There's an interesting piece up on Slate right now by John Dickerson. It attempts to explain the mood of the electorate and why, despite people trusting Democrats on most economic issues, Republicans stand to make gains this fall (tho, I believe, will not take majorities because many of their candidates are just plain crazy). It comes down to the economy and it will be the same story for 2012, but with more at stake, if Democrats aren't able to turn the economy around.
This jumped out at me, because it's kind of how I feel about the electorate right now:
The main argument I hear is that the economy so irritates people they want to punish the people in Washington. They want to try a different route—any route—even if that route leads them down a path they say they don't want. That desire overwhelms their other views about parties or the specific policies of those parties.
And the question I can't figure out is: what could Democrats have done differently to avoid this situation? Is there any set of policies that they could have enacted that would have avoided the electorate (an electorate that gave Democrats huge wins in '06 and '08) from feeling this way? Short of saying "fix the economy," I don't really think so.
Folks feel like they've given Dems a shot for the last two turns (granted Bush was still in office 2006-08, but I think most voters think about who they sent to Washington, not the process of Executive vs. Legislative wrangling) and it's not really working for them so it's time to try something else, even if something else is also sub-optimal. Dickerson uses this analogy, which I find spot-on:
So for the moment I've settled on this analogy: You're a long-haul trucker on the highway, and you're hungry. You wish you'd eaten a good healthy meal, but those are time-consuming and expensive. You see a choice at the next exit: McDonald's or Burger King. You're not thrilled about either, but in general you prefer McDonald's to Burger King and, if asked, you'd probably agree that you like every comparable menu item (fries, burger, drink, Happy Meal toy) better at McDonald's than at Burger King. But you've eaten at McDonalds for eight straight days. So, you go to Burger King.
My guess is that the only way this was to be avoided is to have prevented the recession for going on this long and deep. Of course, there is no guarantee that any set of policies would have avoided that fate. I think it's not the policies people don't like, it's the outcome: recession. So they want something else, anything else.
We can argue that there could have been more done on foreclosures, or a second stimulus was needed or TARP money wasn't used as best as it could have been, but we have no guarantees that we would not still be facing a crappy economy RIGHT NOW if things had been done differently. And, despite it being a tired refrain, it's why it's smart of Obama to remind everyone that it was Bush who drove this car into the ditch and we're just now starting to get it out.
I just hope this lesson is learned by the Democrats post-November so they realize that, whatever else they do, they MUST get the economy back on track before 2012 or it'll be a bloodbath. Whatever backlash the White House and the Democrats might take from pumping more money into the economy, it won't compare to the cost of inaction. Whether it's middle class tax cuts or a second stimulus or more aggressive action on foreclosures or f'ing hiring every unemployed person in America to clean up national parks, -- and whatever deals they've to cut with the Republicans to do it -- it's still the economy (stupid).
That's the bottom line for this election and that will be the bottom line for the next election (save some sort of catastrophic event), get the economy back on track - which I have every confidence Democrats CAN do - and we'll stay in charge in Congress and the White House.
And finally, please go bid on something at the Netroots Nation Auction. I'd be strung up if I posted a diary and didn't mention it!