MuddyPolitics's picture

    Are Liberals to Blame?

    By MuddyPolitics on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:10am |

     

    Subtitle: Another stand-alone piece on another subject that isn’t appropriate for dagblog and is of high-school rough-draft quality.

     

    A recent poll shows that the now historically low (34 percent) public support of Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act was most affected by a 13-point drop in support from Democrats specifically.

    Is that because Republican have been on the attack consistently for two years, and Democrats too are starting to believe that the law is unconstitutional, a government takeover, etc.? Or is it possible that the attacks coming from the left – who say the bill wasn’t strong enough, who criticize it for not including a single payer option, and who rail the president for selling out to the pharmaceutical industry – have also contributed to decreased public support?

    Beyond health care reform, it is possible that the left’s critiques of the president as being a big-business shill, a faux progressive who ignores all but the moderate and Independent voters, and a sell-out to the liberal base have in any way contributed to his lagging public support or the low Democratic turnout in 2010?

    Regardless of the merits of any criticisms about health care reform or Wall Street reform, regardless of the validity of specific critiques about how the budget negotiations and debt ceiling fiasco were handled, does anyone believe that the liberal left has affected public support for the president and/or his initiatives?

    Comments

    Unlikely. I think it was in one of your threads that someone pointed to polling data that shows that the vast majority of self identified liberals do support Obama. Those of us who blog about politics are more critical of the president, but we are a minority among voters and tend to obsess over things that many ignore. I'd say Obama has been extremely fortunate that the left has been so forgiving of his mistakes.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:19am

    Hey Des! #wavesvigorouslyfromthewestcoast

    I think liberal voters are simply looking not to replay the 2000 election again, and of course that particular election was not about the economy, but had morphed into an election about morals, beige suits, Buddhists and other weird stuff. We are looking to hold the line. It isn't that we are ignoring the issues you hold dear,  it is that we are holding the line, we can't let any more of them through, those conservatives are literally destroying the country and they don't even care. We didn't toss our quarterback the ball, to turn around and kick him in the balls because he called a play we don't agree with! I liken it to football, because that is exactly what it has become, so we are holding the line, we are trying not to let the crazy opposition through. It isn't that the President is fortunate, it's that his team isn't going abandon him because that is a reflection on us too, it displays a kind of a weakness, one the other side doesn't have, so they win constantly, even when they don't.

    We would love to replace some of our own players in the next draft but it seems we are unable to do that, so we have to play with who we have, which includes old players who seemingly are on their own side... (Hey Ben Nelson I am talking to you!) And hopefully, one day, the team will adopt a better strategy for trading those players to the other team, or just making them retire to their favorite lobby.

    Disappointed with the Pres? Sometimes, but it doesn't matter, cause we still can't let the other team take the ball, we know what happens when they do.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:39am

    Don't worry, T.  I don't want President Romney either.  I think it's probably about time to retire the use of supporting Obama (or not) as a proxy for people's liberal bona fides.  You in particular have always been an Obama supporter who wants the most progressive America we can have.  I like to think of myself as an Obama critic with the same qualities.  It's time we take the ego out of the argument and all recognize that in each other.  It's not all about Obama.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:04pm

    I agree Des. I was agreeing with you in my round about football obsessed way. This is about so much more than this particular President and I don't think that the criticism by those on the left is hurting the President one bit, the only people I read who use it are folks from Breitfarts and BozoBozells site, and they are irrelevant.

    What isn't irrelevant of course is Rootman's blog about widespread deliberate disenfranchisement of voters and gerrymandered redistricting. We know that disenfranchising voters helps Republicans by and large, the fewer people who are allowed to vote, the more power they gain. Redistricting has impacted many a state, because even in a state where the majority of voters are Dem's weirdly enough R's win, because those gerrymandered districts disenfranchise majorities by keeping the minority party in power.  We can see the direct impact of their crazy no-regulation policies, yet as a nation, we are unable to fix it. It sucks, but I do agree with you, this is where our discussion should begin, how do we fix these things that are so broken and keep regular people at such a disadvantage. We need to quit fighting amongst ourselves, all it does it breed bad feelings, discontent and distrust. It isn't helping us move forward. It isn't fixing what is broken.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:27pm

    The question isn't how the left's criticisms affect how the left votes, but how the left's criticisms affect how less liberal Democrats and moderates vote. Progressives aren't likely to vote for a conservative (this is why Obama doesn't pander to the left-wing agenda; he doesn't need to). But does the left-wing criticisms, combined with the harsh right-wing criticisms, influence how a less involved, less ideological person will vote?

    If Democratic support of the HCR laws is waning, and it's non-existent on the right, does that unified opposition influence voters who aren't tied to a party in general or the progressive left in particular?


    by MuddyPolitics on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:42am

    The question isn't how the left's criticisms affect how the left votes, but how the left's criticisms affect how less liberal Democrats and moderates vote.

    I doubt that leftist criticisms matter much to moderates. I suspect that Obama's luster is more tarnished by the lousy economy, and by his inability to overcome the Reps on significant legislation that might improve it. 


    by Donal on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:51am

    I think this is right.  I know there's the larger question about whether or not lefty criticism hurts the president, but my take is that it really doesn't matter.  You only live once, so say what's on your mind.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 11:57am

    Your question has an element of the old "Have you stopped beating your wife" in it. Answering both yes and no accept a premise that is more like a conclusion.

    Those who believe that a "liberal left" still exists and must be defeated also classify the Obama Administration as the vanguard of  communism and/or sex with beasts. Those who are disappointed with the administration for not being progressive enough have no influence at all upon that end of the spectrum.

    For pure Libertarians, the criticisms made by disappointed liberals are also a distinction without a difference.

    For moderates who eschew both of those camps, Obama's riff about being non-partisan is seen as one of his good qualities. Having people complain that Obama has given too much to the Right actually strengthens that meme. For that reason alone, I would have to say, no; observations made about how conservative the Obama administration has turned out to be is not souring the public view of him.


    by moat on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:28pm

    Can someone define for me the term Liberal Democrat.

    Does Liberal Democrat = Progressive Democrat? 

    If not;

    Consider; In the court of public opinion, it is better for our side to define the term, rather than let the opposition define the terms.

    The right can smear the democrats as a whole; because in their minds and in their propaganda, all democrats are alike.

    The progressive movement may have the message the right and left Americans seek.

    A common ground

    But you'll not get the right to accept abortions or gay rights issues, whereas they might accept progressive ideas.

    Except in some Americans minds, to vote for a progressive, they'll get the undesirable abhorrent objective of the liberal wing, if they vote for a progressive.  

    The all encompassing Democratic tent, comes with baggage.

    Baggage the other 50 percent of Americans find abhorrent.

    So before you attack me, define the terms, because the other side has.

    They believe all democrats are for abortions, and gay rights issues. A vote for a democrat assures their greatest fears will come to fruition.   

    The progressive wing should attract both sides,

    Don't let the liberal wing draw only Democrats.

    The liberal wing will not attract republicans. 

    The progressive wing can attract republicans.  

    Unless liberal  = progressive

    But some might argue that divides and conquers the Democrats. YEAH it does.

    Where would the liberal wing go? Whose wagging the dog?

    The liberals have high jacked the progressive party.

    They have relegated progressives to be subservient to the liberal causes. 

    The liberal causes will not attract republicans.  

    Define the terms, prove to me my interpretation of the terms are invalid.

    The other side has already drawn a conclusion, based upon their interpretation of the term liberal.

    Do progressives have to lose, because we're servants of the liberal causes?

    It should be the other way around, liberals and republicans should seek to promote progressives.  


    by Resistance on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:01pm

    does anyone believe that the liberal left has affected public support for the president and/or his initiatives?

    Yes, obviously.   There are many Obama initiatives and policies that the progressive left does not support.  We have criticized those initiatives and policies.  Presumably these criticisms have not been totally ineffective, and as a result we have helped in diminishing public support for at least some of those initiatives and policies.  Since we think the initiatives and policies in question are bad initiatives and policies, we are glad about whatever role we might have played in diminishing broader public support for them.

    The political conclusion to be drawn is that Obama needs better and more progressive initiatives and policies, ones that can help him recapture some of the support he has lost.

    Obama wasted over a year focusing his administration's economic policy efforts on the deficit and the debt, and on achieving a deficit "grand bargain."   During that time many progressives argued that this approach was completely wrong-headed, and a recipe for further economic stagnation.  We argued that Obama should focus attention on the massive problem of unemployment.   Eventually, Obama seems to have realized the error of his ways, but not before shacking his more recent efforts in job creation with a budget "supercommittee" that can throw a money wrench into everything else.

    Now, we lefties got the same kinds of lectures from centrists back in 2010 when we were ridiculing and attacking Obama's "catfood commission".  But frankly, subsequent developments have only encouraged us to believe we were right all along, and that you guys just don't grasp actual social and economic realities very well, and don't know what the hell you are talking about.  To the extent Obama keeps listening to you guys, were going to consider criticizing him.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:54pm

    The Catfood Commission is a good example to bring up.  There's a scenario where the left warned him not to do it and where the results were so unpopular that he distanced himself from them.  You'd think, after the disaster that the Simpson Bowles commission put forward, that Obama would have learned his lesson, and even learned that the left was correct, and might be a good source of guidance.

    Instead, we have another bipartisan commission, trying to recreate Simpson Bowles.  Go figure!


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 2:49pm

    1.a. Yes 

    1.b. Unlikely

    1.c. Certainly possible. Sometimes truth hurts. How large an effect though?

    2. Certainly possible it contributed. 

    3. I am sure someone believes that, i would note the left still strongly supports him.

    I am sure everybody around here has endured years of debates like this. I have been having them since the early nineties. And yet the left still seems to be losing. Why? You imply one solution: they should shut up about what they believe in hopes they might win? Say "yes boss, if that is the best we can do", and continue marching off a cliff.  Be pleased with table scraps that are not going to be effective in making the world better, but might be effective in making the future a little less worse. Maybe you are right, I certainly think a case can be made, but I would I encourage you to take your passion to a swing state and let voters know.  I agree that HCR was a good step in the right direction. You should go door to door with that message. 

    Of course I think that a very compelling argument can also be made for the opposite, that we need a powerful left to push policy makers in the right direction.  I think that historically this has been more effective, as they say"the squeaky wheel gets the grease"and look at where faux has managed to push the framing.  But frankly I have no interest in this staid debate.  I know where I stand, I think truth matters above all else, I think that most people in their hearts agree with that, and that all of us--no matter how we frame things--can not escape that. 

     


    by Saladin on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 6:03pm

    Latest Comments