Democrats Better Start Soul Searching

Abe Greenwald | @abegreenwald
11.11.2012 - 3:35 PM


Barack Obama ushered in America’s first large-scale experiment in personality-cult politics. The experiment continues apace. Obama got reelected because he enjoys a degree of personal popularity disconnected from his record. No modern president has ever been returned to office with employment figures and right-track-wrong-track numbers as poor as those Obama has achieved.

Obama couldn’t run on his record, which proved to be no problem—Americans didn’t vote on his record. According to exit polls, 77 percent of voters said the economy is bad and only 25 percent said they’re better off than they were four years ago. But since six in ten voters claimed the economy as their number one issue, it’s clear this election wasn’t about issues at all.

The president’s reelection is not evidence of a new liberal America, but rather of the illogical and confused experience that is infatuation. For multiple reasons, Americans continue to have a crush on Barack Obama even after his universally panned first term. No longer quite head over heels, they’re at the “I know he’s no good for me, but I can change him” phase. Whatever this means, it surely doesn’t suggest conservatives would be wise to move closer to policies that aren’t even popular among Obama supporters.

Why isn’t soul searching underway on the left? When the personality at the center of the cult leaves the stage in four years, Democrats will own his results without the benefit of his appeal. We can’t know quite what a second Obama term will bring, but if his first term is an indication, there’s little reason to expect his party will be crowing. The fiscal cliff is here but a whole landscape of steep drops comes next: the economic cliff (over which lies a possible double-dip recession), the Obamacare cliff (over which lies an unprecedented bureaucratic behemoth), the Iran cliff (over which lies a nuclear bomb), and so on. A precipice in every direction and a president who’s given us no reason to presume he can steer clear. Have Democrats stopped to wonder what initiatives they’ll have to defend when the dust settles in 2016?

Already Obama has signaled he’s continuing policies that don’t meet the moment. There’s the assurance of more taxes, of course. But that’s not all. On Friday, citing ecological concerns, the administration closed off 1.6 million acres of federal land in western states from planned oil shale extraction. An American energy boom lies in wait underground and Obama is determined to keep it there. Abroad, the groundwork is being laid to offer Iran a fanciful “grand bargain” in an effort to halt its work on a nuclear weapon. Think “Russian reset” with fanatical theocrats.

Perhaps Democrats are confident purely because of their stance on social issues. But as a tactical matter (principle and ideology are a different question), is doesn’t make sense for Republicans to fret over the culture and identity wars that have transfixed the left. Gay marriage as a presidential issue is off the table. The November election showed the future of that question lives at the state level, which is both a popular and conservative approach. Obama himself has said he’ll do nothing about it nationally. Multiple polls taken this year show opposition to abortion is at least as high as it’s been in 15 years. By 2016, the new class war will surely have wound down after Americans see that making the “rich pay their fare share” didn’t solve everyone else’s problems and in fact created new ones.

On immigration reform, of course conservatives should act. That was true before Obama’s reelection; it’s now inevitable. In the next four years, serious Republicans will offer policies aiming to give foreign workers a path to citizenship. Leaders like Marco Rubio have already gotten a brilliant head start.

It is in the nature of personality cults to fail at most things beyond generating and disseminating propaganda. This inability is the result of two things. First, the personality’s popularity is not results-driven. Since adoration hasn’t been earned by achievement but by the advent of charisma, why kill yourself trying to get results. Second, few people are willing to candidly critique the personality at the center of the cult, so there is little chance of course correction. None of this bodes well for Barack Obama. And for the country’s sake, let’s hope it’s wrong.

To effect a revolution in American politics, you have to set parameters that successors will be compelled to heed. FDR implemented programs that at least produced identifiable results before revealing their unsustainable flaws. Bill Clinton had no problem declaring the age of big government over because Ronald Reagan had ushered in a prosperous era in which this was so. What part of the Obama agenda will resonate when isolated from the Obama phenomenon? It’s too soon to say, but not too soon wonder.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/11/democrats-better-start-soul-searching/#more-810821

let me start with correcting the claim that no president returned to office with 'wrong track' unemployment

in fact, BUSH first term started at 4.2 percent and ended at 7.7, a 3.5 percent increase in his first term

Obama started at 7.6 percent and is now 7.9 percent, a 0.3 percent increase

hardly the historical negative difference from other 'modern' presidents


bush spent nearly two terms looking for osama,, under obama he was taken out in the first term

Obama won because Romney lost,,,its really not much more deep than that

its not an american failing, its the same american choice presidential elections have always afforded american citizens,,,

the government is more than a president, always has been, and always will be

however disenchanted folks were on some issues , they were more disenchanted with the divisionist rhetoric that was offered as the 'solution'


what I can hope for, is not that obama does well, but that our GOVERNMENT starts to work together (congress especially) to make sure america does well...

The spike to over 7% happened AFTER Democrats took the House and Senate. Nice try.

Romney needed to appeal to a larger chunk of voters to take the presidency away from Obama.

Why elect a business man when ya' kin elect someone who will give you other people's money?

What helped Barry win was;

Rigged machines, dead voters, illegal voters, repetitive voters, and the promise to make the US third world.

LOL<, the op was a bash on the PRESIDENT, not congress,, nice try

yeah, this election was highly RIGGED by the big money folks (didnt romneys own son own some of those machines?)...lol

thats why OBAMA won and not because more people voted for him just like most every other president who won,,,

exactly, he used divisive language and his own parties bashing of his bain record came back to haunt him against Obama,,,,,

Personally I had no idea who would win the election in the final outcome. I was braced and prepared for either candidate to win. (Or lose!)...How did you feel about it?

I figured all along it could go either way,,,I heard alot of sentiment that seemed to reflect Romneys platform which I viewed as 'your on your own' and alot of contempt for people who need help

and I saw Obama as largely being PERCEIVED by many, apparently, as the candidate for those who need help

so, it came down to those who felt they were in need of help sometimes vs those who didnt believe they were ever in need of help or care much for those who were,

and I Wasnt sure which demographic was larger honestly,,,

I know the ground floor organization efforts were out of this world because several family members were involved with it,, I think a big part of the victory was that HARD work at the ground floor

but I wasnt honestly sure if that hard work would outweigh the big money behind the Romney campaign,,, so , no

I was never sure which would win,,,

yep,the Dole-Out POTUS!

Everyone has an agenda. Everyone is after "help" of one kind of another...We tend to vote for candidates who favor our "wants" and "needs" and "pocketbook." And this goes for corporations and the "upper elite" too. (And Evangelicals etc.)...Who promises to "help us?"... Who seems to be on our "side?" Who understands our "needs?"...Who will "fight" for our "causes?".. Who might give us the "shaft?" And "screw us?" Who seems more trustworthy? Or not?...Can we trust the contender more than the incumbent? Who is saying "what?" Are there any inconsistencies or "flip-flopping" on issues?...We vote for candidates with the knowledge that they may not be able to fulfill all their promises due to gridlock and partisan conflicts in Congress.

msharmony...When an election is tight and close I want to hope for the best. But I prepare for a loss too. (To try to soften the "blow" a little bit ahead of time.) How about you?...I always think about the story of the tortoise and the hare. The hare became arrogant and this was his downfall.

Maybe some of the posters need to do some research on poverty in America: most recipients are white and receive one third of the poverty line, only one in seven who are eligible for family assistance actually get it and that brings them up to two thirds of the poverty line. Also, if the cutoff for taxes is the poverty line, then these people who are below that line won't need to pay taxes. And as a finer point, me working for the trickle down Medicare/MediAid recipients is starting to edge me closer to the poverty line.

some of us do

some vote in a superhero who they belive has a magic wand,,

again we think alike

I was prepared to struggle more if Romney won as my mother would have moved to costa rica,,lol

I worked on election day so by the time I returned home it was already over and it was a good night,,,

No. What made Obama win is pitting him against the worst possible dumb *** in America who was as phony as a three dollar bill.

in spite of that, I Think Romney still had a chance by the numbers, but he lost his momentum the more he spoke and disregarded sections of the population, that really solidified the characterization his fellow republicans had made of him prior to his nomination,,,

Obama has so many people against him, it was difficult for Romney to loose to him, but he tried very hard (to loose) by saying a lot of really stupid things. I honestly don't think the Elite wanted him to win, but they did want the election to be close to legitimize it.

My opinion is that Romney had no change in hell.

my opinion is romney and obama had people against them

and Romney had a chance until he opened his mouth

just like MCCain did until he chose Palin