like Dick Armey who are ginning up the the crazy.
Well, I agree it would have been far better for Dems to have nipped Repub lawbreaking (the stolen 68 election) in the bud starting back in 1968, called them out immediately on it (pre-68 election that is), then gone later for the investigation and criminal charges. A prison sentence or two for some Repub bigwigs, including Tricky, might well have deterred later Repub criminality in at least 2 subsequent administrations.
Pres Johnson had the goods on Nixon, but utterly failed to do anything with it. Might badly undermine Nixon with the public should he win the election, said supposed tough guy Johnson. And, not surprisingly, non-tough guy Hubert agreed and said nothing.
One correction about Hubert: he was no warmonger, imo. He’d strongly opposed Lyndon’s escalation plans in early 65, in two memos for LBJ, and for his unwelcome candor Johnson then cut off his VP for months from further WH discussions on the matter. Hubert then learned how to get back in Daddy Lyndon’s good graces — go out there and cheerlead Johnson’s War.
No warmonger — just a well-intended pol of liberal instincts who, however, was too weak-willed to fully break with his boss when it counted.
Ain’t gonna happen, Booman.
The leopard doesn’t change his spots. And Obama has picked his spots very carefully in order to get where he is today.
Plus and minus.
Without severe and binding assurances of hands-off on certain sections of the PermaGov, he would never have been (s)elected to be the “reform” Preznit.
And now that he has clambered to the top of that particular barrel, his hands are effectively tied.
He is still the President, of course, and he has the power to untie the bonds that hold him. But the risk that would be entailed by doing so could be a mortal one.
Quite literally. (It’s been done before…)
Even if the opposition is not quite as into domestic wet work as it was in the ’60s (They use other tactics…mostly control of the hypnomedia…now. Nixon. Clinton. Bush II. So much less messy, and just as effective. Although slower.)…even if they are no longer shooting people out of limousines, how long do you think it would take him to push through the media’s absolute resistance to the idea? Three years or more even if it was possible. By which time…he’s OUTTA here!
Catch 22?
Caught 22.
Bet on it.
I think he lies awake at night weighing the options.
And the only logical one to which he will be able to come…for himself and for his family, for which I have no doubt he has great love…is to take the middle path and probably retire as an honored (and extraordinarily wealthy) ex-Prez.
So it goes.
I’ll say it again.
Until the power of the corporate-owned media is totally destroyed, nothing is going to happen that will in any way negatively impact the profit structure of the PermaGov here.
How to destroy it?
Ay, there’s the rub!!!
I can only think of one way.
Starve it out.
Until a large part of the population awakens from its ongoing, media-enforced dream, nothing real is going to happen.
Only tales told by an idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Like dat.
So it goes.
The US public has chosen its own fate.
Macbeth considered the option 400+ years ago.
He chose otherwise.
But then…he din’t have no TV to watch.
So it goes.
Later…
AG