How the White House Has Misjudged the Political Landscape

Like many, I am far less than happy with President Obama and the Congressional Democrats. I know many progressives who at least currently are saying that they will vote against Obama in 2012 - which assumes that he doesn't face a much deserved primary challenge. The White House has been both tone deaf and arrogant in its dismissal of the concerns of the liberal wing of the Democrat Party and as I have felt for some time now has very badly misread the political landscape. Obama was elected because people yearned for change yet they have received only more of the same old crap. Indeed, the president's name may need to be changed to "Creigh Obama" in honor of Creigh Deeds' horrible misreading of the political landscape in Virginia this past election. Robert Cruickshank has a piece on Fire Dog Lake that looks at this phenomenon that I believe is right on point. Here are some highlights:
*
As progressives on and offline continue to debate the future of the health care reform bill, attention is finally shifting to the underlying factors that have gotten us into this mess in the first place: namely, the mistakes of the White House.
*
The fact is that Democratic electeds, the president first and foremost, have completely misunderstood American politics in 2009. I’m not talking just about the failed and senseless efforts at bipartisanship, though Obama’s underestimation of the level of control Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the teabaggers have over the Republican Party hasn’t helped.
*
Instead I’m talking about the inability of the White House to understand the changing nature of the American left. The late 20th century experience of a marginalized and weak left has been replaced during the 2000s by a much more powerful and popular movement. The White House’s unwillingness to treat that movement as an equal partner is damaging not only the health care bill, but the political fate of Democrats in 2010 and, potentially, 2012.
*
In particular, progressives – activists and voters – need a clear, signal victory in order to avoid complete 1994-style demoralization. Something big and bold, something clearly progressive that forced moderates and conservatives to concede something important, something that will give more people a reason to rally to Obama’s defense when he is in a difficult place.
*
Comprehensive immigration reform along the lines of the Grijalva proposal would achieve this. Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would achieve this (and repeal of DOMA would be a grand slam). Firing Geithner and Summers would achieve this. Breaking up some of the big banks would achieve this. And yes, a public option of some kind would have achieved this.
*
Instead we have a White House and a Senate Democratic leadership that still believes we live in the 1990s, where the "left" is weak and has little popular support. They’ve not understood the transformative effect of the 2000s and Bush in particular, who helped create a genuine American left with real and widespread popular support for the first time in 40 years.
*
The White House hasn’t yet grasped that some basic and timeless rules of politics still apply: that you have to deliver something to your supporters to keep them on board. Something that excites them, something that gets them motivated. Ever since 1993 Democratic presidential Administrations have assumed those rules are in abeyance, where supporters will stay on board out of fear of Republicans, unwilling to act on their beliefs or frustrations out of an internalized belief that America is a conservative place hostile to progressive values.
*
There were a number of instances in 2009 that showed Obama doesn’t quite grasp political realities, and the snowballing collapse of health care reform is just one element of that misunderstanding. Until he sees progressives as genuine partners, Obama will face declining political fortunes.