There is a interesting piece by Matt Bai coming out in this weekend's NY Times magazine. The piece concerns the disconnect between the administration and Congress in regards to leadership of the Democratic party. What really struck me, though, wasn't so much the article, as one of the comments located beneath the article. Here's the comment in it's entirety...
21.Debra Garson NYS June 9th
I do not even see any leadership qualities in Obama. I am a disaffected voter. The Democrats passed a worthless health care bill. Obama wouldn't even fight to keep a public option or is it that he did not want one? The financial reform bill is riddled with loopholes, which makes it worthless. I do not vote for a party that passes worthless legislation.
I never fell for Obama's rhetoric. I am not disappointed by wha he and the Democratically controlled Congress have failed to do.
My opinion is that Obama transcends nothing. My opinion is that he stands for nothing. I do not see that he has any convictions beyond being a two-term president.
I doubt that Obama has the ability to keep the Democrats as the majority party for years to come. Only time will tell. However, he has been losing support among Independents. I am one Independent who does not like the fact that the Democrats compromised away everything.
I am turning to the Republicans in November. Obama has had his chance to take the country on a different path, but he has failed to do so. At least the Republicans have lower taxes in their arsenal.
Until you get to the last paragraph, the sentiments expressed would not be out of place on Daily Kos. The conclusion of her comment then veers off into a strange, counterintuitive place. Ms. Garson's sentiments are likely shared by a good number of "independents".
What frustrates this voter isn't Obama "overreaching" or Obama "being a socialist"; It's Obama (or more accurately the Democratic party) allowing good ideas to be compromised into a pointless mush. I do realize both the healthcare bill and the financial reform package both contain some very good things, but both severely pulled their punches at a time where BOLD action was needed.
The temptation for many of us it to write off Ms. Garson as an idiot. After all, the Republicans, in all their loud, obnoxious glory, were the largest factor in preventing robust healthcare and financial reform. Turning to the GOP is roughly akin to turning to the Nazis when Allied efforts to liberate the concentration camps was not proceeding at a fast enough pace. But dismissing Ms. Garson's illogical solution to her completely legitimate anger and frustration, out of hand, doesn't benefit her, us or America.
I suspect Ms. Garson self-identifies as an independent because she's not deeply ideological, and in a two party system, the conventional wisdom dictates that the truth lies somewhere in between. This is how the majority of voters perceive things to be.
Of course, there are major flaws in the conventional wisdom. The Reagan Administration moved the country severely to the right. He was able to get away with this because the negative consequences of this shift did not fully manifest themselves until very recently. Conversely the one tangibly, positive consequence (the accelerated demise of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc) manifested itself much, much sooner. The end result is that Reagan is held in high regard by a majority of Americans. This ongoing high regard has resulted in the entire political spectrum being lifted up off its moorings and moved extremely rightward.
The rightward shift has profoundly impacted both major political parties. The Democrats were hijacked by a shady conglomerate know as the "Democratic Leadership Council". The DLC made the conscious decision to sever the New Deal-forged alliance of the working class and the Democratic Party, in favor of wooing significantly more affluent cultural libertine types. This new alliance allowed the party access to lots of campaign cash, but at the cost of having TWO pro-Wall Street parties.
With both parties now on the same side vis-a-vis all matters economic, the battle would now be centered on the cultural fight between "latte drinking vegetarian pot smoking intellectuals" and "Bible thumping, gun totin', beer drinking anti-intellectuals". In short Christianity vs. Reason. Both go to the very core of the American Experience.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Democrats were in a much tactically superior position when the battle was over "pocketbook" issues as opposed to cultural ones. As the significantly more guileless of the two parties, the Republicans are far more comfortable in manipulating emotions for votes.
As you read this, you're probably wondering "What's the point and can you please get to it."
The point is, with apologies to Horace Greeley,--->GO LEFT, YOUNG MAN
We currently have a culturally center-left, otherwise center-right party in the Democrats and an all around extreme right wing party in the Republicans. For most Americans that doesn't give them an actual legitimate choice. Returning to Ms. Garson's comment, it's difficult to take the logical option, when said option does not exist.
When Barack Obama was elected President in a landslide and bolstered with unprecedented majorities in both houses, it was a golden opportunity for the Democrats to seize the day and reclaim their mantle as the true party of the people. To do this, Democrats needed to unite behind BOLD, decidedly left-of-center policies in regards to both healthcare and Wall Street reform. Strong decisive action is what brings in independents, not mealy-mouthed half-assery.
As long as Democrats continue to consider receiving a couple of crumbs from a loaf of bread as acceptable compromise, we will be viewed (correctly) as weak and pathetic. As long as the Democrats are viewed as weak and pathetic, the Republicans remain a viable option, no matter how far off the deep end they go.
Democrats who refuse to commit to an across the board strong progressive agenda need to be remorselessly purged. Given the problems we face, the whole "I'm ashamed to be a liberal, so call me a moderate" garbage needs to stop and stop now.
We do the progressive cause great harm when we support non-progressive Democrats with our time, money and votes. The focus has to change from "electing more and better Democrats" to "electing good Democrats and eliminating bad ones".
As unstomachable as it may be, if you are represented by a Blue Dog, and you can't knock them out via primary, you're better off replacing them with a teabagger/Republican than continuing to allow them to disgrace the Democratic brand. It may seem completely counterintuitive, but purism is the pragmatic move. Unless you feel a permanent role as the "lesser of two evils that holds power only during those brief periods where even the corporate media thinks the GOP overreaches" is something worth striving for.