Democratic Party Death Wish

So, just a single week after a sound electoral thumping because they pissed off their base (CBS Exit Polling, Independents, Unions, and Gays- More Exit Polls), the Very Serious Leaders of the Democratic Party shot themselves in the foot again yesterday, not once, not twice, but three times!

Genius.  I’ll start with the Korean Free Trade Agreement since that’s the one you’ve probably heard least about-

Korea Free Trade, Here We Come

By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday November 10, 2010 9:46 pm

According to pollsters, opposing NAFTA-style trade agreements and defending Social Security were the two strongest issues Democrats had in 2010. There were 220 television ads run by Democrats in competitive races in 2010 opposing the outsourcing of jobs and “free trade” agreements…



The trade deal is seen as a sop to Korea so the US can maintain a military presence in the region. … (O)nce again, more middle class jobs would be sacrificed for the sake of militarism and interventionism.

It would be a truly horrific blow to whatever is left of American manufacturing at a time when unemployment is rampant.  But from a political standpoint, fighting for another so-called “free trade” agreement right now has got to represent some kind of death wish for the Democratic party.  I don’t have any other way to explain it.

Then there is Obama’s cave on Tax Cuts for the Rich-

David Axelrod’s Quaint Idea of Middle Class "Security"

By: emptywheel Wednesday November 10, 2010 11:52 pm

Axe is defining “security for the middle class” as tax cuts. Not “jobs.” Not “access to health care, not just insurance.” Not “a guarantee a bankster can’t just foreclose on their house with a trumped up piece of paper.” Not “some basic safety net for retirement.” But “tax cuts.”

According to Axe, we have to shovel even more money on the already rich so as to ensure the “security” of the middle class by giving them a tax cut.

And while I agree that raising middle class tax cuts at this point would be bad for the economy, it’s not the worst thing that could happen to the economy.

In fact, the worst thing that could happen to this economy may well be passing legislation that continues to hollow out of the middle class and with it increasing the massive income inequality that continues to subject the American people to the craven demands of a few very rich people. That is, precisely what Axe and Obama have now agreed to do.

These men either don’t know or don’t give a damn about the security of the middle class.

And then there is Obama’s Cat Food Commission recommending drastic cuts to Social Security WHILE ALSO Cutting Taxes for the Rich and Corporations-

Cutting Social Security Would Prove Disastrous for Democrats at Polls

By: Jon Walker Wednesday November 10, 2010 6:56 pm

In this last election, Democrats performed terribly with senior citizen voters. National House exit polling shows only 38 percent of those over 65 voted for Democrats while 59 percent votes for Republicans. This is the worst showing for Democrats among seniors in decades and a big part of why Dems lost so many House seats.



The Republicans absolutely hammered Democrats with what the GOP labeled as a $500 billion cut in Medicare as part of the new health care law. The fairly misleading message clearly resonated with seniors who really don’t want their entitlements cut.



Cutting Social Security will be dramatically worse for Democrats

With that in mind, a Democratic plan to cut Social Security would likely be even more politically destructive to Democrats among senior citizens. Unlike with Medicare, there is no real waste or overpayments to private insurance companies in Social Security to trim. Any cost saving reforms to Social Security must actually be straight-up cuts in benefits.



Social Security is called the third rail of politics for a reason. If Obama touches it, he will destroy the Democratic party in 2012.

After looking at the senior vote in 2010, one can only conclude that any attempt by President Obama or Democrats to reduce Social Security benefits would be a political disaster. Polling indicates that a majority of Americans strong oppose (.pdf) raising the retirement age, and I can only assume the idea is even less popular among those about to retire.

Democrats attempted to simply reduce waste in Medicare as part of health care reform, and it caused voters over 65 to reject them en masse because it was framed by Republicans as a cut in Medicare benefits. If Democrats promote actually cutting people’s Social Security benefits, I have every reason to believe their losses among seniors citizens in 2012 will make their historically poor performance in 2010 look small in comparison.

What I will point out about these arguments is that they’re NOT based on some namby pamby kumbayah theory of Social Justice and Compassion-

They are based on hard nosed realpolitik facts about how to win elections.

Anyone who claims to care about “electoral victory” is a LIAR!

And anyone still buying into the “11 Dimensional Chess” Theory of Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration is a member of a cult of personality

The Obama Movement

Posted on November 10, 2010 by myiq2xu, The Confluence

Remember those stories about the “Cult of Obama?” They started because of something called “Camp Obama.”



A summer camp for young adults where they sat around campfires sipping Kool-aid and chanting “Fired up! Ready to go!” and “O-bama! O-bama! O-bama!”

Okay, there were no campfires because the “camps” were held in office buildings and auditoriums, but the principle is the same. Read up on Camp Obama and you might notice a dearth of policy discussions.

It was all about the O

That “telling stories” stuff? The Christian fundamentalists call it “witnessing.”



Obama gets $99 million dollars in 2007 from Wall Street, health insurance executives and oil companies. He uses that money to organize Cult Camp Obama. He wins in the red states and caucus states but loses almost all of the big states and swing states.



Then once he’s in office he immediately starts dismantling the very organizations that helped him get there. and co-opts or “vertically integrates” all the left-wing activist groups within the Democratic party.

He even arranges for the Democratic party headquarters to be relocated to Chicago.

It sounds to me like he knew his followers were gonna be really disappointed and he didn’t want to leave them anywhere else to go. I guess it never occurred to him they might just stay home.

(h/t lambert @ Corrente)

This is primarily a political post about why this is bad politics.  I’ll explain why it’s bad policy later.

2 comments

    • on 11/11/2010 at 14:09
      Author
    • on 11/11/2010 at 16:15

    will do nothing to reduce the deficit or improve the economy. It won’t even reduce the size of government.

    Good analysis by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones had this chart from the Congressional Budget Office with an explanation.

    Is the Deficit Commission Serious?

    Photobucket

       Here’s what the chart means:

          * Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn’t a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What’s more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that’s fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That’s why it’s called “discretionary.”

          * Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn’t a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.

          * Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem. . . . .

       Bottom line: this document isn’t really aimed at deficit reduction. It’s aimed at keeping government small. There’s nothing wrong with that if you’re a conservative think tank and that’s what you’re dedicated to selling. But it should be called by its right name. This document is a paean to cutting the federal government, not cutting the federal deficit.

Comments have been disabled.