MB Civic

The Sea Change in Massachusetts
by Rev. Ian Alterman
Editor, MB-Civic

In channel-hopping between CNN and MSNBC last night, and listening to the various talking heads explain “what happened” and “what is likely to happen now,” I heard many of the anchors and pundits speak of “populist anger” and a feeling that Washington was “not listening” to a large portion of the electorate; that there was a sense that Obama and the Democratic Party have become “arrogant” and “have not shown enough change.”

They will get no argument from me. However, none of them seemed to be able (or willing) to articulate what I believe are the two factors that are almost certainly most powerfully at play here.

The first is what Paul Krugman referred to as the “narrative.” From Mr. Krugman’s January 18, 2010 op-ed in The New York Times: “It’s instructive to compare Mr. Obama’s rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter. Mr. Obama could have done the same – with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks. But he didn’t. Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.) Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch.”

Although Mr. Krugman addresses only the economy, the same could be said for other aspects of the “narrative”: for example, Mr. Obama could have blamed the health care situation on Mr. Bush, at least to the degree that Mr. Bush was happy to allow the status quo of insurance companies bilking the American public while continuing to deny or limit coverage (or even take it away), thus keeping tens of millions of Americans uninsured due to pre-existing conditions, uncovered conditions, technicalities, or simple unaffordability. Yet, as with the economy, Mr. Obama made little or no attempt to do this. True, Republicans would have fought back ferociously, denying any and all blame. However, if Mr. Obama and Democratic Party leaders had remained in lockstep in this regard, it would at very least have provided some balance, if not won the day.

The second undiscussed factor is fear. Even setting aside any racism vis-à-vis Mr. Obama’s election (and that is, of course, a factor, particularly with the increasingly vocal – and influential – “tea party” set), Mr. Obama’s perceived (and occasionally actual) quasi-socialism is very scary to those who do not understand that it is NOT scary – and, in fact, may be exactly what is needed (in certain areas) in order to move the country forward in a positive way. True, Republicans deliberately stoke this fear through code words and phrases: universal health care is “socialized medicine,” a temporary take-over of banks is a form of “economic socialism,” etc. But neither Mr. Obama nor the Democratic Party has made any serious attempt to “fight back” in this regard.

Many people (particularly whites, and especially Southern whites) also fear the inevitable demographic change that will put them in the minority within just a few years. This has been discussed in both the alternative and mainstream media for well over a year. But it is no less fearsome to those who are afraid of change – particularly what they perceive of as a radical change over which they have absolutely no control, and as a result of which they will “lose power.” And although this is a naturally-occurring phenomenon – and thus not anyone’s “fault” – it is easy to “blame” it on the current administration, particularly when, again, Republican politicians and leaders are all too willing to feed this misperception.

While there are obviously other factors at play here, these two – Mr. Obama’s unwillingness to aggressively and consistently “place the blame” on the previous administration (even though, as Mr. Krugman notes, he would be highly justified in doing so), and Mr. Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s blindness to (or ignoring or downplaying of) the “fear factor” that is one of the roots of the “new populism” (which is rapidly spreading beyond the “tea party” movement) – are arguably at the root of why Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and now Scott Brown have ridden to victory in their respective states.

If the Democratic Party does not want to be routed in the midterm elections, they must somehow find a way to co-opt the “new populism,” or to at least dilute or mollify it (without, of course, simply giving in to it in all regards). If they do not – if Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party fail to see what is happening or, worse, dismiss it – they will have no one but themselves to blame when Republicans snap up formerly “solid” Democratic seats in the House and Senate, making any chance for progress in Mr. Obama’s administration virtually nil.