The Narrative

Dear Friends,

First, I want to thank those of you that took the time to read my first post and especially to those that offered comments.  I did receive some comments directly from people that did not know exactly how to post a comment.  It is hard to be a computer immigrant which I am because of my age.  Here is one such comment.

My take is somewhat different. It’s this: Obama’s failing has been his belief in bipartisanship – a belief that many people, me included, upheld for a long time. Some of the president’s shortcomings were products of that belief: for instance, his appointment of an economic team that might have been accepted by reasonable Republicans (on economic management, the re-emergence of Paul Volcker’s influence is an encouraging sign). But when the GOP has become the Party of No, with cheerleaders the likes of Palin and Bachmann, any hope for bipartisanship crumbles. If Obama had shed that delusional hope sooner, perhaps the country would be in better shape now. But that’s a big perhaps. Optimism has become a scarce commodity. For evidence, see the cover story in the current Atlantic, a remarkable article on America’s future by James Fallows.

So now onto the narrative.  I learned from my youngest child that in order to understand why the media publish what they do you need to figure out what narrative they are endorsing.  With that in mind, I read with interest and much dismay an article in the New York Times this morning (here) with the headline, "In New Hampshire, An Angry Tide Swells".  The current narrative about the Senate election in Massachusetts is that the voters were angry about the health care legislation and that President Obama is pushing a government takeover.  The NYTimes article does not contain any polling data and is based on interviews in Milford, NH.  The people quoted in the article with one exception are either identified as Republicans or without any political party designation but who seem to be conservative in nature.  

The question is not why are Republicans and other conservatives angry and frustrated.  The question is why did voters in Massachusetts who voted for President Obama either stay home or vote for now Senator Brown.  MoveOn.org Political Action, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Democracy for America co-sponsored a poll (here).  The summary of the poll results on the MoveOn web site is

A poll was conducted immediately after the election last night of 1000 registered Massachusetts voters who voted for Obama in 2008. Half of the respondents voted in the MA special election for Republican candidate Scott Brown; half of the respondents did not vote at all. The poll definitively shows that voters who stayed home and voters who switched party allegiance share very common frustration and anger at an economy that continues to work better for Wall Street than Main Street. There's a real populist anger out there. Voters worry that Democrats in power have not done enough to combat the policies of the Bush era. Both sets of voters wanted stronger, more progressive action on health care reform, as well. In summary, the poll shows that the party who fights corporate interests—especially on making the economy work for most Americans—will win the confidence of the voters.

• 95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.
• 53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.
• 51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.
• Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or think it does not go far enough. Only 11% think the legislation goes too far.

I am not qualified to comment on the validity of the poll.  Nevertheless, I am citing it here because it supports my narrative that in order for President Obama and the Democrats to maintain the support of the voters that got them elected, they need to 

• effect the change they promised 
• fight for real health care reform with a true government option
• pass a huge stimulus package to get people back to work and our infrastructure up to date
• re-regulate Wall Street, etc.
  
• get our civil rights back

President Obama has the ability to go to the American people and convince them to support the agenda that he promised in his campaign, but he has to go back on the campaign trail to do so.  Hopefully, his recent campaign-like appearances and rhetoric in Ohio and the increased involvement of David Plouffe signals that he gets it.  He can no longer look to Congress because much of that part of Congress that had not already been bought will be bought as a result of the latest Supreme Court ruling.  "We the People of the United States" can succeed in getting President Obama's campaign promises enacted into law, but he needs to bring the fight to the people, and we need to join him.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal