With the midterm elections only a few weeks away, pundits are buzzing with talk of a so called "enthusiasm gap"; one which has been characterized as a rift between revved-up conservatives and dispirited progressives. If the Obama White House, proud of its accomplishments, is frustrated by a base resistant to heading to the polls in droves to fend off a Republican assault, then it's not looking deep enough. The "enthusiasm gap" is not something new. The growing gap between Washington Democrats and the base of its party reflects a profound rift that's been brewing since 1992.
In that year, Democratic voters were energized by the election of Bill Clinton, which marked the end of the long, difficult Reagan-Bush era. Progressives had good reason to be excited in 1992. Clinton promised landmark legislation on health care, and on the campaign trail he vowed to labor audiences that new trade deals would include strong "side agreements" to protect workers' rights and the environment.
However, once in office, Clinton proved himself to be fixated on transactional politics--politics as the art of the deal. Focused on the insider baseball of beltway negotiations, he put forward a pre-compromised health care plan. Contrary to his belief that a watered-down proposal could be ushered through Congress, his plan generated little enthusiasm and went down in flames.
The White House had more success in pushing NAFTA, but it left the labor movement at the altar by abandoning pursuit of any of the protections Clinton had promised. Furthering the betrayal, the president and the Democratic Congressional majority failed to even put anti-strikebreaker legislation on the map--despite the fact that organized labor had emphasized the importance of such legislation for working people hard-hit by the recession of the early 1990s.
Presenting his 1993 budget, President Clinton did little to fight back against the "starve the beast" mentality of the Republicans and defend the need for essential public services. His pitch to the Democratic base was merely that he would slash less than the right. The debate was over degree, not over the substance of public policy. Within a few years, Clinton would play into conservatives' hands by proclaiming that "the era of big government is over."
In other words, rather than taking stands based on real progressive vision, pushing the limits of the possible, and starting a broad debate about the appropriate role of government in our society, the Clinton administration worked to cut deals in pursuit of what the political class in Washington had deemed feasible.
By the time the 1994 midterms rolled around and Clinton had to go back to the Democratic base for support, a huge rift had formed. There was a yawning gap between, on the one hand, what the Democrats thought they were accomplishing for working class and middle class Americans and, on the other hand, the profound disillusionment felt by these same voters.
People throughout the country were angry. They responded to transactional politics in Washington by adopting a transactional attitude at the polls--rationally assuming a "what's in it for me" stance when confronted with politicians who had long placed deal-making before principle. While just two years before voters were inspired by the prospect of the first Democratic president since 1980, they had since grown disgusted. The Republicans took control of Congress.
Unfortunately, we've seen a very similar pattern emerge with the Obama administration. Transactional politics has once again defined the White House's approach to governing. And this time, the gap between Washington and the rest of America is even wider for three reasons:
First, people remember 1992 and 1994. The disenchantment of the Clinton years is hardly in the distant past, and few in the Democratic base enjoy experiencing it again.
Second, it is happening this time amid an even more trying economy. While largely forgotten now, the recession of the early 1990s caused serious pain for working people, who were being introduced to then-fresh catch phrases such as "down-sizing" and "out-sourcing." Today's economic crisis is of an even greater order of magnitude. The likes of it come along once every several generations, and now the job base in our country has been decimated.
Third, having campaigned on "hope" and "change," Obama created very high expectations. Those who anticipated that the new president would be far more visionary than Clinton ever was have been taken aback at seeing him fill his White House with beltway insiders. These officials resumed horse-trading where the last Democratic administration left off. From health care to financial reform to economic stimulus, President Obama has tried to earn a reputation as a "bipartisan" moderate, avoid being labeled "anti-business," and put forward compromise proposals that end up pleasing no one.
Every time the Democrats are too timid to promote a policy solution that the party's base actually wants, they walk into a trap. They end up passing something that is too insignificant to actually deal with the problem at hand but that nevertheless prompts hysterical denunciations from the right. Despite their efforts at moderation, they are vociferously condemned as "tax-and-spend liberals." At the same time, they have nothing to show for their efforts that might make them proud to have earned the label.
Going forward after the midterms, the choice for these elected officials is clear: They can start acting like progressive Democrats and championing legislation that truly serves the needs of working Americans. Or they can continue to play an insider baseball game and call that a victory, shrugging their shoulders or scolding their base when people prove insufficiently grateful.
It's not a difficult decision. We've had almost two decades to learn from the mistakes of the Clinton era. Let's hope it doesn't take another two for the right choice to sink in.
-- Amy Dean is co-author, with David Reynolds, of A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement. She worked for nearly two decades in the labor movement and now works to develop new and innovative organizing strategies for social change organizations in progressive, labor, and faith communities. She can be reached via the Web site: http://www.amybdean.com/.
Campaign finance reform is the only true solution. Broken politics.
But blogs like this are the reason why Conservatives (and the GOP) win so many elections...and Progressives spend so much time standing on the outside of power looking in.
Conservatives are willing to follow leaders, and be patient in achieving their goals.
Whereas Progressives focus only in their pet-issue...and turn on one another when they don't get everything that they want RIGHT NOW. Because they refuse to acknowledge that they only represent 25% of the electorate.
NO politician can win elections with only coalition of only Progressives.
Clinton understood that. Which is why he he has been the only TWICE ELECTED Democratic President since FDR.
What I find amazing is listening to Gen Y--most of whom were too young to clearly remember the Clinton Administration---bad mouth Clinton....
...while at the same time showing NO fundamental understanding of why the GOP hated him so much...and why they hate Obama so much.
Any Democrat who can appeal to the political Center is an EXISTENTIAL THREAT to the Reagan coalition and the aims of the Conservative Movement. In a way that no liberal political figure could ever dream of being.
All I have to say is "scoreboard". Bill Clinton is the only Democratic President elected to two terms in the last 65 years. Whereas George H. W. Bush is the only Republican President NOT to get re-elected in the last 42 years.
The Democrats keep struggling at the polls, because it keeps thinking it can win with Liberals/Progressives alone. While the GOP for decades understood that it needed to forge an alliance between the Center and the Right.
Only when they started to beleive their own spin---and that they could win with Conservatives alone (Karl Rove)---did the GOP self-destruct.
...and now Progressives want to follow Rove's recipie for a "Permanent Minority".
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."--Karl Marx
Clinton resolved the abortion issue though. People forget that after a massive rights march at the end of Bush I, it was the first thing Clinton addressed once elected. Chalk one up for Clinton. Obama zero.
As a progressive, I yearn, like the Tea Partiers, to "take my country back". Unlike the Tea Partiers, I *know* who the real enemy is, it's not "Big Government", it's "Bought Government". I listen to Karl Rove saying that the people don't care if foreign money is influencing our elections, and it blows my mind. These shadow elite are giving our country away with both hands, and no one cares???
The only possible solution I can see, is for the progressives to just keep pushing and pushing and pushing for publicly financed elections and transparency of the whole election process. Maybe, eventually, *someone* in Washington will stand up and point out that the emperor has no clothes.
The only thing going in the administration's favor, during this mid-term election, is that the GOP and Tea Party have put up the most fringe, far-right, rabid candidates, that many independent voters are leery of them.
What's working against the administration is the "Citizens' United" ruling, allowing the flow of huge, undisclosed sums of money (much of it from foreign interests) to buy ads in hopes of influencing the election outcomes. It's not just against Democrats, but against our democracy, as foreign interests will surely expect payment or policies in exchange for their "investments" in our elections...quid-pro-quo.
Bottom line, more American jobs will be outsourced, more wars will begin (UAE & Israel pushing for a confrontation with Iran and Syria), so our economic woes will worsen.
Clinton strategy was to water down any initiative until the Repugnants agreed. Then he would claim victory. All the while he sold the soul of the Democratic party. The reality is Bill Clinton was the original "Compassionate Conservative". For all his touted intellect, and deliberateness, Obama is following the same route. So we continue with still another administration that's neither Democrat, nor Republican. I'm becoming fed up with saying "this is not the change I voted for".
The reason I opposed Hillary Clinton so strongly is that I was afraid she'd be just like her husband; always "making nice" to the very elements of the opposition that only wanted to see him destroyed.
So, I supported Barack Obama, thinking he'd be different. However, Obama has actually been exactly the type of president I thought Hillary would be. He's given so much away, from the very outset, to the most reprehensible types in our society.
And, no matter what he does, and no matter what he says, the Republicans will scream "SOCIALIST" at the very top of their lungs, over and over, no matter the facts, no matter the details, no matter the policy or legislation specifics.
Why can't Barack Obama realize that he's going to be hated by the conservatives no matter WHAT he does and that he can't keep on disappointing the very people who worked so hard to bring him to power?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2De4imXChg
Please talk to Arianna about how to promote your ideas. You need to be on every talk show and repeat your ideas over and over until people get it.