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

[Dredd]

I guess you did not read a post here on HuffPo today about "The Permanent Democratic Majority"?

[cadawa]

When political parties start to sound like corporate board rooms, ordinary Americans are about tobe screwed.
I have a better idea. Instead of worrying about branding, why don't the Democrats just do the job the people elected them to do!
Instead of focusing on a narrow groups of special interests, why not actually represent the people that put in them office?
Instead of figuring out ways to evade political pressure from the electorate, why not advocate for them?
Trust me, word will get out.
Voters don't like being screwed. They don't like it that congress is continuing to fund illegal wars.
They don't like it that Bush and Co. have been given get out of jail free cards.
Voters don't like congress spending their money to rescue ultra rich white-collar criminals and institutions that have squeezed them and defrauded them.
They don't like congress fumbling the ball on health care, again.
The Democrats don't need don't need Madison Avenue, they need a conscience.

[bighat]

I agree with you. But I do not see it happening. From what I read congress spends 1/3 of their time raising money for re=election/ We know that they will owe favors for the contributions.

I would like to see congress turn back to national and foreign policy. Keep control of our ports, sea lanes and interstate highways and dealing with foreign countries. Why is our national congress even considered the bridge to nowhere or a mob museum at Vegas and a woodstock museum. These items should be beyond the national purview and left to state or local economies.

[dianhow]

May I remind you Its only been 3 + months. After years of greed & mismanagement- did we expect a cure all in 3 months ? THeir general theory is- We have to bail out banks- so business's can operate- and folks can borrow to buy cars- homes etc. Are they correct ?
Don't know- but we'll know soon enough. I think we should all sit back & see what develops in the next year .2010 election is coming- the GOP will be in full ' warfare mode.'
More and more lies & smears will come out. Take a deep breath- and know that this is the GOP agenda talking- they want power and control back so bad- nothing is off limits.
We elected Obama to lead- so we need to let him. Hopefully he can begin to 'stop the bleeding' This crisis is so massive- we will not see much improvement for some time.
He can't ' fix ' years of ' crimes against Americans interests ' in a short time frame.

[henryberry]

What you are describing--and many others are sensing--is the sand slipping away under Obama's feet. It's no surprise that the Republican rightists (what was called the "base" in the Bush years) is throwing fits as often as it can to try to evidence that it has some life. But this amounts to little more than enterainment, as much attention as it draws and as soberly as many try to analyze it. More importantly and portentously for Obama is that many Democrats are being surprised over and over by the positions he's taking on various major issues and the directions he seems to be heading down. For instance, not many Democrats would have expected that Obama would have come out with the gigantic, mind-numbing financial bailout of the robber banks; let alone that he would adhere so strongly to it in the face of exposures of its flaws and favoritisms. For another instance--not many Democrats would have expected that Obama would have redoubled the Bush involvement in Afghanistan with the possibility of tripling the involvement. Leaders inevitably soon reveal they have feet of clay. Obama is risking however of showing that he has no feet. He's making it problematic for any bases or pedastal to form for him.

[pjw5552]

This is easy to explain. Democrats are very partisan and influenced by special interest money. Democrats have not insisted on accountability in government for 20 years. Pelosi had the gall to say "I know of no crimes committed by GW Bush" last summer. Small wonder, she never was interested in looking for any crimes. The Democrats in Congress by and large did what she suggested, nothing. The Democrats in the House voted earlier this year to condemn Palestinians for the Israeli invasion of Gaza, although most Americans were outraged by Israeli actions..

Reid completely ruined the earmark reform bill in the Senate last year. Senators now sign a couple of sentences they are supporting an earmark, Just try to figure out which one, it’s impossible thanks to Reid. What happened to electronic campaign filing by Senators? Nothing, Senators still file campaign reports by paper so the public has a harder time following the money. See any Democrats screaming about gun control? Nope, the NRA believes they own Congress with its larger Democratic majority. The NRA wants to stop shootings on College campuses by making sure all students can carry a gun. HOw many people think that's going to work? Truth is Democrats are as much out of touch with broader public views as Republicans are. This is what we get for supporting party people. Most politicians that are more interested in what the party wants than what the public desires.

[dianhow]

PJW Dems are partisan, have not insisted on accountability ? ? NOT Reality check
Dems have not been the ones in control for 20 of the last 28 years. We had a GOP pres 20 of the last 28 years -most with a GOP congress . Bush / GOP congress promised to filibuster or veto any Dem bills. Bush had a GOP congress for 6 long years. Obama has been in 3 + months- and put Bush / Cheney to shame. Folks like you who spread mis information are the reason GOP has had power for so long. REagan / BUsh policy of deregulating banks / WAll st is the genesis of this meltdown- it allowed unethical practices and selling of ' junk ' as TRIPLE A - among other things. and -that was legal under GOP created policy.. You don't even state any facts- just GOP lies and mis information Folks like you need to get educated- read / research. Or nothing will ever change.
You've been duped- like millions of others. Sad. Bush / Cheney & CO thanks you. .

[cwcarman]

Conservatism is designed to serve the wealthy, religious nuts and small town folks who like things the way they thought they were in 1955. Progressives want to help people survive and prosper in a world that helps its least fortunate. Why is it necessary to complicate things further?

[Gingersp]

Great points, but don't forget that in 1955, there were whites only water fountains, blacks went to the back of the bus, etc, etc. Yes, this is what conservatives want -- keep things the same whether that is the best thing for us or not.

[realistic2008]

The problem with Democrtas in Congress has been brewing for a long time due to the a.- lack of leadership and b.- because they have been capitulators rather than negotiators.
They went along with Bush not in the spirit of cooperation or because he was doing something right but because Bush created the patriotic thing added to feamongering and they followed him blindly an cowardly.
Now Republicans have another boogey man, "socialism" and I just hope they don't fall the same path and capitulate again for fear of the label and not having one single Democrat that can tell them to go to hell.

[Deano4u]

Finally someone who can articulate the fact that we allow the republicans to brand us at will.

Politics is a hard game but there is nothing wrong with reminding Americans that it was the republican Bush team the drove us not only into the ditch but off the cliff.

I have come to the mantra that Republicans are dedicated to their dogma first, country second. For republicans, anyone who holds ideas outside their dogma is un-American, time to call them on that BS and head to a better day at the same time.

I also propose we starting pooling some money together to get that 30% back on their meds before they hurt more people.

[howdyfromtexas]

I like Obama,
I don't like Pelosi, Ried, Dodd, Frank and several other Democratic Party members. I don't like Bush either.

[heal57]

hft; I share the exact same sentiments, and I bet we're in the majority..

[ILBucki]

OMG, HowdyfromTexas, I am in sooo much agreement with you! Obama has done some good things, and some bad. But I am willing to give him some latitude as it is early. Pelosi & Reid really stink (and I just adore Pelosi's charges that deporting illegals is somehow "anti-american"). Reid is Nancy in a suit. Frank is an ass who doesn't know what he's talking about, whichever side he is on that week! As for Dodd, we have him to thank for those bonuses. As for myself, I get Ultraliberal Dick Durbin selling out the american worker for the supposed rights of immigrants & other way-too-left ideas for me. I also get Foster who will toe the party line and our newly appointed Roland Burris, who stays away from his offices cuz he knows the media has questions about that Blagojevich appointment. Lots & lots of questions.....Yeah, way to go Dems. This is NOT what I voted for!

[jsgaetano]

Blind Trust? From Democrats?

I don't know what party you've been a part of, but there's enough infighting and free thought in the Democratic party that it makes any opposition party superfluous and irrelevant. Not to say Republicans have EVER been relevant.

[abluevoice]

Good post Dr Westen. But you and the rest of the Democrats, especially the name brand ones just don't get it. The Republicans control the debate in this country and they do this by controlling the media!
As much as we know Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and Savage and Coulter and Ingrahm etc. are fools, and as much as we know Fox News is garbage posing as "fair and balanced", and as much as we know the "Washington Times" is a Republican rag (their commentators are now getting on Cable News shows as experts), and that Rupert Murdoch is a Republican publisher, and as much as we know the Heiritage Foundation is a front for the GOP as is the Hoover Institute, and as much as we know Dobson and Perkins and Robertson are spokepeople for GOP talking points, etc. there are 40 to 60 million mostly uninformed listeners, viewers and readers of Republican talking points, 24/7, that get their political education and voting instructions from these sorces, with no media push back by the Democrats!! This is why the Dems are getting their butts kicked in the polls. And Obama doesn't get it.
Only 18 Democratic Senators voted for the reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine!!!

[Ramus]

abluevoice is right on the mark here. The Republicans are now branded as the "Party of NO. " And we could do more with that. Manwhile the Republicans sneer out the names of "Nancy Pelosi" and "Barney Frank "is if they were magic curse words (likely this comes from Big Rush or the Fox people). And the greatest bad name of them all is "Socialist". Eeeek save us from free national healthcare, or a serious social safety net as they have in the Scandinavian countries. What could be worse?

[fishcreekbob]

the modelA was designed to run on methanol made from hemp,the demise of the green economy in the 30's gave us gasoline and today our government wants to give us carbon credits,who gets the money when their sold...blessed is he that believes

[Atrooper4]

The Democrats don't have to look very far to define their aims. Its in the preamble to the Constitution: "...to provide for the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and for Posterity". Together, the words "Welfare" and "Posterity" means that kids, family, education, health care, etc. are priorities ordained by the Founding Liberals.

Throw the preamble at the Republicans! Let them argue with Madison.

[chuckleatlibs]

You need to re-read the preamble. It states "provide for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare" . It clearly does not mention PROVIDING for the general welfare. Promoting and providing are not the same thing. It also reads "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and OUR posterity", so again, nothing about the general posterity. If you're going to quote a document, you can't change the words to suit your beliefs.

[PoliticalOutlaw]

Why is this surprising to anyone? Dick Cheney's poll ratings were the only numbers worse than Congress' numbers over that last four years. And nothing - let me reiterate that - nothing of consequence has changed (operative word) with regard to the make-up – in mind or spirit - of that elected body.

That is with the exceptionally questionable replacement of Obama from Illinois and the continued craziness exhibited by the out-going Republican Party in Minnesota.

All in all Congress continues to fail the American people on all fronts and it's time for an all-around-change. IMHO, better to have people who are new to the process and uncorrupted by it sitting in that Legislative body, than people who do know, or should know, what they're doing and continue to DO NOTHING because they are corrupted by the process.

[Alablanca]

RE: DREW WESTERN'S COMMENTARY
THIS IS A VERY INSIGHTFUL ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE PARTY. MY OPINION IS THAT OBAMA IS EXTREMELY CONFIDENT OF HIS OWN APPROACH TO THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE WORLD. HE IS THE CURRENT LEADER OF THE TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATION. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED, OR IS CHANGING AND MOST OF US ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. OBAMA SEEMS TO HAVE A CLEAR VISION AND DOES NOT FEEL HE NEEDS HIS PARTY TO PURSUE THAT VISION. THIS MAY BE PERCEIVED AS ARROGANT BY SOME, BUT I BELIEVE THAT MOST OF US DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND OR ARE AWARE OF THE GIANT WAVE OF CHANGE THAT IS GOING ON. I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS PUT POLITICS ASIDE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

[roblabrousse]

use lower case letters

[gonbald]

can't read big letters?

[randomx6]

yell much?

[procrustes]

Please!

[LTBROWN]

AlaBlanca, I concur. It's going to take everyone, UNITED, to survive. And they don't seem to be getting it. I think Obama needs to pull them aside and scold them all. lol

[KimB3329]

Its pretty sad really. The Pres. said "no pork" and what did they do? They completely ignored it and put out a fat bill with unnecessary spending to please campaign donors. Mr. Obama approved it, but i'd bet that behind closed doors he was thinking, "That d__ Nancy! Look what she's done!!"

[KarenT]

The Pres never said "no pork". He campaigned on reducing the amount of pork. McC*ain is the only one who said "no pork".

[LTBROWN]

correct

[RenoSage]

Don't forget that the budget laden with pork that you are criticizing was started in October.

[RegDame]

The big diff between 1933 and 2009 is the media pace of communication -- people today are revved up for instant messaging, show biz rapid "outcomes," and all other sorts of instantaneous "results." FDR had, and took, the time needed for dragging us out of Hoover's swamps. But today's people expected "change" to pop out of Obama's shop on January 21st. Ain't gonna happen that way. It took us the better part of a decade to recover from Hoover's debacle. Obama needs time as well as decent cooperation, a problem with some of his choice of advisers. Keep in mind that Hoover was only naively doctrinaire -- Bush & Co. were playing dirty pool all the way. Meanwhile, the bitching about Pelosi is the same old, same old misogyny, the great American Hallmark. The era of show biz "stars" doesn't allow acceptance of, and success for, women of real talents.

[dianhow]

REG -- Exactly A well informed poster. Thanks

[LTBROWN]

Cosign. Well informed.