I should say, more great anaysis from Matt Stoller, because he delivered this zinger on the day after the Wisconsin recall loss:
And the deeper you look into the race, the worse it looks. By calling for a recall instead of a general strike after Walker stripped collective bargaining rights and cut benefits for workers, labor and Democratic leadership in the state diverted and then subverted populist energy, channeling it into an electoral process (at least one union, one very active in the occupation of the Capitol, stood apart from the electoral stupidity).
I supported then, further strikes. It was evident at the time how channeling energy into a recall effort took the populist wind right out of what was an exciting time. There was energy and support for a quite different approach, but this was subverted.
Stoller's analysis goes much deeper though, as he first attempts to evaluate the harm Obama policies has done to the democratic party. Then he attempts to take on the notion that the lean right democrats are also driving the electoral populace further right, even to the effect of voting against their own best interests. I think you have two class of disaffected voters rising out of all of this: the Occupy type that is looking for an alternative to the two party system, and those independents who are straying back to the republican party, and actually voting against their own best interests. Apparently, hope, is not enough. Even more telling though, are the voters who are choosing the leaning right democrats over more liberal candidates. Stoller addresses this in his analysis.
Stoller goes on:
It should be obvious that if you foreclose on your voters, cut their pay, and legalize theft of their wealth by Wall Street oligarchs, they won’t be your voters anymore. Somehow, Democratic activists continue to operate as if policy doesn’t matter to voters, or that policy evaluation is a Chinese menu of different stuff, some of which you like and some of which you don’t, as in “Oh I’ll take a pro-choice moderate, with a bailout, and gay rights. And a Pepsi”. But that’s not how it works – voters’ lives get better, or they don’t. And under Obama, stuff has gotten worse. Obama’s economic policies have made economic inequality sharper than it was under Bush, due to his bailout of banks and concurrent elimination of the main source of wealth of most Americans, home equity. With these policy choices, Obama destroyed the Democratic Party and liberalism – under Obama’s first two years, the fastest growing demographic party label was “former Democrat.” Liberalism demands that people pay for a government, but why should anyone want to pay taxes for the terrible governance Obama has implemented?
Stoller correctly sees a dangerous trend of voters voting against their own best interests.
Stoller has some new analysis out today, and he hits home hard with it. Voters in two California cities overwhelmingly voted to cut public union pensions, proposed by at least one Democratic mayor. What is wrong with this picture? Bush and Obama chose bailing out Wall Street over Main St., and voters have dutifully fallen in line ever since, voting against their own best interests. I call it brainwashing:
In 2008, the choice before Bush, and then Obama, was clear. They could hand taxpayer resources to Wall Street and oversee a series of budget crises in states and localities, with the opportunity for later privatization of public assets and the breaking of public sector unions. Or Bush, and then Obama, could crack down on Wall Street, and make sure that bailout monies went to states and localities, and, with record low interest rates, spur tremendous investment in new energy, infrastructure, and education initiatives. It was a choice. Bush picked Wall Street. Obama also picked Wall Street, with public sector unions supporting Obama like turkeys cheering on Thanksgiving...
... Sending bankers to jail is a popular position, so why didn’t Griego’s message work? It’s simple. Voters don’t trust any Democrat to credibly deliver on that or really any promise on economic justice. Obama has designed the party’s policy framework specifically in opposition to economic justice. In that case, why not vote for the Republicans? It’s a more consistent brand.
I don't think young folks will vote Republican. They'll simply stay home on election day, which supports the notion that yes, ideology and policy matter. In fact, the place where ideology meets policy, matter even more, and Democrats won't deliver there.