Drew Westen: The Two Stories of the Election of 2010: A Biopsy Before the Autopsy

[depakid]

Anyone who writes a party's obituary six weeks before an election is always in danger of penning the headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman." But if the debacle of 2010 does come as expected, and Democrats either barely hold the Senate and lose the House or lose both Houses of Congress, they will have to make something of how they lost historic majorities in record time, and two stories will undoubtedly battle it out.

One is that Democrats overstepped -- that voters weren't really voting for change in 2006 and 2008, they were largely voting against the GOP, the state of the economy, and the Iraq War. This is the line David Brooks has been shopping for two years and that has scared many Democratic leaders into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
....

The second story is that Democrats didn't deliver what they promised: meaningful change people could see and feel. They passed a stimulus package with job-creating provisions half the size most economists called for and filled up the rest with Republican tax cuts that had already proven not only useless but budget-busting. They failed to pass a jobs bill when it was clear that unemployment was going to hover near 10 percent. They passed health care reform from which no voter could see any tangible effects until this week, and paid for health insurance subsidies for working people at the low end of the totem pole years down the road with promised taxes on working people in middle of the pole instead of at the top. And while most voters are yet to see the benefits of health care reform, they've already seen their premiums skyrocket -- just as they saw their interest rates skyrocket after credit card reform.

Having watched the wheeling and dealing over health care, and failed to see a clean break from the last ten years when legislation always seemed to favor big corporations and the rich over ordinary Americans, voters have the pervasive sense that governing is the art of splitting the difference between the public interest and the special interests.

Of course, that would make this the time to introduce a wave of populist legislation, from the Fair Elections bill, which might actually change that, to legislation keeping toxic chemicals out of our homes, our bodies, and our children's cereal boxes (addressing the fact that our laws are so riddled with special-interest loopholes that the U.S. is the only nation with a GDP not dependent on bananas that can't even ban asbestos). The success of Wall Street reform -- perhaps the only piece of legislation Democrats have passed for which they've gotten any credit and which is widely popular -- should have been a signal to Democrats that, right now, populist rhetoric and legislation to back it up win left, right, and center by wide margins and put Republican politicians on the defensive, because GOP leaders are out of step with even their tea-party base every time they adopt a lobbyist.

The worrisome thing about the vote in the Senate this week not to act on middle class tax cuts is that it suggests that the lesson Democrats seem already to be taking away from 2010 may be the wrong one -- that their problem was that they did too much, when all the data suggest that the public's problem with Democrats has been that they couldn't see that they'd done enough.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-two-stories-of-the-el_b_740170.html

[jefferson_dem]

1. As a social scientist, Westen should know that image is reality.

The Dems problem is not one of policy - they have racked up more *progressive* accomplishments than any administration in a generation. The problem is in messaging. Frankly, they have not been able to penetrate the web of lies and misinformation promulgated by the right wing noise machine.

If those on the left would help trumpet the profound successes and highlight the genuine differences between the parties...we might be able to make more *progress* after November. As such, I do agree with Westen on this - "Now is the time to draw clear distinctions between the two parties in word and deed, and to remind the American people what will happen if they let the GOP deal the cards again."

[depakid]

2. Apparently you and Dr. Westen & colleagues don't see the same image

Although some of what you note I'm sure Westen agrees with- hence the suggestion to ramp up the populist rhetoric and hold votes extending the middle class tax cuts that would draw a bright line between the parties.

My view of it at this point would be rather simplistic: Red meat not retreat.

[ibegurpard]

3. I'd be happy to trumpet "profound successes"

However, I OPPOSE health reform that didn't AT LEAST allow single payer to compete with insurance corporations.
I OPPOSE education reform that wants to turn public education over to corporate backed charter schools.
I OPPOSE an administration that sits by and allows the FBI to raid socialist organizations while letting the Bush administration walk.
I OPPOSE a stimulus that gives money to banks and lets them sit on it while everyday Americans watch their futures slip away.

You're trying to tell me I should be cheering them for policies that I OPPOSE.

[jefferson_dem]

4. So your GOTV message for this fall is that you "OPPOSE" the Democratic agenda.

Enjoy that.

Move on.

[ibegurpard]

5. If the Democratic agenda is privatization and police powers then YES

I will adamantly oppose it.