Dear Democrats: I feel your pain. I've been there. I was one of President Clinton's chief political advisers when we lost 52 House seats and eight Senate seats -- and then we lost a ninth when Dick Shelby of Alabama switched parties.
So many commentators have compared the present situation to the 1994 debacle that I thought I'd put my recollections, thoughts and counsel on paper (or, rather, on pixels.)
First, losing the Congress was not good for President Clinton. The Republican Congress impeached him, for Pete's sake. They harassed him. They refused to confirm many of his judges. They shut down the government. They refused to listen to him on climate change. They did not heed his warning to "save Social Security first" and lock away the Clinton surplus so it would not be squandered. They even accused him of playing "Wag the Dog" when he tried to kill Osama bin Laden.
The only ways in which having a GOP Congress was good for Clinton is that it gave him some Grade-A villains to push off against, and allowed his centrist instincts to be seen in sharper relief. On balance, I would rather have had a root canal.
I expect the new Republican House to be even more partisan; even more extreme; even more mean-spirited. In the beginning of this year -- long before the corporate-funded deluge of attack ads -- 39 percent of Republicans supported impeaching President Obama. In the same Harris Poll, 24 percent of Republicans thought Obama might be the Antichrist. When the base of your party so despises the President that they are delusional, impeachment not only seems feasible, it seems downright reasonable.
It is true that having a Republican Congress forced Clinton to move to the center. He signed a welfare reform bill that was far more ruthless than he would have liked. He signed a cut in the capital gains tax -- hardly a Democratic priority.
Look for President Obama to do the same. I think he should very publicly say, "I get it," making clear he heard what the electorate was saying. Then define what they were saying not in the GOP's terms ("Cut spending! Shrink government! Privatize everything!") but rather in more realistic terms:
Job creation and reducing the influence of special interests are as mainstream as you get. President Obama and Congressional Democrats should challenge Republicans to enact a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax is regressive and it's a job-killer. Working people hate it. Small businesses hate it. Republicans ought to hate it. Let the GOP explain why they prefer an elitist tax cut -- say, on the income taxes paid by millionaires and billionaires. If the tea party-backed newcomers are real populists they will want to create jobs on Main Street, not give another tax break to Paris Hilton.
The Democrats should push the rest of their now-stalled pro-growth tax cuts: reducing taxes on investments businesses make in research & experimentation, tax cuts for creating green-collar jobs and generating clean energy.
Then President Obama and the Democrats should challenge the Republicans to support real investment in the real America: our roads and bridges and airports and mass transit. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our drinking water system a D- (think of that when your child wakes you up in the middle of the night for a glass of water). The engineers say one in four rural bridges is deficient -- and it's worse in the cities, where one in three is deficient. A bridge is built to last 50 years. The average age of a bridge in America: 43.
President Obama does not have a communication problem; he has an economic problem. He has a jobs problem. He needs a jobs plan. That, by the way, is the one communications wrinkle I would iron out. Stop calling it "stimulus" or "infrastructure" or "R&E." Call it jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs, dammit. Then challenge the GOP to join you in creating jobs by cutting taxes and rebuilding America.
Democrats should be just as bold on corruption. Rather than whine about the money spent in this election cycle, Democrats should propose new ideas to limit the power of lobbyists and require greater disclosure of campaign money. In 2006 John Boehner famously said, "Yes, I am cozy with lobbyists." I didn't see any Tea Party activists carrying signs calling for electing leaders who are cozy with lobbyists. Pushing reform is not only good for our government, it's good politics. It splits the GOP's corporate wing from its populist grassroots.
Yes, President Obama and the Democrats need to move to the center. Fortunately, that does not mean slow-walking gay rights or repealing the 14th Amendment. Rather, it means a strong, centrist jobs program and a clear, centrist commitment to limiting the power of corporate special interests. If they have the skill and adaptability to reclaim the center, the Democratic comeback won't be far behind.
Good column, overall. And I agree with you to an extent.
But Bill Clinton broke our hearts and sold us out after 1994, when he should have been fighting back and defending the decades of progress made by the Democratic Party.
Instead, Clinton, apparently concerned only with his own re-election prospects hired the odious, corrupt, toe-licking weasel, Dick Morris, and sold out virtually everything to the Republicans from DOMA to eliminating Wall Street regulations, to welfare "reform" and much more.
He was such a terrible disappointment. And that was long before Monica Lewinsky. It still breaks my heart to see how he abandoned the ideals of this party and put a DLC stamp on that proud tradition.
If President Obama goes the same way, with his own version of Dick Morris, it will not only devastate our nation, but it will also decimate the Democratic Party, regardless of whether or not Obama wins in 2012.
I'm hoping that the Obama we voted for in 2008 isn't just an illusion or a projection of what we wanted to see. I want him to get in there and FIGHT and remind Americans of what is as stake if we "accommodate" the Republicans and their vicious plans.
Those who voted for Democrats after the Republicans' economic meltdown expected a progressive agenda and got a Centralist one. A liberal president and congress would have prosecuted Wall Street instead of putting them in charge of the economy, pushed for single-payer, and instituted a WPA program.
Now we have President Obama in India saying it's the fault of Americans that our jobs are being outsourced and India is innocent bystander? What in the hell is he smoking? Whatever it is, he must be sharing it with Begala,
What's the use of winning elections if you are going to concede your power to the opposition with all this bi-partisan spirit that hasn't existed since Lee Atwater?
Pass these laws:
--Members meet no lobbyist except in the government offices, local and DC, we taxpayers are already paying for. If these are not up to lobbyist standards, they don't have to meet with members or can send letters as members' constituents must do. Lobbyists' clients spend millions on expensive dinners/skyboxes/ jets for members -- and members saythey don't have enough in their budget and need those big-interest gifts to do their jobs properly. They should raise their budgets instead of their salaries, and learn how to more effectively spend within their budgets, as members' constituents must do, .
---Members must publish weekly on the internet the official activities and meetings with their home state constituents and all others, including the time spent in each of those activities, that the member took part in over the last week,
Lobbyists and persons who are not home state constituents that members meet with must be revealed by name and subject discussed. Private citizens who are constituents to be listed only as "constituent" and topic discussed.
--Accept campaign donations only from individual private citizens of members' home states.. Money is not speech and bribery is illegal. If speech is money, the rich out-speech the poor and to hell with equality. Moreover, speech must convey an idea. Contributing simultaneously to opposing candidates, as special interests do, expresses no idea except "Remember I gave you campaign money", which is unsubtle bribery.
-- All unspent campaign money should devolve to the candidate's home state's department of public health... we all like public health, don't we? This way, the constituents' all benefit. As it is now, unspent money can be spent by the candidate on any selfish expenditure the candidate desires from cocaine smuggling to porn parties or any other cause the original donors may detest.
I'd like to add this law to the list:
"No member of Congress, nor cabinet member, nor any congressional aides, will be permitted to work for any lobbying firm or company that has been involved, directly or indirectly, with congressional legislation. This restriction will be for ten (10) years and there will be no exceptions."
Such a law would end the "revolving door" of corruption that currently exists in Washington D.C.
Right now, members of congress, cabinet members, and their top aides see their time on Capitol Hill as a temporary assignment. After they've put in their time, doing favors for special interests with lots of money, they then leave government and are rewarded with cushy jobs with fat paychecks by these lobbying firms and big companies. This is their "Return On Investment" for writing the legislation demanded by these big monied interests.
This allows them to live lavish lifestyles, with big mansions in posh DC suburbs and gorgeous beach houses in costal Maryland or Delaware, meals at the trendiest restaurants and more money than they know what to do with, while we average American struggle to make ends meet.
End this Revolving Door of Corruption in DC. It wasn't just Jack Abramhoff. He was just the tip of the iceberg. Prohibit our public servants from profiting off of public office.
The court has undermined all efforts to limit the undue influence of money
This election, gauged by turnout was hardly a referendum
Senators and Congressmen vote politically, so strict term limits need to be set. This fact answers half your questions.
Many conservative initiatives failed on a local level
Obama was far too conciliatory from the start and the watered down legislation largely ineffective.
The Fed is too cozy with banking interests and has undermined a main street recovery
Tea Party voters are largely illiterate and vote ideologically
1) Create jobs - The House Republicans won't pass anything he sends them
2) Clean up corruption - The House Republicans won't pass anything he sends them
Unless, of course, he does this in the next two months. But he won't. He's a puss, a black Jimmy Carter. All he will do is capitulate as he has done for the last two years and spend the next two years focusing on getting re-elected. If that means selling out the people who voted for him and progressive ideals, so be it. Where is manhood for God's sake. Come out fighting and stop being a punching bag. Why, oh why, can't we ever have a progressive leader with a pair?
It took 4 years to win the Civil War, so I suppose Lincoln was a sell-out and a wimp because the Union didn't win by the time of the elections of 1862, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't happen the day after Lincoln's inauguration and Richmand hadn't been captured. FDR was a sell-out because the Depression wasn't over by the time of the 1934 elections and also a spineless wimp because WWII wasn't over by the time of Operation Torch.
You people need some people some perspective and a knowledge of history.
Grow up. Sometimes Presidents have to do unpopular things and sometimes they have have to make mistakes in order to learn from them and sometimes it's a combination of both.
The real wusses are those who demand immediate gratification regardless of the size of the problem.
Auldphart
Look, this would be a good thing if campaign mode finally propels him to be aggressive, because somebody is going to have to be calling the right on reneging on any legislation that will benefit the country. If he doesn't do that, he's not going to win re-election.
Now, I have so little faith in him that I think there's more than a 50% chance he'll go your capitulation route, but you never know. I certainly have my hopes pinned on him finally acting like a leader. Guess we'll find out soon.
One caveat: you know, it might be barely possible that he's playing such a convoluted game that he had no problem with this election being thrown. I thought it was pretty weird he was emphasizing campaigning only after many states had mail-in ballots out for more than a week. And, after all, it is easier to campaign against bona fide villians than the idiots in your own party, He seemed to be too upset at the results of this election for that to be possible, but maybe he's a better actor than Reagan was. Because being that upset didn't make a hell of a lot of sense either--like what the hell did he expect? To win?
Anyway, interesting and incredibly depressing. But it would be marvelous if he did have a pair.
The Senate should also be running non-stop on anything else it can after the Disclosure Act until the end of this session. Do you know that one of the 400-odd bills they're sitting on deals with elder abuse? That is not shameful. It's practically criminal. How come everybody in America doesn't know that?
I think that right now Obama thinks he needs to play nice, not more than through the end of January, I hope. I think that it's reasonable that he looks conciliatory because that's what the American people expect of their leaders.
But as soon as the new Congress starts going completely partisan, he had better get out his Plan B, which is to be aggressive mode. Miracle of miracles, I heard he has a Plan B. Hope that's not false hope. If it is, he will deserve one term because this bipartisan crap that he's been trying for two years has been ridiculous: bipartisan means two parties. We have a few months to wait to see if there's is an actual game plan.