Learning The Wrong Lessons

One of the most difficult things any political analyst can do, is divorce himself from his own personal philosophical point of view when making a judgment on the nature of something that happens in the world of politics.  All too often, we see what we want to see, and can not get past our own particular brand of tunnel vision to see what is really happening.

The Massachusetts election has very real lessons that must be learned by Democrats, or they will face similar problems in each and every race they run in 2010.

This is a bipartisan problem, and one I have seen all too often among conservatives and Republicans in the past two or three years, as they search in vain for redeeming lessons to be learned in the historic defeats of 2006 and 2008.  But over in the infancy of the Obama administration, we are seeing the left make the same mistakes as well – letting their assumptions and wishes trump grounded, realistic political analysis.

Indeed, dispassionate and apolitical evaluations of political phenomena are essential.  Being able to understand why something has happened, diagnose the root causes, and then formulate a strategy to move forward is the most basic – but most often overlooked – necessity of politics.  You can not move from losing to winning if you do not know why you have lost. Similarly, you can not win, and then expect to continue to win, if you do not know the underlying reasons why you won in the first place.

As a Republican, I saw this happen to myself from both sides.  In the 2004 election, when President Bush captured more than 50% of the vote for the first time since 1988 and Republicans had whopping majorities in both the House and the Senate, I sat with several friends in the basement of Pat’s Pizza in Orono – and discussed the election.  Gloating, I thought I knew all the reasons Republicans had utterly destroyed Democrats.  My future wife, who was there with us, turned to a dispirited Democratic friend of mine and said, “You are a Democrat?”

He responded with a deep sigh, “Yes.”

“Why?”

He opened his mouth ready for a retort, but found himself so beaten and without purpose, that he could not even muster up a pre-canned answer.  “You know, Erin,” he responded, “right now, I honestly don’t know.”  I roared with laughter, bought my friend a beer, and shared with him all the reasons why his party was dead for the next twenty years.

Flash forward to two years later, and imagine my stunned face as Denny Hastert handed the gavel over to Nancy Pelosi.

Indeed, in that loss, I thought I had all the answers.  Unfortunately, my partisan blinders meant I came to all the wrong conclusions and was way off base in my evaluation of what had happened and why.

Since having my head spun in the mid-2000s, I have made a conscious effort to objectively analyze politics, so that I don’t embarrass myself anymore with the wrong analysis and wrong conclusions that later are proven wrong.

Sadly, this was on full display as our good and dear friend Ben Goodman attempted to find meaning in the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts last Tuesday.  It seems apparent to me that his preconceived assumptions and desires have warped a true interpretation of events, and given him all the wrong lessons to learn.  If he and the members of his party want to stem the oncoming tsunami of 2010, they need to learn the following fundamental lessons of Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

It was not just about Martha Coakley

Nate Silver of 538 had the best evaluation of this election that I have seen thus far. Essentially, his argument is that Martha Coakley was indeed a horrible candidate – truly historically bad.  But, that alone can not adequately describe her loss.

Seriously arguing that this election had no national implications, or did not at some level represent a rejection of the Obama administration’s first year in office is sheer and utter madness.

The national environment absolutely played a role, and a big one.  According to Silver’s admittedly anecdotal evaluation, he assigns roughly 13% of Coakley’s under performance to the national environment.  And by that, of course, we mean the backlash faced by the left for exploding deficits, pursuing what is perceived as job killing climate legislation in the middle of “The Great Recession,” and yes, the unpopularity of the Obama healthcare reform push.

Coakley herself deserves a great deal of the blame, but discounting this as a referendum on Obama is fool hearty.

The left is angry with him for not getting anything done, and seemingly compromising too much.  The moderates are angry at him for shelving their children with mountains of debt after spending 3 years eviscerating George W. Bush over budget irresponsibility.  The right is angry with him for not even trying to feign any interest in compromising with them – specifically on interstate purchase of insurance, medical liability reform, and any host of health reform ideas that the right does indeed care about – as well as deficits, taxes, and the like.

In short, he has somehow found a way to alienate every single demographic that votes.

Absolutely, that was a major part of this election.

Know your enemy – seriously

Goodman says, “the Wrentham lawyer is an exceptional candidate able to mask his extremist views championed by so-called “tea party protesters” largely because the media did not pay attention to Brown…”

Not understanding who your opponent is happens to be one of the most lethal mistakes a politico can make.

Having been a rather geekish follower of Massachusetts politics since I took an interest in the candidacy of Mitt Romney for Governor in 2001, I happen to have followed Scott Brown’s career closely.  It was pretty easy, given that he was one of only five (out of forty) Republicans in the State Senate.

Scott Brown is so far removed from the word “extreme” that it is laughable to suggest such a thing.  An extreme Massachusetts Republican would more or less be a communist to a Republican in Alabama.

Scott Brown is pro-choice.  Scott Brown favors same-sex unions.  Scott Brown voted for Massachusetts’ version of universal healthcare.  Scott Brown is reviled by tea party activists for having little interest in cutting taxes and shrinking government – their candidate was the Independent (former Libertarian) Kennedy.

Reading Goodman call Brown a right wing extremist was the moment I decided to write this response.  It simply isn’t true, and anyone who has taken the time to study his record, and yes, even his rhetoric on the campaign trail, should know this.

Brown is a populist.  He knew what buttons to push – he understood the unpopularity of the healthcare reform bill in Massachusetts (right now hovering at roughly 35%), and did not say “no”, but rather, “let’s start over and craft real reform.”  He has the credibility to actually say something like that and not be dismissed, given his vote on Romney’s healthcare bill. He railed against the almost universally unpopular debt incurred by the Federal government over the last year, and most importantly, he tapped into long held irritation by the voters of Massachusetts with political entitlement – something they only tolerated from Ted Kennedy given the gravity of what he meant to that state.

Suggesting that Brown is out of touch with his constituents is lunacy.  He, with his extremely sensible centrist laden populism, and down to earth image, represents exactly what the Massachusetts voter is.  Truck driving, rugged folk who like common sense politics, but have never had a Republican that offered that.

Warning to all Brown detractors:  I think you may find that he will turn into an enduring politician in the state that confounds political thought – a la a couple of Republican Senators occupying seats in Maine.

Elections are almost never about ideology, so don’t assume an election gives you an ideological mandate

Goodman’s main thesis appears to be that the fault of Democrats which has caused the emboldening of the right, is ideological weakness.  They “ran to the center”, he contends, endlessly courting the likes of Olympia Snowe, bowing on the public option and allowing Republican obstructionists to smell blood in the water by not forcing the legislation through via budget reconciliation.

At the base of this analysis is the faulty premise of those on the left that 2008 was an ideological election that betrayed the country turning to the left.  The results we are seeing now are happening because Obama and his allies are not being firm enough, not standing on center-left principle enough, and are rolling over for the forces of moderation.

This is a common misunderstanding that partisan victors tend to mistakenly associate with elections.  But it is of course nonsense.

1980, when Ronald Reagan utterly destroyed Jimmy Carter, is often seen as the birth of the modern center-right country – an ideological election if there ever was one, that saw the complete rejection of the welfare state and the embrace of pro-growth, individualist politics.  This is of course, untrue.  The country was sick of inflation, high unemployment, gas rationing, and a seemingly weak America being pushed around internationally – so they turned to, well, somebody else.  In other words, they were not happy with how things were going, so they rejected the establishment, and handed power to somebody who promised that things would change.  That the change he instituted was ideological is a symptom, not a cause, of that election.

Similarly, 2008 had absolutely nothing to do with ideology.  Barack Obama did not win his election because he promised healthcare, gave lip service to gay rights, or that he rallied the liberal causes of the country.  Indeed, quite the opposite – Obama campaigned as a pragmatist, a centrist, somebody who was post partisan and would bring the two fractured sides of American politics together to form compromises and quality, much needed change.  In short, the American people were tired of the way things were, blamed the establishment power, and decided to turn over the keys to somebody who seemed like a reasonable person who promised that things would change.

It is important to understand this, because assuming that the election was a triumph of ideology – that the American people were rejecting conservative positions or ideas in favor of liberal ones – is at the very center of Goodman’s misunderstanding.

He believes that due to this ideological shift, the American people would rally behind the president were he to force the legislation through Congress via highly dubious circumstances (namely budget reconciliation).  Their frustration, he believes, is due to the fact that Obama is not delivering on his leftist agenda, and so they are staying home.

In reality, the reason the progressives and liberals are staying home on election day is because Obama is not achieving anything.  Winning matters, even when it isn’t your ideal solution.  This is why Bill Clinton was able to hold together the center-left coalition during his time in office, even though he governed mostly as a center-right president.  When real accomplishments occur – even if they are compromises – you feel good about “your guy”, as though he is “making progress”, and so you are enthusiastic that he is moving things in your direction.

Barack Obama, however, has been stalled.  His one major policy achievement of his first year in office is the stimulus.  For the rest of his major initiatives – namely climate change, union organizing, and of course healthcare reform – he has made absolutely zero progress.  Nothing – not even compromise legislation – is being signed by the president.  This gives the progressives in this country the impression that he is weak, and is losing their agenda badly, so they stay home.

But more importantly, the independent voters as well as Republicans, are upset that he has been so unable and unwilling to actually compromise on anything to get something positive done for the American people.  With no willingness to reach any real compromise, and holding firm on ground that is antithetical to most of these voters (namely, budget restraint, spending and taxes), he is generating hostility toward his agenda, and frustration that his post partisan promises were nothing more than hot air.

The healthcare reform bill is a nightmare, and we all know it

The weakness of the president in not pushing through the bill through the budget reconciliation process – something that caused my jaw to hit the floor when I read it – is his biggest failing, according to Goodman.  His assumption is that were that to take place, the left would have turned out, the center would have been satisfied, and we would be hailing this as a victory for the American people.

The problem with this logic is that it ignores one very apparent fact:  everyone hates this bill.  Left, right and center.

If this bill is rammed through Congress via budget reconciliation, it will do five things.

First, it will placate the left to a certain degree, but those among their ranks will privately whisper that the bill has no real long lasting change in it, and represents a watered down, faux reform bill that is little more than a sell out to progressivism.

The center will solidify its belief that the White House is out to get them.  They will focus on the grotesquely unfair nature of the individual mandate, the sweetheart deals to buy off Senators, the further expansion of debt, and the overall cost vs. the real benefit (or lack thereof) to the 80% of us who already have health insurance.  Some of them will be happy about the provision mandating pre-existing conditions not be discriminated against, but most will ask, “why did we have to go beyond this with all of that other nonsense?”.  The 70% of independent voters in Massachusetts who went for Brown will be voting for the Republican candidate in most toss up races.

The right will be inflamed.  This will confirm for them that the Obama administration will circumvent the rules to push through what they consider a radical bill that stomps on their individual freedoms.  They will be enraged about not only the bill, but will use the process to run against Democrats everywhere.  Transparency?  Fairness?  “The Democrats were ready to destroy the Senate to preserve the filibuster when they were in the minority”, they will say, “but now when they can’t push their radical agenda through by the same rules they wanted then, they find ways to shove it down our throats anyway.”

In short, it will whip up the right beyond what they already are, will force independents into the center-right coalition, and will likely still face unenthusiastic voters among the left.

Just because this bill has a few positive reforms in it means nothing.  If anything, that is a reason to pass through several uncontentious reforms with bipartisan support.  The vast majority of the bill is junk.  The bill is an abomination, nothing more than crony capitalism and a huge insurance company give away – and essentially everyone agrees about this now.

Saying that forcing through such a hideous bill – that everyone hates – via reconciliation is the solution to the woes faced by Democrats over the past year, is political malpractice.

Realizing this makes Scott Brown’s position look brilliant – “scrap it and start over”.  Going down with the Titanic makes no sense.

Governing is about compromise, not showing stubborn “backbone” for something wildly unpopular with everyone

Famously, Bill Clinton was able to pivot his presidency in 1994 after an incredible defeat in the mid-term elections.  He began to learn that getting things accomplished meant legitimately reaching across the isle and compromising.

Let’s be honest here.  Barack Obama’s failure to pass healthcare has nothing to do with Republicans.  Until Brown’s election, they had a supermajority in both the Senate and the House, and could have very easily pushed through a bill and signed it.

His failure came when he assumed that gave him carte blanche to pass any bill – no matter how obviously destructive it was – and thus he abandoned any pragmatism, instead focusing on attempting to pick off the lowest hanging bipartisan fruit – Olympia Snowe.

That does not represent a genuine attempt to craft compromise, common sense legislation.  That represents incredible cynicism – as though peeling off one Republican vote suddenly made it “bipartisan”, and we as the American people could not see right through that.

Every single successful major entitlement and reform in this country has come bipartisanly.  The minority party does not always enthusiastically vote for something, but everything from Social Security, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to Medicare, to Welfare reform, to Medicare Part D, has always featured a significant number of opposition party votes.

This is no accident.  This is a result of compromise.  Of the inclusion of the opposing parties ideas into the legislation to make it palatable to the caucus.

Early on the narrative was built from the White House.  No Republican ideas.  Medical liability reform is a non-starter.  Interstate purchase of insurance is out of the question.  Insurance tax rebates?  No.  High-risk insurance pools?  Perish the thought.

Instead, the strategy was to institute Democratic ideas, and then when Republicans said “no” after having none of their ideas incorporated, portray them as an obstructionist “party of no”, and watch the American people rally behind anything named “reform”.  They would try to find a token Republican or two to give the appearance of bipartisanship, but this was going to be done their way.

This lead to a great deal of hubristic excess in the bill, which turned the American people on the bill, even with it being positioned as reform, and opponents as those who are uninterested in reform.

If the president really wanted to get something done, and be heralded as the post partisan pragmatist that he campaigned as, he would have have approached the Republican party and showed that he was less interested in political posturing, and more interested in creating something that would truly reform the system.  He would have said, “this is what we want – now what do you want?”, and after that, would have said, “we are willing to give up this, what are you willing to give up?”.  And thus, a bipartisan piece of legislation would have been crafted.

That was never attempted, which consolidated even the highly pliable moderates in the party – namely Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, Bob Bennett, John McCain, and Lindsay Graham – into the “no” column and put the pressure on moderate Democrats.

At some point, the president and his party must come to grips with the fact that what the American people see is not what they wanted to see when they elected Barack Obama.  They expected exactly what I just outlined above – a real embrace of “getting things done” in a bipartisan way, in an open, honest way.

That is why President Clinton is the most popular and successful politician since Reagan.  It is why he dominated independent voters and was able to keep the liberals in line, and even earn begrudging respect from many Republicans.  That is, by and large, how he operated after 1994.

He was able to learn a real political lesson, uncorrupted by his own point of view or ideology.  He took that lesson, pivoted, and began to fulfill the promise of his campaign of 1992.

So what are the lessons?

The election of Scott Brown shows us essentially five things:

1. If Democratic candidates are less than perfect, they are going to get eaten alive this year
2. You can not attempt to portray your opponent as a radical extremist when he or she is nothing even remotely close to an extremist – especially this year with populism working against you
3. The national environment is absolute poison for Democrats and the president, and it is almost entirely of their own doing
4. Democrats misunderstood 2008 as an ideological election that gave them an ideological mandate, which caused them to recklessly abandon the post partisan centrism that Barack Obama campaigned on, in favor of an entirely partisan agenda that dismissed the center-right coalition as little more than white noise
5. The healthcare reform bill is horrendous, doesn’t even pretend to be bipartisan, and is almost universally hated.  Putting all your chips in the middle of the table, and going “all in” on this nightmare will only exacerbate your political misfortunes.  On top of that, it will be bad policy.  Betting it all on something that even your own political base hates makes no sense.  Doing it via an unbelievably contentious mechanism like budget reconciliation will speak volumes, and be rightly rejected by the American people.

I have read columns similar to Goodman’s all over the place in the last week.  Each one has a similar quality of political tone deafness that learns the wrong lessons, and misses the right ones.

The above analysis can, I assume, be dismissed.  But I have no agenda here, other than to give a real, unvarnished analysis of the state of politics, and the legitimate fallout from the election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate from what is considered the most liberal state in the union.  Democrats would do well to learn the right lessons from his election, so they can veer off the path that has lead to their implosion, and keep their governing majority and do the business of the American people.

Take Mr. Goodman’s advice, and I believe you will be shocked to find out where you will end up.  After my similar advice after the 2004 election and President Bush’s failed Social Security reform push, I wish somebody had talked some sense into me.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.