There is a rampant fiction among Democrats which seems to reappear after every losing election season: the meme that "moving to the center" is somehow "more pragmatic" than fighting for progressive policies.
I could not disagree more. There is nothing pragmatic about adopting an electoral strategy that not only sacrifices one's principles but never works anyway. Faux "pragmatists" in the Democratic Party may put down those of us who want our party and its elected officials to actually stand for something and fight for it; they may criticize us for critizing a rightward-drifting president; but it is they who are diminishing the electoral chances of that president and his party in 2012.
Since the Democrats in Congress faced a crushing defeat in the midterms a few weeks ago, President Obama has made statements indicating an increased willingness to give in to the policy proposals of Republicans. Most notably, he has signaled a willingness to extend an extra tax cut for the wealthiest Americans that was signed into law by President Bush and played a big role in turning the budget surpluses of the Clinton era into the worst deficits in history. Now he is talking about freezing the pay of federal workers, supposedly to "cut the deficit," although the difference that would make is like a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits that could be had by allowing the extra tax cut for the rich to expire on schedule.
Social Security and Medicare are now on the table for possible cuts, while President Obama continues his expensive and misguided military adventure in Afghanistan. Obama continually makes statements about "bipartisanship" and the importance of working with Republicans -- which in this political climate means bending over backwards to their every desire, since they have shown no willingness whatsoever to compromise.
Here is my question for the so-called pragmatists who support such rightward drift of our Democratic president: Who do you think is going to reelect this president two years from now?
Certainly Republicans are not going to vote for Obama -- even if he were to embrace the entire Republican Party platform, they would still call him a liberal and a socialist, just because he's not a member of their political team. American politics is that tribalistic these days, sad to say.
The number of persuadable independents is small and shrinking in this country, and most of them already voted for Obama in 2008, when he was seen as a fresh face promising visions of hope and change. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this segment of the electorate. He didn't deliver as much change as people were hoping for, and seems to have become the consummate insider politician, protecting the interests of the establishment rather than fighting hard for the working class. Moving to an establishmentarian centrism only pushes the frustrated independents toward the faux populism of the Tea Party, not back into Obama's column.
So this leaves the liberal base of the Democratic Party. The question is, are they going to turn out in large numbers for President Obama to be reelected in 2012 or not?
In 2010, the liberal base did not show up to vote in numbers anywhere near as large as 2008. Some might say this is normal, because turnout is always lower in midterm elections. But the problem is, it's not just low turnout, it's who didn't turn out. Specifically, it was young people and minorities -- the core progressive constituencies that propelled Obama to victory in 2008 -- who failed to show up at the polls this year.
The absence of the progressive base in the voting booth is what caused Republicans to sweep to victory in 2010. It had little to do with some kind of dramatic surge in conservatism among the American people. It had everything to do with liberals losing the motivation to bother to go and vote.
If President Obama had campaigned this year as a strong champion of working families and a fighter for middle class American jobs against unemployment caused by the greed of Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy, many more progressives would have shown up to vote and the Democratic Party's losses in Congress would have been much more manageable, perhaps even minimal. We might still hold the House of Representatives today. Instead, Obama chose the path of moderation, and after this path produced a "shellacking" at the polls, he lurches even further to the right.
I'm sorry, but whoever is advising President Obama about politics in this country has got their head where the sun don't shine.
Polls show that the American people wanted a health care bill that was more progressive than what was passed and signed into law by Obama. Polls show that the American people oppose extending an extra tax cut for the rich and would prefer for the cuts to be extended only for the middle class, if at all. On issue after issue, President Obama is finding himself to the right of most Americans.
How is this political strategy supposed to be "pragmatic"? People who want a right-of-center government will vote for the Republican over Obama anyway. And enough people who want a progressive government may get just frustrated enough, just disillusioned enough, just cynical enough about politics to sit out the 2012 election -- like they did in 2010.
If that happens, Obama loses reelection. He becomes a one-term president, replaced by Mike Huckabee, John Thune, Mitt Romney, or heaven forbid, even the dreaded Sarah Palin.
Think it couldn't happen? Think again. If the electorate looks like it did in the 2010 midterms -- young people and minorities disproportionately sitting out while conservative, older, white voters turn out as usual -- then even Palin has a realistic chance to become America's next president. And a more palatable candidate like Thune or Romney, easier to sell to moderate voters, would likely win easily. States like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado -- gone, back in the red column.
It is insane to think that Obama can ignore his base, take all the positions that make them angry and disillusioned, and hope to get reelected -- especially if the Republican nominee is anybody but Palin. Most of us here, on a political blog for electing Democrats, are likely to hold our nose and vote for Obama even if we think he's become Republican-lite, just because we know how bad it would be for a real Republican to win. But don't count on all the idealistic young voters and minority voters who carried him to victory in 2008 to bother voting for him again just because the other candidate is rotten. Most people are not really that into politics. They have to be motivated to go vote. They have to be given a reason to vote FOR someone, not just against the other guy.
This is why it is not only NOT pragmatic, but actually dangerous and damaging to the Democratic Party and the progressive movement, for progressive Democrats to sit back quietly and watch President Obama appease conservative Republicans and adopt many of their policies as his own. Biting our tongue can only produce one result: a crushing loss for this president -- the one so many people, especially a rising new generation of voters, invested so much hope in just two years ago. And that could mean a setback for the left that will last decades.