Premise: In midterm elections, the enthusiasm of a party's base is crucial for victory, and the Democratic Party's base is now much less enthusiastic than the Republican's.
This is a case where the conventional wisdom is probably right. Enthusiasm leads to turnout. The party better able to turn out its base is likely to win because those vaunted "independents," whom the media deem "moderate" (though many of them are instead just indifferent about the choices offered or overwhelmed by the futility of the exercise), are less likely to vote than in a presidential election. The evidence that an enthusiasm gap exists and that the Democrats are at a disadvantage is strong.
Premise: You can fool some of the people all of the time but not enough to bring back the heady, Obamaniacal days of 2008.
The economic situation is part of the reason why. But it is not the whole story.
For one thing, the Democratic leadership and the Obama administration have, to put it mildly, disappointed every significant segment of their base as surely as they have courted (lately in vain) what the media euphemistically call "the financial services industry." Younger voters, the key to Democratic victories, are among the most disaffected: it is as if the Obama administration set out deliberately to disillusion an entire generation.
Democrats can hardly run on their accomplishments. Yes, they inched forward on health care and consumer protection; on the whole, the milquetoast reforms they legislated are probably for the good. But paltry advances were won at the cost of further entrenching the power of the profiteers who made them necessary and with the effect of putting more far-reaching reforms off the agenda for an indefinite future.
Moreover, having squandered an unprecedented historical opportunity, Obama and the Democrats have done almost nothing constructive about the two most important issues of our time: averting the impending ecological catastrophe that is already unfolding before us; and weaning the United States off imperialism so that, as the empire crumbles, we can make a soft landing from which we, along with the rest of the world, will emerge better off. Indefinitely maintaining the occupation of Iraq, intensifying the war in Afghanistan, and waging or preparing to wage wars elsewhere is exactly the wrong way to proceed.
Premise: No matter how awful the Democrats are, the Republicans are worse.
This is why it is better all things considered, that Democrats retain control of the House and Senate -- though this assessment is not nearly as indisputable as liberals assume. Among other things, Republicans in power would be less inclined to play the racist, nativist and islamophobic cards they've been tossing around so recklessly. Also, Republicans, on the whole, don't feel quite so much of a need to seem "strong on defense" by going bellicose at every opportunity. Still, it is important that Democrats win, notwithstanding the fact that they richly deserve to lose.
Conclusion: While it might be useful if the Democratic base could muster more enthusiasm, given the facts and given current perceptions, it isn't possible. It looked for a year or so as if the Clintonized party was not beyond redemption after all. That no longer seems to be the case, and wishing won't make it so; not long enough to bolster enthusiasm through November 2.
Therefore, what is to be done?
Changing course in a way that would generate genuine enthusiasm would be nice, and given how low expectations have come, it wouldn't be difficult. Obama could come out with a bold set of proposals addressing the concerns of those who voted for him; he could stop home foreclosures, for example, create good jobs, and otherwise boost demand by putting money in peoples' pockets. But, at this point, the political climate is so poisoned by Democratic pusillanimity and Republican obstinacy that such "audacity" is out of the question; and, in any case, there are no longer enough voters out there susceptible to being snookered. There is therefore only one recourse: the Democrats should do nothing. They should make themselves invisible. Let Republicans be Republicans, and lose for them.
And Republicans will lose, if attention focuses on them, because they are, to put the point nicely, utterly vile.
Democrats should therefore forget about "hope" -- who now would believe them anyway! -- or "change." If they must speak at all, they should point out again and again that they are indeed the lesser evil. Trying to conjure up enthusiasm for Democrats is a fool's errand. But there is an enormous potential for enthusing voters, Democratic voters especially, to vote against Republicans.
The evidence is equivocal, but the Democrats seem finally to be getting it. That Barack Obama is now running against John Boehner is a hopeful sign. If only he wouldn't also praise George Bush, as he did in his not quite "mission accomplished" speech proclaiming the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom -- the end, alas, only of the name. But Boehner is too slight a figure to be truly scary; he's merely revolting and that isn't enough. To bridge the enthusiasm gap, Democrats need Newt Gingrich, Sharon Angle, Michele Bachmann and, of course, Sarah Palin. And if, God forbid, Barack Obama really is a believer, he should now be praying 24/7 that, on Tuesday, Christina O'Donnell will win the Republican nomination for Senator from Delaware.
In short, what Democrats should do to reverse the enthusiasm gap is to scare their base; and the only way they can do that is to wise up and go missing. Let the Greater Evil expose itself and work its salutary effects. There is no other way.