Why the Democrats Lost

Peace, love and tax cuts for the rich? That wasn't the deal, Dude.

Pundits keep giving all kinds of explanations for why the Democrats took a shellacking in the most recent election.  Most of them also predict that they will take a bath again in 2012, asserting that Obama will lose. But the fact remains that it was the Democrats who shot themselves in the foot as new polls on the issues reveal.  They surrendered before the election took place, allowing themselves to be put on the defensive, caving before attacks by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck instead of going after them the way Roosevelt would have.  But maybe – just maybe – that was because they never believed in what they were doing in the first place.

Over sixty percent of Americans think that taxing the wealthy is the best way to balance the budget.  A plurality thinks the best place to cut spending is the defense budget.  Yet Democrats snuck out of Washington before the elections without forcing a vote on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  Under Obama they have supported substantial increases in defense spending.  How can such obliviousness to the will of the majority of the American electorate be explained?

First of all, it is cowardice.  The reason for this is quite simple. While the Republicans only pretend to have principles, the Democrats don’t have the courage of theirs.  They live in fear. They cower and take the easy way out.  They are terrified that they will be accused of raising taxes and so they duck instead of giving a simple explanation as to why abolishing the tax cuts for the wealthy makes sense.

They also fear being called soft on defense and soft on terrorism, the kind of attacks in which the Republicans specialize.  This was Lyndon Johnson’s ultimate explanation for why he escalated the Vietnam War.  He said that he feared being called “soft on communism” by the Republicans (think Richard Nixon) and being unable to continue his “Great Society” programs.  It ended in disaster anyway, so what was the point?  Because they allowed themselves to be put on the defensive in 2010, the Democrats allowed the hysteria the Republicans deliberately engendered to sweep the country, even taking down someone like Russ Feingold, who stood his ground but got lost in the flood.

'Least they can't say I's soft on the commies.

Now Biden has pledged that the Democrats will campaign against renewing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in two years. But by failing to stand up for this principle during the election, the Democrats alienated their base.   A great many voters who gave the Democrats control of the presidency, the House and the Senate in ’08 stayed home and allowed the highly motivated Republicans to win.  The liberals proved to be soft, their candidates for Congress lame.  Suddenly they all looked old and tired. The Republicans managed to recruit many young candidates who had lots of energy while the Democrats started to look like a collection of old hacks.  That has always been the problem with the Democrats.  The liberals who run it are an elite, a Mandarin society that expects everyone in the party to bow and ask their blessing.  This discourages talented people who might go into politics.  It is no wonder that young people are moving away from the Democrats.  They are stale.

Obama generated high hopes that could not be fulfilled because he allowed himself to be pushed into orthodoxy by the party leadership.  He surrounded himself with the same team that caused the collapse of the economy and has only appointed Goolsbee after the fact.   It was as though the Democrats, including Obama, started to believe that the positions they had previously taken had become a liability so that the Democrats in Congress became convinced that if they ran on the issues they would lose.  In a number of races they resorted to ugly personal attacks, making them look spiteful and resentful. This was the case in Florida where a conservative black Republican won in spite of the vile and false attacks by the Democratic liberal incumbent.

Shallacked.

In the past the Democrats took the same money as the Republicans, which often determined how they voted. Now only the militant liberal Democrats remain in the House so corporate America has written them off as their perpetual enemies. There are a few Democrats in the Senate still on the take but it won’t be long before they are gone as well.  Right now the future belongs to the Republicans, a startling turnabout two years after the Democratic sweep.  Never let it be said of the Democrats that they have not known how to nab defeat from the jaws of victory.

What’s To Be Done?

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizak, who is the author of the recently published book, LIVING IN THE END TIMES, recently asserted, “We don’t know what to do but we must do something fast.”  Sounding more like the great American comedian, Sid Caesar in his mode as the loony German philosopher than a respected intellectual, Zizak has nevertheless put his finger on the contemporary human condition that is in constant crisis.

Zizak sees Western politics much in the same way as American liberal thinkers such as Richard Hofstadter did in the 1950s, when they were confronted with radical right McCarthyism based on fear of communism. There are two main forces; the traditional liberals or social democrats who accept capitalism and liberal democracy but assert the need of a safety net that they tinker with and the radical right, which today is anti-immigrant, populist, racist and demagogic. In this context, it is the liberal Democrats who are now the conservatives, which in America means fighting to preserve the reforms of Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and Obama’s universal health care, against the rising tide of the radical right, to which the traditional Republican Party has succumbed.

In the Fifties, America was fortunate enough to have the popular figure of Eisenhower to diffuse the radical right as a Republican.  There is

Ike reminds Nixon and the right: "You've got to chill".

no Republican figure now capable of playing that role.  Even Nixon was moderate on the issues and Ronald Reagan, who was able to defeat Jimmy Carter with the most conservative rhetoric ever delivered by an American politician, nevertheless, appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, and working with the Democrats, rescued Social Security, and reformed the tax code, while systematically growing both the size of the government and the deficit.  And while George W. Bush became unpopular because of his military policies, he appointed more blacks to high positions than any American president and expanded Medicare through his prescription drug benefit program that the Republicans in Congress endorsed.

It was the financial crisis that led to the near landslide victory of Barack Obama, American’s first black president and the Democrats in both houses of Congress.  But as soon as the Democrats took power, a right wing backlash of unprecedented proportions took hold, with demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck leading the charge and Fox News playing a key role in whipping up resentment against Obama and the liberals.  The radical right in the form of the Tea Party, led by Sarah Palin, propelled the Republicans to victory in the House, and only the nomination of several week Republican candidates enabled the Democrats to hold the Senate.

The continued high rate of unemployment fueled the dissatisfaction that led to this revolt, but the cry of “ let’s take our country back” with its distinctly racist overtones had much to do with the route of the Democrats.  Smelling blood, the Republicans show every signs of continuing the onslaught by stonewalling Obama, even to the extent of postponing a scheduled dinner with him at the White House, a sign of disrespect for a president of unprecedented proportions.

America's 'Alternate Reality'? You betcha.

And while the continued crisis of the economy necessitated government action and dramatic steps by the Fed, the radical right backlash propelled the dynamics of an anti-government, pro-free market movement that contradicted the failures of the capitalist system itself.  It was as if the radical right and the Republican Party that embraced it were living, as  David Frum has put it, in an “alternative reality.”  They confused what was a crisis of capitalism itself with the illusion of the threat of socialism and the Americans bought it.  With the Democrats in retreat from their own policies and the Republicans determined to bring down Obama and take total power, America is caught in a situation in which there is virtually no possibility of constructive discourse or action.

With virtually everyone on the deficit reduction bandwagon, the right is prepared to throw people to the wolves, terminating unemployment insurance and depriving them of other needed services in the name of saving a capitalist system that can no longer afford the safety net that was put in place to thwart the very socialism so many Americans fear.  The question really is whether you can have economic competition without social barbarism. So, odd as it may seem, the eccentric, bearded philosopher, Zizak, is right. We don’t know what to do but we need to do something fast. Or else.