By Cliff Montgomery – Feb. 5th, 2010
To hear the corporate press spin the recent GOP victory in Massachusetts–in which Scott Brown defeatedDemocrat Martha Coakley to take the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy–the Americanpeople are enraged that the liberal they gleefully put into the White House occasionally works to put hiscampaign promises into action.
A simple look at the facts reveals the fallacy of that bizarre argument.
“[The Brown win] was not a referendum on Barack Obama, who in every poll remains one of the most popularpoliticians in America,” wrote Frank Rich in an insightful New York Times opinion piece printed on Jan. 24th. Infact, Obama’s first-anniversary approval ratings hover around 50 to 55 percent–about the same as Reagan’s.
“[The Brown win] was not a rejection of universal health care, which Massachusetts mandated (with ScottBrown’s State Senate vote) in 2006,” Rich continued.
“It was not a harbinger of a resurgent GOP, whose numbers remain in the toilet.
“Brown [in fact] had the good sense not to identify himself as a Republican in either his campaign advertisingor his victory speech,” added Rich.
All that aside, there is one lesson for Democrats to take from the Massachusetts Senate race: No politicalparty’s base will continue its support if that base feels the party isn’t really fighting for them.
True, “more voters showed up at the polls…than in any non-presidential general election in Massachusettssince 1990,” as stated by a Jan. 19th Associated Press (AP) article on the Massachusetts election.
But what the AP article left out was that the Democratic Party base appeared to stay away from the polls indroves.
According to Democratic operatives, two million registered Democrats stayed home in MA, and refused to votefor anyone. And Massachusetts only has about 6.6 million residents, according to 2009 U.S. Census Bureaupopulation estimates.
Brown won the U.S. Senate seat by a vote of 52 per cent to Coakley’s 47 percent. Therefore if the Democraticoperatives are correct, the no-show at the polls was a crippling blow to Coakley.
Thus the real story of the upcoming 2010 elections may not be who votes for whom, but who refuses to votefor anyone at all.
“If the [Obama] administration sticks to this trajectory,” Rich wrote, “all bets are off for the political future of apresident who rode into office blessed with more high hopes…and serious promise than any in modernmemory.”
During the first 100 days or so of his presidency, Obama stayed on message, and continually put forth acoherent political strategy. And during that period, his approval rating remained around 70 to 75 percent.
But since that time, he has seemed to lack political focus. When he wasn’t handing over the health caredebate to conservative Democrats, he appeared to be trying to do everything else except rebuild America’s jobmarket–the task he principally was hired to perform.
“[Obama] is no longer seen as a savior,” Rich wrote, “but as a captive of the interests who ginned up the messand still profit, hugely, from it.”
And why not? In the past several months, he’s earned that perception. That fact has steadily been erodingpublic confidence in the man, and in his administration.
The liberal bear of the campaign trail and of those first 100 days in the White House–the one who vowed toreign in America’s casino capitalism–has since provided more Big Business bailouts than tough laws to re-establish corporate accountability.
Let’s be honest: Modern American capitalism is a blatantly monopolistic culture, in which the wealthy and well-connected continually get the gold mine, regardless of their stupidity, while the workers get the shaft. Thissimple truth is something everyone now knows to be true, even if they’re not screaming it from the rooftops–yet.
“If the tea party right and populist left agree on anything,” wrote Rich, “it’s that big bailed-out banks have andwill get away with murder while we pay the bill on credit cards–with ever-rising fees.”
Thus the Obama Administration has not been too left-wing, but instead has driven away legions of thepresident’s core supporters by doing so little after those first 100 days. All too often, it has been too slow, toovague and too weak in its dealings with Congress.
And that’s a shame.
