Political observers surprised by the Democratic Party loss in the Massachusetts Senate election last night should take a second look at the trouble Barack Obama had attracting so-called "lunch-bucket" voters in the 2008 presidential primaries. The problem that once plagued the campaign of candidate Obama has now metastasized to the whole party of President Obama. It took one year for that to happen and the consequences could be dire for the Democrats.
2008? Most American voters can barely remember what they tweeted 12 minutes ago, let alone what the dominant election narrative was over a year ago. But remember it they should, because the story of Obama's failures in presidential primary states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts was remarkably similar to the story coming out of last night's loss in the Senate race.
Reporting in March of 2008, NPR's Mara Liason observed, "Sen. Barack Obama, who has built his string of victories with the support of upscale affluent voters, is now trying hard to win support from the so-called "lunch-bucket" Democrats." Liason then when on to quote one voter in particular who summed up this "lunch-bucket" perspective on Obama in 2008:
"She just seems more in touch with people than Barack Obama does," he says.
The "she," of course, was Hillary Clinton, who won her way into the hearts and minds of white working-voters with a few shots of whiskey and a relentless focus on Main Street issues. Try as he might, Obama never managed to become a symbol that lunch-bucket Democrats took as their own. While the impact of that vote was diminished in the fray of the national election against McCain, the x-factor of the lunch-bucket Democrats remained in play.
If the right-wing should be credited with one accomplishment in 2009, it is turning the lunch-bucket albatross of one Presidential campaign into the symbol of the entire Democratic Party. That transformation was bound to happen eventually, but News Corp made it happen in under twelve months.
As a result, when lunch-bucket voters looked at Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, they saw a symbol of elites who speak for vested interests rather than working families. They saw, in other words, the same candidate they did not trust in the 2008 Presidential primaries. And seeing that symbol, they either stayed home or flocked to the opposition's "anti-government" anger. Either way, the lunch-bucket voters were the decisive factor in the Coakley loss.
How is it that Obama managed to allow his big weakness with lunch-bucket voters to become the Achilles heel of the entire party? "It's the economy, stupid."
There will be a great deal of finger pointing from every interest group in the Democratic Party, but the bottom line on the weakness that now plagues the party of Obama is: the economy.
The problem began with his staffing choices at the White House. Starting with his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made a fortune as a trader prior to entering politics--Obama has built a team with virtually zero credibility with working families.
His economic policy decisions grew out from there.
Having bet all his chips on a bailout of Wall Street tycoons, President Obama's economic policy has failed to convince voters that Democrats care more about working people than hedge fund billionaires.
And then there was healthcare.
Having proudly proclaimed that he would spearhead real health care reform on behalf of the millions of ordinary Americans in need, President Obama's "health insurance reform" agenda has been tarnished in the eyes of the public by a series of secret meetings held early on with captains of insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
In the eyes of lunch-bucket voters, the result of Barack Obama's policy agenda has been crystal clear and decisively damning. Just as the lunch-bucket voters feared--Obama has become the very symbol of a politician who says one thing on the stump, but then does the opposite once he gets back to Washington.
Is the perception of the lunch-bucket voters fair? Yes and no. But in elections, to complain about what is and is not fair is the same as admitting you have already lost. The key is just to get out there and change it.
Perhaps the greatest political gift of George W. Bush was his ability to convince the public that an oil-tycoon, trust-fund, Yale-flunkie was actually a man of the people. It was a remarkable achievement. Obama's life truly is a testament to the American myth of pulling oneself up by our bootstraps--and, yet, he is perceived as a latte liberal elitist.
The solution to this problem is not for Barack Obama to suddenly take a keen interest in clearing scrub brush or for him to suddenly discover that he enjoys dressing up in day-glow hunters camouflage and strolling along country roads with a shotgun slung over his arm. More beer photo-op schmooze sessions will not help either. Were President Obama to overreach for that kind of kitschy sudz-n-ammo symbolism in 2010, it would only make things worse for the himself and the Democrats.
What Obama needs to do, and fast, if he wants to stop his slowly sinking Democratic Party from going under--is advance a significant piece of symbolic legislation that benefits lunch-bucket voters. The key phrase is "symbolic legislation," by which I mean: toothsome legislation packed with real substance, but that resonates strongly at a symbolic level.
Obama needs to promote one piece of legislation that re-establishes the party as the voice of lunch-bucket voters--as the party that truly advocates for Main Street instead of Wall Street. And once he advances this symbolic legislation, he needs to defend it like a momma bear defends her cub until it passes. And bears do not compromise--they growl.
In the face of all the critics who will rise up against his symbolic legislation--critics from the right and the left--President Obama needs to stand firm and fight them off.
What should this symbolic legislation be? It should be jobs bill (c.f., "...economy...stupid.")
With the Coakley loss fresh on his mind, Obama should sit down and craft a truly symbolic jobs bill that throws the proverbial kitchen sink at the national unemployment rate like his life and the future of the free world depended on it.
Moreover, Obama should advance this symbolic jobs legislation from a position outside of Washington--spending as much time as possible in 2010 in the burned-out wastelands of the shattered American dream.
In 2010, Obama should spend nearly every day shaking hands and talking to people in Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, and that's just for starters.
Here is the key: there is no negotiating with a symbol. Obama must hold firm on his symbolic jobs legislation and he must speak passionately about why we must all support it. It must be real; it must be meaningful; and by standing up and defending it day after day across America, voters will come to see how vital and important it is to all of us.
With his symbolic legislation in hand, Obama must stand up every day and take it on the chin for lunch-bucket voters. That is the only way forward.
The lesson of the lunch-bucket Democrats coming out of 2008 and 2009 is not hard to see: either claim the symbol of Main Street for the Democratic Party, or someone else will.
The future of the Democratic Party depends on whether or not President Obama still has it in him to learn from that lesson and do something about it--fast.
Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers to the Massachusetts special election
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
"The problem began with his staffing choices at the White House. Starting with his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made a fortune as a trader prior to entering politics--Obama has built a team with virtually zero credibility with working families."
That is indeed the heart of his problem. Unfortunately, I think that it was not an accident that Obama surrounded himself with such people. I think that is the crowd that he wants to be accepted by. It is really sad given his potential if he went his own way. I believe he is a good man with his heart mostly in the right place. He's just misguided in his attempt to reach out to a group that really wants nothing to do with him and his agenda.
I disagree with the article in one thing, the word "symbolic" should be replaced with "significant". "Symbolic" has overtones of "without substance" while "significant" carries the connotation of being meaningful, important, having an impact. We've had enough "symbolic" gestures - we need some REAL action.
*******************************************
He is perceived that way because his actions speak volumes, as you so aptly delineate. From Day One, he has sided with corporate and financial interests, not the middle class. Case in point, the Goldman Sachs pipeline starting with Geithner. People need to see their jobs and homes protected, not Wall Street and bankers. They couldn't give a fat rat's tush about whether Lehman Brothers went under, but they care about getting laid off and whether they can make their house payments. Evidently, he forgot or is deliberately ignoring his own words, "It's not about Wall Street, it's about Main Street."
Without Main Street, there is no Wall Street. Duh.
It is the econmy stupid, plus the fact that while governement can destroy jobs, it cannot create ones that contribute to our economy . Only the private sector (you know, that sector that social democrats loathe) can create productive jobs. The best that government can do is create an environment conducive to capitalism, but that is anathema to the social democrat cause.
Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.
Without your elucidating, if condescendingly partisan comments, how would I have ever realized the difference between the legitimate provision of the public goods you cited (but conveniently failed to identify as such) and the illegitimate search for government enforced equality of outcome the left seeks through social democracy and the massive income redistribution and loss of freedom it entails.
Perhaps, I will learn about in fifth grade, along with the reason why my comments directed at limiting the scope of government, must imply support for derivatives trading, producing porn, etc.
1. Every person is eligible for Medicare.
2. Void all Free Trade deals.
3. Impose tariffs on all manufactured goods coming to the U.S.
4. Raise the minimum wage to $10.50/hour.
5. Re-institute Glass-Steagall.
6. Raise the tax rate of income over $600k to 60%.
7. Start an infrastructure program for all U.S. towns, cities and communities.
8. Use the Sherman Anti-Trust law and start breaking up all big corporations.
Dare the republicans to challenge you on these ideals. Make them choose between the common man and corporations.
"It's the economy, stupid". With emphasis on stupid.
We need a new economic team. Emanual, Geithner and Summers are about as far from caring about the American public as you can get.
The true problem here is that Obama doesn't understand he's the head of the Democratic party right now. He doesn't realize that not only is it his responsibility to govern, but to also go stumping around the nation for the party. You want him to craft legislation to benefit the party, but he won't as to do so would anger Republicans and would result in a fight on the Hill--which he would prefer to avoid. The DNC and the Democratic base is getting what they paid for, a conflict averse President, who'd rather help Lieberman for the sake of "unity" than the unemployed and uninsured.
Nominally 10%, it's really 17% when workers who have just given up looking for work are factored in. And in the construction industry (where you'll find lots of lunch-bucket voters), it's even worse. Here in Massachusetts where I live, there are an average of 30 applicants for every open construction job now. The other 29 go away without a job.
NOTHING can be accomplished until this situation is remedied. Cap-and-trade and even health care are poor substitutes for earning a living.
Obama's young "netroots" don't understand that, because many of them seem to be single young geeks and nerds who aren't trying to raise a family or pay a mortgage on a home.
There were few lunch-bucket workers among the "netroots." So they could think globally about things like global warming, while Mommy continued to subsidize their college educations.
Anything...