Why the Democrats Are Losing Ground As Obama Is Gaining It

While the President is off being the leader of the free world and trying to restore prosperity at home, someone needs to manage the blind trust of the Democratic Party before its assets dwindle like shares of Citigroup. President Obama's approval ratings have continued to break records, and with good reason. In less than 3 months, he has already proven himself remarkably capable as a leader, in getting a stimulus package passed (while learning some hard lessons about splitting the difference in policy with the people who created the mess); steadfastly refusing to jettison health care, energy, and education reform from his budget in tough economic times; beginning to heal the deep wounds left by his predecessor in the U.S.'s relationship with the rest of the world through both his mastery of foreign affairs and his emotional intelligence as diplomat-in-chief; and even signaling his intention to take on comprehensive immigration reform. All of this has happened as Republicans have seemed increasingly impotent, ideologically inflexible, and oppositional, none of which endears them to anyone but the 30% who still think Bush was a great president (and apparently remain off their medication).

Yet at the same time, something else is happening under the radar: the fortunes of Democrats more generally are starting to wane. March was a good month for Barack Obama but a bad month for the Democratic Party. As the latest Rasmussen polls show, in March the percent of voters who consider themselves Democrats dropped by 2 percent--four times the rate of decline among Republicans (even as the Republicans were publicly flailing, producing numberless budgets, and unwittingly branding themselves as the party of old ideas and the party of "no"). More ominous, the margin of voters supporting a Democrat over a Republican in a generic ballot for Congress dropped to its lowest point since both the Iraq War and the economy had clearly gone south by 2006: one percent (40 vs. 39%).

So how could it be that President Obama's standing in the polls is holding steady or improving while Democrats' standing in the polls is falling? And does it matter, so long as he is able to get his agenda passed through a heavily Democratic House and Senate?

Let's start with the second question first. It does matter. The President's ability to stay on the path he has charted requires not only Democrats holding or increasing their majorities in 2010 but on their holding onto public support for sweeping change. It also requires moderate Democrats and those from conservative states and districts to feel comfortable voting for new spending, and likely a second stimulus package, knowing that they will be attacked in the next election with the familiar refrains of big-government tax-and-spend liberals (if not socialists).

And as for the first question, the paradoxical popularity of the new President while the fortunes of his party are waning, not only makes sense but is predictable from an understanding of the psychology of public opinion and "branding." Any marketing executive will tell you that a good product is certainly a big help for sales, particularly if the competition is producing lemons. That's the situation we have now in American politics, where the Democrats are producing solutions where Republicans manufactured problems, and where the Republicans are now trying to re-sell "pre-owned" ideological vehicles that have a bad habit of running into ditches.

But the best products fail without good branding. In politics, you don't win on ideas alone. Comprehensive energy reform was a no-brainer after OPEC began embargoing oil 35 years ago, but the percent of our energy we are importing from overseas has only skyrocketed since then, and Americans were buying Hummers until gas hit $4.00 a gallon. Health care reform made good sense in 1993, but last I looked, it hasn't happened. Successful branding requires two things: creating positive associations to your own brand, and differentiating it from competing brands. In politics, that means offering voters a clear, memorable, emotionally compelling narrative about your party's core principles, while presenting them with an equally clear, memorable, and evocative story about the other party that would not make anyone want to be associated with it. If there were ever a time Democrats could offer both stories, this is it.

But the failure of Democrats to brand themselves has been a perennial problem since the breakdown of the New Deal coalition in the 1970s, and it remains a major problem today, leaving Republicans the opportunity, once they get their ideological chops back, to start branding both parties again, as they have for the better part of thirty years. Democrats stand for spending our way out of a looming Depression--a sound policy when no one else has the money or chutzpa to spend or invest--but how does that differ from the fiscal irresponsibility with which Ronald Reagan branded the party of "tax and spend" 30 years ago? Democrats stand for shifting to clean, safe 21st century sources of energy rather than relying on the fossil fuels of the last two centuries, but then why is the Secretary of the Interior waxing poetic about expanded offshore drilling?

It's hard for people to hear your message when you aren't speaking. I suspect few Americans even know that Governor Tim Kaine is the new DNC chair, while his RNC counterpart, Michael Steele, is at least busy publicly humiliating himself. And the President has inadvertently chosen to keep his popularity to himself. Whereas Bill Clinton rebranded himself--and by extension, his party--as a "different kind of Democrat" than the voters had repeatedly rejected in national elections, President Obama has branded himself as above partisanship--as the Un-Democrat. That may be a laudable goal--the same laudable goal, in fact, that the Founders had in mind for the Presidency--until President Washington, who won the office by universal acclamation, chose to step down, at which point partisan politics erupted, and we have been largely a two-party nation ever since.

Perhaps President Obama will succeed where Adams and Jefferson could not, and America will become not only a post-racial society but a post-partisan one. But if he does not succeed in turning a broken economy around substantially by the summer of 2010 and reminding the American people on a regular basis (repetition is essential psychologically, neurologically, and empirically to branding) that he and his fellow Democrats are trying to pull the nation out of the ditch the Republicans left us in by the side of the road, his administration will gradually become associated in voters' minds with the economic crisis he inherited, and he will find himself working with a Congress far less friendly to progressive reforms in two years.

Under similar circumstances, FDR trumpeted the failures of the Republican leadership and ideology that created the Great Depression while still managing to unite a terrified nation around not only his own charismatic presence but around New Deal reforms--reforms he could never have enacted if he had not contrasted the failed ideology that had led the nation over the economic cliff with the radically different solutions he and his party were offering. Roosevelt's consistent branding of the Republicans as inflexible ideologues at the same time as he showed what progressive, pragmatic action and Democratic leadership could offer led to a political realignment that lasted 40 years.

That is not President Obama's style. He prefers to say that mistakes "were made" (but not by whom). He is comfortable attacking "greed" as long as he doesn't have to attribute it to anyone in particular. (He did fire one man in Detroit for the failings of the American auto industry, but he retained all the corrupt, greedy, and incompetent executives on Wall Street who made it impossible for anyone to get a loan to buy a car.)

The hope, of course, is that voters will see improvements in their lives and connect them to the party in power even if it doesn't make terribly strenuous efforts to take credit for those improvements. And perhaps that will translate to a shift in partisan affiliation that will sustain the President's agenda long enough for it to work or even beyond. But it is a risky strategy to refuse to brand the other side for the problems they created and to refuse to brand your own side for the solutions you offer and the principles that underlie those solutions. The President often speaks of principles, and in so doing has taken Democratic rhetoric to precisely where it needs to be, in the realm of values (as in his stirring lines about parents turning off the television set and reading to their kids when talking about education reform). But the average American associates those principles with Obama, not with the Democratic Party, because Democrats outside the Oval Office remain long on policies and short on clearly, colloquially stated principles.

It may well be that this President is temperamentally unwilling, unable, or uninterested in speaking unpleasant truths about people who did unpleasant things to a lot of people. And it may be that that's a good thing. Our politics have certainly been unpleasant for a long time, and he's trying to change that.

But the reality is that millions of Americans are out of work, and most hard working Americans have lost nearly half of their wealth, and many their homes, because of the way George W. Bush and the radical Republican ideologues who enabled him ran the government--and ran it into the ground. The reality is that we had a surplus when Bill Clinton left office, and the only reason President Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit that now constrains him is that George W. Bush and the radical Republicans believed in handing out suitcases full of cash to their wealthy friends with no strings attached and no transparency. Personally, I think that bears saying, and I think it particularly bears saying every time those same Republicans preach fiscal discipline, heap scorn on government "bailouts" they both necessitated and engineered, or offer their quasi-religious answer of "the free market" to every problem the market has created or failed to solve, from the crisis in the housing industry and the lack of regulations on Wall Street that took down our economy (and the world economy along with it) to the fact that most working Americans are now afraid of changing jobs for fear of losing their health insurance. Republican politicians would certainly be a little less quick to step up to the microphone if they knew that every time they talked about fiscal discipline, a Democrat would be there to remind them that they were the ones who went on a 6-year spending spree with our children's money and then handed the better part of a trillion dollars out to Wall Street bankers and speculators, sacrificing the American taxpayer at the altar of their free-market extremism.

It may be that the President is not the right messenger for this message (although FDR had no trouble being both an inspirational and transformational leader while also leading his party, and the Republicans became the "Party of Lincoln" after the gangly leader from Illinois not only said a few choice things about those who wanted to hang onto their slaves but actually sent an army after them). And it could be that he is right to stand above the fray. It could also be that House and Senate Democrats need to be more forceful with the media about covering their statements, since their leadership has been less reluctant to talk in partisan tones.

But someone needs to be in the fray other than the GOP. The worst thing to be in politics is silent, because it allows the other side to shape public sentiment uncontested. It wouldn't hurt to have a Southern voice like Tim Kaine's behind a megaphone with a "D" written on it. But whether it's Kaine or someone else with credibility and charisma, somebody needs to start saying what Democrats and Republicans stand for other than Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, and Richard Shelby. That's a lesson we should have learned a long time ago.

In politics, there is nothing so deadly as silence.

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."

Comments

[lcky9]

I would like to see just where they are getting their poll numbers.. they are as phony as the day is long.. Obama has lost MANY of his followers. He can hold on to the ones who stay high, live off mom and dad and DON'T WORK FOR A LIVING.. Everyone I know who voted for OBAMA and that is all but about 2 people are now stead fast against him.. which in IL is hard to do.. Tomorrow they will be among those at the Tea Party..
One thing is while the media and polls can slant things to make Obama look good they can no longer deny the yells from the people on what the TAX and SPEND Democrats are doing to them.. I have to agree the next election will see many more Democrats ousted from the House and Congress as well as local government­.. After being a life long Democrat until the last election I can not understand why I never noticed before the TAX and SPEND mentality the Democrats have.. and I am Not Happy.. I think the next election will also bring up strong 3rd party candidates, as the Republicans did just as bad a job when they were in office as the Democrats are doing now..
Hope all those sick of this TAXING and SPENDING show up tomorrow at the nearest TEA PARTY to their house.. it's time for the taxpayer to stand up to this abuse of power..

[Sparty1]

You sound ridiculous.

[crat4ever]

You had to have cut and pasted this dribble from some right wing nutty web site, right? Please tell me you didn't really memorize all the repubs talking points. Please start getting your news from more places than Rush and Hannity.

[akcoyote]

When republicans took over congress in 1994 and then again when Bush was elected and the republicans controlled all of government, we thought at the time that democrats were irrelevant and went on to spend like drunken sailors. Republicans abandoned all conservative values and as a result, lost a lot of their base of support.

Now democrats are about to do the very same thing. Hope and change has become tax and spend and that 60% of the population in the middle won't take it. All I can say is, enjoy the power while you've got it because it won't last for long.

[Bruupo]

"Republicans abandoned all conservative values"

As though they ever had them...

They won in 1994 because of gun fear more than any other issue.

It would be charitable to say that the only thing the Republican party has offered over the last forty years were principles. In fact, they have never, EVER offered anything but lip service to principles, and outrageous accusations that their opponents simply must be without principles (because in their world talking about realistic policies instead of just idealized principles meant you were the "L" word!).

"Hope and change has become tax and spend and that 60% of the population in the middle won't take it"

Funny how animated people get about a single-digit reinstatement of the rate in the highest federal income tax bracket. When Hoover first came into office, he cut the top bracket from 70% to 23%, inflating the bubble that burst in 1929, and, in the biggest flail in American tax policy history, he desperately put it back to 67% three years later. That's principled Republicanism.

In case you haven't ever done math or looked at what are federal tax policies really are, the "60% in the middle" won't see income tax increases. Every piece of evidence we have shows that tax hikes in the top most brackets have only ever been good for the economy, and prevented wild, speculative bubble-investment. The only things that make them think differently are disingenuous talking heads and propaganda lies. Do you support dishonest propaganda?

[Sundialsvc4]

I suspect that what you are seeing here, Dr. Westen, is a failure of "branding.­" Even though the President of the United States and much of the Congress are "blue-shirt (TM)," people are not seeing them as one-and-the-same. As, in fact, they are not.

It is quite easy to see that the Federal Government of this country is composed of many different parts, and also to see that many of them are thoroughly infested with crime. The Congress is quite-frankly not accustomed to feeling itself "under scrutiny as well as under pressure," nor to be regarded as being much more culpable in what has happened than the President himself. But this is the reality now.

I expect also that more of the American people now realize that it is THEY who must have much greater involvement in what they require and expect from THEIR system of government. I hope that they will understand much more clearly the consequences (and the ubiquitous presence) of High Crime. For truly it is this one thing above all else that has cost us all so dearly.

[daddysboy]

We don't need to concern ourselves with failed political parties. If a product is good, then the brand is good. The reason that no one wants to be a republican is because they have consistently failed the constituency (bad product) and have finally failed to convince the public of the opposite (branding) for once. Americans are FINALLY becoming smarter shoppers when it comes to their government officials. Smart shoppers don't trust brands, they know of them and know why they make good products. If Obama (a Democrat party member) continues to turn our government toward the real business of government and does a good job, it won't matter if he calls himself the Blue Man Group, he will get re-elected and collaterally so will the rest of that political party (whether they deserve it or not). If the Democrat party is incapable of completing their mission, then we will witness the creation of yet another new party to compliment the republican-lite, libertarian party.

[Keith Dyett]

Talk about spin, I thought the Huffington Post believed in being “fair and balanced” well I guess I see were their political stance is. What happened to reporting the news… I read from various online sites that this Administration is keeping many of GWB policies regarding electronic eavesdropping. I am outraged where is the change he promised us, to give those who elected him our rights back. Or if his Administration saying that Bush/Cheney was RIGHT. I shudder at the thought.

Plus I read an AIG Executive is joining his Government in the Treasury Department. What is going on here? What happened to no lobbist in his Administra­tion.... For SHAME OBAMA for SHAME

[madatnewsmedia]

Who's a lobbyist?

[Keith Dyett]

Where would you like me to start.... Mark Patterson was a registered lobbyist for Goldman until April 11, 2008, according to public filings. William J. Lynn, a government relations executive for defense contracting giant Raytheon, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

[Dugwood]

Wouldn't it be funny if US voters had quietly decided that "political parties" were no longer meaningful and decided to merely examine candidates resumes and past performance as the basis of deciding for who to vote? Wouldn't it be funny if they quietly took notes of incumbents screw-ups and or their self serving/self interest efforts and tallied them prior to each election and then if their performance was inadequate - voted them out of office regardless of their party affiliation? What if politics became a profession where high quality performance was the basis for survival and advancement? What if the public read articles like this one and decided that the author was creating a topic to speculate on and to write about, rather than reporting real facts regarding a relevant issue?

[D-Driller]

The Democrativ Party needs leadership, but just as importantly, pardon the distinction, it needs LEADERS. Have you heard some of the things that have come out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth these past few years? Barbara Boxer and the infamous "400,000 porcupines in Alaska", in reference to the CARIBOU herd that is known as the porcupine herd in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. President Obama, whether you support him or not, is well spoken and confident. However, he can't do it all himself- he needs help from others and frankly, I don't think he's getting it.

[Hemmingplay]

Agreed. By and large, though, the leaders in Congress have been there a while and came on the scene during the years of GOP dominance. I think that the skills it took to survive in the minority are going to serve us poorly to stay in the majority. Some of the familiar faces will have to change.

It's good to remember this, and to add that Obama's election may merely mark the leading edge of the wedge of change within the Democratic Party. It may take another election cycle or two before the quality of the Congressional members starts to reflect the new judgments and sentiments of the new majority of Democratic and Independent voters.

I was struck by a comment in a documentary I saw on TV over the weekend about JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The historian being interviewed said that we've become used to thinking of the Kennedy team as being the "best and the brightest," but he pointed out that in listening to the WH recordings of the crisis meetings, etc., that Kennedy was poorly served by his staff. Of the "best and brightest," JFK was clearly the best and the brightest, often thinking well ahead of his staff. We were fortunate that he was like that, but the parallel to the current Congressional leadership is there. They're just not up to snuff, clearly not in the same league.

[madatnewsmedia]

I;m ready for new blood in this country! I am sick of these old and tired ideas. I think ourPresident is on another level than most of these folks. They don't like change and will continue to fight. The American people have to be smart and make our elected officials do their job or replace them when it's time to vote.

[lastpost]

You say: “But the best products fail without good branding”.

Yet I wonder: If you are offering air to breathe, what need is there for branding?

You say: “In politics, you don't win on ideas alone”.

Yet I wonder: Doesn’t that depend on the quality of the ideas? Isn’t marketing only necessary in order to lift the mediocre above the surrounding mediocrity?

[Pedro Fernandez]

Rasmussen is notoriously unreliable. For goodness's sake, they're a Republican pollster.

[dagdavid]

The two percent drop is completely irrelevant. These are the same 2% who "switched" to the democratic party or were previously "undecided". So what. The real problem with dems is that they ARE NOT FULLY supporting Obama

[thebeerdoctor]

The author seems to operate under the delusion that there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[AnotherTry]

Ha! Exactly the problem. I can see it so clearly. These two parties have a very slick system down pat. We go from one to the other, while they both work to protect the same interests. And the media is the means with which way they do it.

[Pedro Fernandez]

Yup. And the New World Order is imminent! KILL WALL STREET! THE ILLUMINATI! THE TAXES!!

You guys must be kidding.

[blaising]

Dems are a little weak on social skills. I mean, you don't go to a party and bad-mouth the host.

This is Barack's party....y­ou eat the snacks, enjoy the conversation, and shut up.

[daddysboy]

No, the republican party is about loyalty (to the rich) above honor and all else; the Democrat party is about (government) power to the people. The traditional Democrat relishes every voice for it's unique point of view and actually encourages healthy dissent among party members (remember, "big tent"?). Even suggesting that anyone "shut up" demonstrates a lack of social skills; republican party members are the only ones I ever hear telling people (me) to shut up. Furthermore, Obama is NOT the host of a party, he is the dutifully elected President of OUR United States; the party is OURS.

[KarlWeaver]

Drew Westen is alarmist, for the wrong reasons. It's not in President Obama's personality to perpetuate partisan rancor. That's what many Americans want for a President. What the Democratic party lacks are effective ideological spokespersons, that stir passions the way Rush Limbaugh stirs passions of conservati­ve-leaning folk. That isn't necessarily the role of the President-but the Democrats need to find more spokespersons to "brand themselves" in Westen's terms.

Second: I don't find it surprising there's some waning of enthusiasm for Democrats post-election. Many that were happy with a change from George W. Bush, are not happy with the way (a now Democrat-c­ontrolled) Congress functions. A split in opinion about President Obama, versus Democrats generally, probably reflects the President's broad personality-based popularity as opposed to the unpopularity of some positions being implemented. Frankly I'm happy the American people are skeptical about the way bailouts have been handled, the possible size of deficits many years from now, and so on. A comparison between Obama and Clinton? Part of Clinton's success was his genius for co-opting the better ideas of conservatives. Obama has said he wants to do the same. Second, Clinton's personal popularity also didn't carry over to Congressional Democrats.

I agree that Democrats need to reformulate the way the public thinks about issues, coming up with effective slogans FOR Democratic positions and AGAINST Republican positions. They have been remarkably unsuccessful in doing that. I don't think it should be the President's job to do it.

[shugao]

Politicians don't really have faith in this political process when 95 % of the time they're looking at the next election and jockeying for the funds/supporters; this is why I've said so frequently that our system is dysfunctional. Because of the intense commercialization of politics, it has become like professional sports; it's not how you play the game because that's an ethical view and a risk that if you follow your beliefs you could lose the next election. it's about winning the election, whether or not you've done anything effective.­You've just got to convince the common folk that you've actually done something worthy of reelection.

[eschiesser]

I couldn't agree more. It's such a paradox of political function that I can barely stand it, and I fear that President Obama will be caught in its grip.

If a politician, such as the President, really follows through on his word, he will most likely fail to be re-elected. And if he fails to be re-elected, how will he ever follow through on his word?

It's almost like Senators better have a 6-year plan, 4 years for the Pres. If they can't do what they've set out to do by then, well, they're out. Unless their plan is to get re-elected, in which case they've got a chance at staying in their seat.

Its almost like we ought to have single-terms only, that way there is no worry about re-election. But that offers up problems which arise from having no fear of being ousted: "Well, I can do whatever I want if I can't get re-elected anyway!" That can go both ways.

[who38]

And success is measured in pork.

[Ant]

I'm not fan Rasmussen after they did that dubious poll when the illegal spying by the Bush administration first broke. Most polls have the generic ballot advantage for the Democrats at about ten points. Also, the approval ratings between the parties have the Democrats with a 20 to 30 point advantage. The Dems should pick up at least two seats in the Senate in 2010 (three if Dodd survives).

[IllinoisGOP]

Dodd would technically be a save, not a pick-up. I wouldn't count on that one.

[Ant]

I think the Dems will pick off at least 3 republicans. Depending on how Dodd does will determine the gain.

[bighat]

Obama is doing well with the only exception of his pick for treasury secretary who knew about the bonuses for senior mgt. In fact the whole bailout scheme sounds much more like a republican strategy.

Obama, in my opinion has only made one mistake so far. That is picking wall street to fix wall street.

Obama should use his clout to use some of the world's best businessmen. Warren Buffett for Secreatary of Treasury. Bill Gates for head of the armed forces. (He would streamline the business and use today's technology instead of yesterdays

I would also pick
Steve Jobs to run NASA even if he is sick.

Job s and Gates could also be interchangeable in the two jobs previously described

[eschiesser]

I had to laugh at this message, just because it would be an ironic and hilarious situation, but there is a lot of merit to what you say. Smart non-poiticians ought to be in charge.

A great man once said: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." Except for Obama of course :)

[Knowitall]

I disagree completely. Running government and a mega-business are two completely different
"skills" The last Bush Administration proved that, if they did nothing else (except of course gut the government managerial system, and nearly bankrupt the country).
Conservatives were great at madison avenue PR and manipulation of the airways to get elected, but once in Washington, they had no idea how to govern. Better that private sector managers like Gates and Jobs stay where they are and offer their expertise from that vantage point, and let public servants--people who actually revere government service--run the government.