What Are Democrats Saying?

I'm not talking about your Bayhs and Liebermen; I mean actual Democrats. Before the voting ended, perhaps anticipating the inevitable, Alan Grayson (D-FL) hit the nail right on the head without gratuitously mentioning any names. In a follow-up to his HuffPo OpEd of a few days ago, he said we need a "different kind of Congress."

What we HAVE now is government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists.

What we WANT now is government of the people, by the people, and for the people... We want our elected officials to spend their time seeking solutions for ordinary people-- jobs, health care, education, energy, and so on. Instead, so many of them spend all their time groveling for $5000 PAC checks from their true masters, the lobbyists. But you've spelled out the alternative.

And that alternative has a name: People Power. The power to fuel a political campaign with small contributions, phone calls, knocks on the door, and even bumper stickers. Lobbyists can't match that.

Together, we are creating and demonstrating a whole new paradigm of government. A government in which our elected officials know that their best shot at reelection is not catering to lobbyists and selling favors, but rather helping people, inspiring people, and leading people toward a better life for all.

Joe Sestak reacted more directly to Coakley's defeat, by takes the same, more or less, populist tone as Grayson:

One year after President Obama's historic election, we have lost the seat of Senator Ted Kennedy and have seriously jeopardized his life's work of seeing that all Americans have access to health care. Back-room political dealing in the Senate delayed this bill, weakened this bill, and tarnished it in the eyes of the American people. The message to Democrats is clear. People have had enough of establishment politics on both sides... The people are looking for a new generation of accountable leadership. We must do what we were elected to do: get rid of the old politics of Washington and the Senate and get to work for America's working families.

The female Rahm Emanuel (D-FL), just the kind of Machiavellian backroom slime everyone is complaining about, couldn't wait to run in front of some microphones to blame Coakley for her own loss:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said late Tuesday that much of the Democrats' loss in Massachusetts should be chalked up to their candidate, Martha Coakley.

Wasserman Schultz, in some of the most direct on-the-record comments blaming Coakley, noted Democrats have a good special election history and laid the blame at the feet of Coakley.

"Quite a bit of this loss can be attributed to the campaign," Wasserman Schultz said on MSNBC. "The buck stops with the candidate, at the end of the day."

A somewhat more trustworthy and authentic voice, Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was one of the only elected Democrats to point a finger at Obama and his Administration:

"We started out from the place that the White House said, ‘We’ll accept anything. If you get 60 votes, we’ll take anything,’" Weiner told reporters. "There was a basic decision made to let the Senate write this bill in any way they thought they could to get 60 votes without any true, muscular leadership on the part of the White House," Weiner told reporters.

"Their argument has been, 'This is only way we get 60, okay?' Well, now we have 59. So, thank you," Weiner said.

Weiner, a liberal who has been critical of the healthcare legislation's steady move toward the political center in recent months, lashed out Obama for not fighting for a proposal to create a government-run public option insurance program and suggested the president is out of touch.

"There was a moment in late August, early September where public option was going up and the president’s numbers were going down because the American people learned for themselves what they wanted and were disappointed that they didn’t have a president leading," Weiner said.

Congress should walk away from the entire healthcare reform campaign, Weiner contended. "It’s not the end of the world. Look, we can come back to healthcare," he said. "It wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world to step back and say, look, we’re going to pivot to do a jobs thing. We’re going to try to include some healthcare pieces in it."

Coakley's pollster-- also the pollster we use at Blue America-- hit it out of the park when she explained the populist outrage in Massachusetts turning against Democrats: "Scott Brown... became the change-oriented candidate. Voters are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, but they want to see it." People aren't stupid. They see that Obama's administration, like Bush's, is "delivering more for banks than Main Street."

But the best critiques of what happened yesterday are-- as usual-- coming from the grassroots, not from Inside-the-Bubble. Marcy Winograd, the progressive Democrat running against Blue Dog Jane Harman, could well be swept into office on the same kind of tide-- although of a more enlightened variety-- that helped Scott Brown. On the surface she blames overnight bank bailouts and mandated health insurance for what happened last night. Her perspective:

Unfortunately, the Republicans were able to craft Brown's campaign as an insurgent struggle for the working people against ever-intrusive big government. All they had to do was point their finger at overnight bank bail-outs & mandated private health insurance, then scream about corporate welfare and attacks on individual freedoms. Too many Democrats stayed home, no longer energized by the possibility of change, only deflated by the politics of appeasement. We need the Democratic leadership to keep the keys to our treasury, rather than allow the banking, health insurance, and big pharmaceutical interests to raid it under the banner of the Democratic Party. If we stand for the people, the people will stand with us. Campaigns for progressive congressional challengers offer the greatest promise for re-energizing the base and mobilizing Democrats to vote in mid-term elections.

Washington faces the danger of drawing the wrong conclusions, of believing that the current Democratic Party leadership must abandon a progressive agenda for labor rights and immigration reform and, instead, bow to the most reactionary forces in American politics. Quite the contrary. The Party must redefine itself as the voice of working people, of immigrants, of women, of the populist.

On a practical level, the Democrats need Plan B for providing quality and affordable health care.  Where is the other bill? I keep waiting for it-- for the alternative that isn't 2,000 or 3,000 pages, but just a simple paragraph or sentence: Expand Medicare to begin at age 55... and require health insurance companies to drop pre-conditions.

On the economic front, now is not the time for retreat but for a strong offensive against unemployment. We need a Green New Deal, something along the lines of the WPA during the Great Depression; a new incarnation to fix our infrastructure, develop renewables, and construct mass transit. For the Democrats to bounce back, they need to put America back to work.

Across the country in a rural, exurban Florida district Doug Tudor was making a similar point:

Last night, we Democrats lost the U.S. Senate seat that had been held for nearly five decades by America's Senator, Ted Kennedy, and his brother, John F. Kennedy, before him. Shame on us.

Shame on us for not more actively highlighting the many areas where we Democrats help America's working families. We are the party that wants to reform healthcare. We are the party that wants to provide quality education to all children. We are the party that respects the rights of all Americans-- women, GLTB, and minorities. We are the party that demands the rule of law, even in the face of horrendous enemies.

We are the majority party, no matter what any single election might show. We need to exercise our majority power so that the Americans who benefit by our policies will fully understand which party is consistently waging the fight on their behalf. We need to ensure all Americans understand there is only one party, the Democrats, who are on their side.

The election of Scott Brown as the junior senator from Massachusetts will result in many Democratic philosophical quandaries. We should never, though, come to the conclusion that Progressive politics suffered a defeat. As our friend, Alan Grayson, has declared "If the only choice the people have, is between a Republican and a make-believe Republican, the voters will always pick the real deal." We have to continue to press our Progressive agenda, as it is the only way America will move forward to truly fulfill America's mandate as the "glimmering city on the hill."

There's a way to harness the demand for Change that is sweeping the country, a way that insures it isn't only a teabagger phenomena. It's why Blue America started Send The Democrats a Message-- and it's why Marcy Winograd and Doug Tudor are on that list. Please take a look.

Will Obama Sleep Through His Remaining Three Years?

I don't know much about Martha Coakley. I doubt she's any more crappy than the rest of our nation's embarrassingly horrible political class-- although she did seem to want to break the world-record for conceding defeat last night. (Boneheaded? Sure, though not nearly as boneheaded as Virginia ConservaDem Jim Webb's declaration that there should be no votes in the Senate until Brown is seated, a bizarre approach considering that the other 99 senators were also elected by citizens of this country.) I don't want to blame Coakley for what happened, although I'm sure 52-47% vote could have been turned around with a better candidate. I thought Rep. Mike Capuano was a way better candidate, but Democrats in Massachusetts lightly attended primary picked Coakley and she... promptly went on a vacation and gave the Republicans all the time they needed to define Scott Brown and to define her. And that was that.

The media had their narrative in the can and ready to break out: "Democrats are too liberal." And you get a couple of bad faith reactionaries like Evan Bayh and Holy Joe Lieberman to repeat it on TV a couple of times and a chorus of other Republican-like Democrats to do the same and the Village will have it playing from every jukebox in the joint.

I know this sounds crass and worse but Obama's place in the history books is already assured. Aside from having been elected president-- almost always a big deal-- he's the first Black president. The "Hope and Change" thing was like a slogan, not a program and by the time he announced appointments like Rahm Emanuel and Lawrence Summers and his appendage Tim G, only the hopelessly naive could still persuade themselves that there was any hope for change. I hate to say "I told you so"-- worse is telling myself I told me so-- but Obama's Senate voting record (kind of an unattractive cross between his ConservaDem colleagues Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus) predicted it all. Agent of change? Well... symbolic change. And that's a biggie. But beyond that? Don't count on it. If you see Rahm move off to his destiny as heir to the legacy of Richard J. Daley, the next Capo di tutti capi of the Chicago Democratic Machine, maybe Obama is deciding to reach for the sky. But that's really unlikely. Turning the health care travesty into a straight-out expansion of Medicare-- the nightmare of the predatory, bribe-dispensing Insurance Industry and Medical-Industrial Complex-- is as unlikely as Obama actually turning on his-- and the political class'-- financiers on Wall Street or ending Bush's War, now his own, against Afghanistan. Last night Andy Stern, president of the SEIU said, "The reason Ted Kennedy's seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington's inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure."

What a hassle that would be for Obama to try to deliver! And who knows if he could accomplish anything! Doing nothing much... well, like I said, his place in history is set. Last night Peter Daou, a longtime respected blogger and former Hillary Clinton advisor, pointed out on HuffPo that liberal bloggers had indeed told Obama so. He points out that Obama "hasn't been true enough to fundamental Democratic principles, has embraced some of Bush's worst excesses on civil liberties, and has ditched popular ideas (like the public option) in favor of watered down centrist policies, thus looking weak and ineffectual."

[W]hen you fail to govern based on a morally sound, well-articulated, solidly-grounded set of ideals, you look weak. All the legislative wins in the world won't change that. People gravitate to people who exude moral authority. The vast majority of voters lack the detailed policy knowledge that would enable them to make an accurate assessment of policy differences, but they do have a visceral sense of when a candidate or an elected official believes in something and fights for it. It's why campaigns are laden with moral arguments; politicians ask to be elected because they'll "do the right thing." The right thing in the current administration's case was to be the anti-Bush, nothing more, nothing less. The ethical antidote to a radical administration. It was both politically smart and morally right. And it worked wonders for Democrats as the entire subtext of the 2008 campaign.

The problem was that immediately after the election, like one nano-second after, Obama and his centrist, defensive team Democrats began "undermining themselves with faux-bipartisanship and tepid policies."



Is there a message here? Sure-- Better Democrats, that's the message Democrats, the Village and the whole political class will understand... if we can deliver it. Wanna help? Hit that link on "Better Democrats."

If There's One Thing The Banksters DON'T Need It's Another U.S. Senator

I hope our friends in Massachusetts will go to the polls today and do what they know in their hearts is the right thing. If Coakley loses, the media narrative is already written: Obama and the Democrats are too liberal and they have to stop everything and just tread water until the legitimate party takes over again.

No one hates the Inside-the-Beltway professionals, from the slimy characters on K Street to the slimier characters at the DCCC, more than I do. But empowering Republicans is not the answer. Working to replace Blue Dogs and reactionary Democrats is the answer. We need more Democrats like Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Jeff Merkely, John Conyers and Tammy Baldwin-- not more enemies of working families like DCCC stealth Republican Lori Edwards. Please help us defeat terrible Democrats and replace them with better Democrats. And if you're in Massachusetts, please go to the polls today and think about how much better Martha Coakley is-- any way you dice it, any way you slice it-- than the teabagger candidate with the hair products. I hope this clip will help you go with a smile on your face and a prayer on your lips:

Doug Goes Out On A Limb-- Predicts Coakley By 10 Points Tomorrow

-by Doug Kahn

“As expected, Coakley wins the Senate seat by more than 10%.” That would have paraphrased the lead paragraph of most Wednesday post-election news stories about the Massachusetts Senate election to permanently replace Ted Kennedy. Boring.
 
Why not make it fun, a close race, a man-bites-dog story? Not a problem when you have fraudulent Rasmussen polling to stir the pot, and the usual collection of idiot news anchors and political commentators. 

This is a good test of my thinking. Am I looking at politics and thinking about this election rationally, or am I just being an optimist, hoping that voters are still sensible people who won’t elect candidates from the Beavis and Batshit wing of the Republican Party? Okay, I’m going to take a deep breath, and say this: Coakley wins by 10%. The third party candidate gets 3%. Massachusetts is a Democratic state.
 
Really, no one who works in politics can predict an individual election with any degree of confidence, not an election where both candidates have wide recognition and have run credible campaigns, meaning they’ve reached most voters several times. I base this on a simple premise: anyone who actually could consistently predict these elections would be making their living betting on them, would be rich, and we wouldn’t be hearing from them on websites or on the news.
 
You can only know what usually happens, what is most likely to be true, what would be a practically unprecedented result. Don’t go searching through the evidence for secret portents or unique local factors. If you do, you’ll be a very smart person who ends up saying some very silly things. 

For instance, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com said 2 weeks ago that Scott Brown’s chance of winning was about 5%. Then, after another one of those completely bogus Rasmussen polls of “likely voters” he tweeted that Scotty had a 15-25% chance of winning. But wait, the Boston Globe poll then said Coakley was going to be okay, and he changed his mind again.
 
I think it’s quite likely that Nate Silver’s reputation (deserved or not) as a Brainiac has caused some very dishonest pollsters to try and figure out how to affect his opinion. If they can get Nate to say the race is a toss-up it helps get resources for Scott Brown, and gives him more tv coverage, gets people to the polls.
 
Logically, you need some pretty firm evidence to outweigh the recent voting history of the Massachusetts electorate. Both Senators and all 10 House members are Democrats. And the governor, and both houses of the legislature. So Coakley, the Democrat, is heavily favored to win to begin with. In 2006 she was elected statewide to Attorney General, and got more votes than Ted Kennedy, who was at the top of the ballot. 

What’s the evidence against? Automated internet polling done of supposedly likely voters by provably biased organizations, namely Rasmussen, ARG, and the laughable Pajamas Media poll that has Scott Brown up by 15%. Follow the reasoning behind getting the morons in the media to believe Scott is winning: since Coakley was heavily favored, there must be a movement to the right in the country, people are really sick of Democrats, and so on and so forth.
 
How dishonest are they, actually? If you can figure this out, then you can figure out what the numbers really should be.  

ARG has Brown up by 3%, but they have him winning 20% of Democrats and Coakley winning 1% of Republicans. Brown also wins younger voters. None of this matches election results previously in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States. It’s very easy to skew polls of likely voters. Likely voters, obviously, should be people who almost always vote. It’s easy to figure out who these people are; you just get the list from the state. (Numerous companies make a good living selling software and data on voters.) ARG calls people and asks them if they’re definitely going to vote. This method is notoriously inaccurate, particularly in special elections, which people consider less important when election day actually rolls around. When they’re mad-as-hell tea-bag types on the phone with a polling firm, they just know they’re going to vote. Anyway, you get the point.  

Rasmussen had Coakley up by 2% on January 11th. In the Rasmussen voting universe, likely voters in Massachusetts give Obama a 57% approval rating, which is 10% more than they give him in the Rasmussen national polling. DailyKos polling has Obama’s approval broken down by region. His net Northeast approval is in the high 70s. Massachusetts being an extremely Blue state, this means the Rasmussen likely voter screen (and they won’t disclose their methodology, by the way) is off by 10% or 20%. If they actually do the polling; that is, if they don’t just pull the numbers out of their asses in order to drive the news cycle. I’m just saying.
 
One final thing about the polling. Research 2000, the DailyKos pollers, have Coakley up by 8%. Coakley’s internal polling numbers have been ‘leaked’ to the media on a daily basis. Supposedly they say it’s a toss-up, and that she might lose. Yes, depending on who shows up at the polls. Who can get turnout up for a Democrat in Massachusetts? Can you spell O-B-A-M-A? Now guess who went to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. Because it’s a toss-up, you know.

There's A Better Way To Fight Corporatism Among Democratic Insiders Than Empowering Teabaggers And The GOP

Yesterday Digby took a look at the currents that are roiling so many progressives and Democrats, currents that have left Democratic voters disillusioned and demoralized and have tamped down Democratic grassroots participation in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races and threaten the election of a popular Attorney General for a "safe" Democratic Senate seat in... Massachusetts! See that link a couple lines back? That's Digby's post at Hullabaloo, and I strongly recommend you click it and read it in full.

She looks at the angst in the Democratic base, "the free floating anxiety that's pervasive out in the country as a whole, the horrific spectacle of health care reform sausage making and the toppling of President Obama from his heavenly pedestal," but she doesn't equate that with a reason to "kill the bill," let alone actively (or even passively) work for the defeat of Martha Coakley Tuesday, the way Republican operatives are encouraging anxiety-ridden Democrats to do. And not all self-proclaimed "progressives" are people of pure motive or good faith.

Many people believe that the only thing Democrats understand is pain and so the thing that will change this dynamic will be to deliver them a loss of their majority and perhaps the presidency to show the consequences of failure to fulfill the progressive agenda. That certainly sounds right, except you can't ever know exactly what lesson will be taken from this sort of pain and if history is any guide, the likeliest one is the simplest and most obvious: they lost because people preferred what the other side had to offer. Obviously, that's not necessarily the case, but it isn't illogical for them to believe that. And the exit polls or whatever other data may be available rarely clearly show that it was base demobilization that caused a turnover. Often people don't even know why they failed to vote and you can't exit poll those who didn't bother.

More importantly, you have the ongoing, pernicious problem of the conservative Democrats who will always pimp the anti-liberal line and their friends in the media who pull the old "this is a conservative country" narrative off the shelf by reflex. Indeed, we can see it in its full glory already manifesting itself with this classic Adam Nagourney piece in today's NY Times:

...Win or lose in Massachusetts, that a contest between a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat could appear so close is evidence of what even Democrats say is animosity directed at the administration and Congress. It has been fanned by Republicans who have portrayed Democrats as overreaching and out of touch with ordinary Americans.

...Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the atmosphere was a serious threat to Democrats. “I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.”

...Mr. Brown has portrayed Ms. Coakley as an advocate of big government, big spending and big deficits; Obama advisers and other Democrats have worried that the expanding deficit, now at a level not seen since World War II, was hurting Mr. Obama with independents who lifted him to victory in 2008. Polls suggest that those voters have flocked to Mr. Brown, as they did to Republican candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last year... some Democrats are wondering if Mr. Obama would be in a better position now if he had embraced a less ambitious health care proposal, as some aides urged, permitting him to pivot more quickly on the economy. Depending on what happens Tuesday, that is a debate that might be reverberating in the White House for a long time to come.

"Some" Democrats wonder if he should have been less ambitious with health care and even Obama advisors are terribly, terribly worried about deficits. The idea that they haven't been liberal enough doesn't seem to be resonating does it? And I have very serious doubts that it will resonate if the party of Teabaggers starts winning.

So, how do liberals exert what power they have and have the results be interpreted the way we want it to be? The first would be through protest votes for a third party that resulted in Republican victory. (There is virtually no chance that any third party will ever gain real power short of a fundamental change in the way we elect our representatives, so protest is all it will be.) It's been done before. And if you can live with the idea of voting in a Republican party in the thrall of extremists that make Bush and Cheney look like Rockefeller Republicans, I suppose that might be the way to go. I won't judge you, but I am personally unwilling to put the world through any more of this failed right wing experiment at the moment.

There is a fairly compelling theory in political science that says that after political parties come into power, fulfill some pieces of their agenda, get fat and bloated and are finally removed from office, they then tend to deny the reality of their loss and blame it on everything but themselves until they lose enough elections that they finally realize that their ideology has failed. The current GOP is not there yet by a long shot. They are still in the process of doubling down on their radical agenda at a time when the economy is still in ruins, the effects of globalization are being fully felt, the planet is in peril and about to reach a tipping point, and a radical fundamentalist movement is trying to blow people up. I don't think the world can take any more of the right's prescriptions for these problems right now: Lindsey Graham is considered too liberal and neo-Hooverism is their economic program. Yes, the Democrats are corrupt and inept. But the other side is batshit insane.

However, that doesn't mean that there's nothing we can do but wring our hands about how the system is broken and fret ourselves into intertia. The other way to send messages to the Democratic party is through the unsatisfying and often thankless process of primary challenges. Nobody can have any problem understanding that message, not even Adam Nagourney.

It's hard to find challengers and it's no wonder. It's expensive, time consuming and after all your hard work you will probably lose. It takes real commitment and a desire to not only win a seat in congress but do it by way of unseating an incumbent of your own party with whom you disagree, an act which is guaranted to make you an odd man out among the party hierarchy. But if you win, it can send shockwaves through the system.

And guess what? We are in the most favorable year for primary challenges in recent memory. The insane teabaggers aren't going to allow any rational Republicans to run and the anti-incumbent fever is going to be as high as it's been since 1994. The Democratic base has an energetic activist faction, the netroots can raise money and there is a burning desire to show the party establishment that they cannot take liberals for granted. It's a perfect environment for successful primary challenges.

And lucky for us, there are some brave progressives already out there taking on incumbents and there very well may be more. This time a few of them may win, and believe me if that happens, the Democratic party will not be able to spin those victories as being a sign that the party needs to move to the right.

Yesterday Blue America opened a new fundraising page, Send Democrats A Message They Can Understand. It isn't about defeating Martha Coakley or Barack Obama or health care reform. It's about replacing reactionary Democrats who vote like Republicans-- Blue Dogs like John Barrow and Jane Harman-- with stalwart progressives. And it's about pointing out Democratic challengers in open races, like Doug Tudor, Jennifer Brunner, Ann Kuster and Colleen Hanabusa, who represent progressive values and who are opposing Insider Establishment candidates who will not stand for progressive values. Please take a look at the page and the candidates and see if you feel this might be a more constructive way for progressives to proceed than to just strike out angrily and give a GOP that is several degrees further right than Bush and Cheney an opportunity to get back into power. Because the only people who want that... are seeing it as a way to make some money for themselves.

Dissipation Is Actually Much Worse Than Cataclysm-- And There's Even Worse Out There Than Barack Obama

There's a chance Democrats have been so demoralized by Obama's 180 degree turn from Change and Hope that a Republican will win Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in the Massachusetts special election Tuesday. Right-wingers are mobilized and have every right to be excited but Villagers can't talk about anything else. They're more excited than Republicans! They'll have a topic to bloviate on for weeks: the nation turns right, not that they haven't been on that one for as long as I can remember. If Scott Brown wins in blue, blue Massachusetts it means... just wait.

Meanwhile though, not a peep out of any of them about the special election in Virginia this past Tuesday. Apparently it didn't fit into the preferred narrative so... it didn't mean squat. In that one, apparently group-thunk into a meaningless outlier, the most right wing state senator in the history of the commonwealth, Ken Cuccinelli, was replaced in a hopelessly red district with a... ssssshhhhh... Democrat, David Marsden. Totally meaningless; in fact, I'm sure, if anything, it just goes to prove that the GOP will win back the House in November and that Nye and Perriello will both lose because... well, obviously Virginia hates progressives.

And, although I haven't personally seen any reports on Fox identifying him as a "Democrat" yet, when John Shadegg announced his retirement yesterday, it didn't augur nearly as badly for Republicans as retirements by Tennessee Blue Dogs Bart Gordon and John Tanner-- who virtually always vote with Republicans on substantive issues-- did for the Democrats. Yeah, the GOP has it all figured it; all they have to do is shit all over Capitol Hill, refuse to authorize a cleaning lady and then blame the Democrats for the stench and messiness. But don't tell anyone Democratic challengers like John Callahan in Bethlehem, PA, are hauling in immense amounts of contributions by voters eager to see mealy-mouthed obstructionists like Charlie Dent end their political careers.

Yesterday Digby turned me on to a post at The Nation by Chris Hayes, a post every progressive who's feeling that maybe Obama, Emanuel, Summers, Geithner... have been so awful that who the hell should even bother to vote. No Hope, no Change; screw you, right. Not really. Conservative governance is the problem and as much as that has been internalized by Democrats and Obama-- which is what makes progressives so disgusted with them-- it doesn't come close to the real deal, American Republicanism. In looking at what ails us today Hayes says "it's useful to distinguish between two separate categories of problems we face."

The first are the human, economic and ecological disasters that demand immediate action: a grossly inefficient healthcare sector, millions un- or underinsured, 10 percent unemployment, a planet that's warming, soaring personal bankruptcies, 12 million immigrants working in legal limbo, the list goes on. But the deeper problem, the ultimate cause of many of the first-order problems, is the perverse maldistribution of power in the country: too much in too few hands. It didn't happen overnight, of course, and the devolution has been analyzed and decried by a host of writers and thinkers in these very pages... The central and unique paradox of our politics at this moment, however, is that our institutions are so broken, the government so sclerotic and dysfunctional, that in almost all cases, from financial bailouts to health insurance mandates, the easiest means of addressing the first set of problems is to take steps that exacerbate the second.

...the corporatism on display in Washington is itself a symptom of a broader social illness that I noted above, a democracy that is pitched precariously on the tipping point of oligarchy. In an oligarchy, the only way to get change is to convince the oligarchs that it is in their interest-- and increasingly, that's the only kind of change we can get.

In 1911 the German democratic socialist Robert Michels faced a similar problem, and it was the impetus for his classic book Political Parties. He was motivated by a simple question: why were parties of the left, those most ideologically committed to democracy and participation, as oligarchical in their functioning as the self-consciously elitist and aristocratic parties of the right?

Michels's answer was what he called "The Iron Law of Oligarchy." In order for any kind of party or, indeed, any institution with a democratic base to exist, it must have an organization that delegates tasks. As this bureaucratic structure develops, it invests a small group of people with enough power that they can then subvert the very mechanisms by which they can be held to account: the party press, party conventions and delegate votes. "It is organization which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors," he wrote, "of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy."

Michels recognized the challenge his work presented to his comrades on the left and viewed the task of democratic socialists as a kind of noble, endless, Sisyphean endeavor, which he described by invoking a German fable. In it, a dying peasant tells his sons that he has buried a treasure in their fields. "After the old man's death the sons dig everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But their indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative well-being."

"The treasure in the fable may well symbolize democracy," Michels wrote. "Democracy is a treasure which no one will ever discover by deliberate search. But in continuing our search, in laboring indefatigably to discover the undiscoverable, we shall perform a work which will have fertile results in the democratic sense."

After a rather dispiriting few months, the treasure in this case may seem impossibly remote, but one thing the Obama campaign got right was its faith in America's history of continually and fruitfully tilling the soil of democracy, struggling against odds until, at certain moments of profound progressive change, a new treasure is improbably found.

It was the possibility of such a democratic unearthing that gave Obama for America its moral force. The most inspiring thing about the campaign had nothing to do with the candidate and everything to do with average citizens from Dubuque to Atlanta who were taking the time and energy to search for a small piece of that treasure. Likewise, the message of the Obama campaign was as much about empowerment, reinvigorating democracy and changing the ways of Washington as it was about the central planks of his agenda. It's for this reason that the greatest disappointment of his first year is the White House's abandonment of this small-d democratic impulse in favor of a strategy almost wholly focused on insider politics.

What the country needs more than higher growth and lower unemployment, greater income equality, a new energy economy and drastically reduced carbon emissions is a redistribution of power, a society-wide epidemic of re-democratization. The crucial moments of American reform and progress have achieved this: from the direct election of senators to the National Labor Relations Act, from the breakup of the trusts to the end of Jim Crow.

So in this new year, while the White House focuses on playing within the existing rules, it's our job as citizens and activists to press constantly for changes to those rules: public financing, an end to the filibuster, the breakup of the banks, legalization for undocumented workers and the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, to name just a few of the measures that would alter the balance of power and expand the frontiers of the possible.

If I had to bet, I'd say that not of one of these will be won this year. The White House won't be of much help, and on some issues, like breaking up the banks, it will represent the opposition. Always searching and never quite finding is grueling and often dispiriting work. But there is simply no alternative other than to give in and let the field turn hard and barren.

UPDATE: Vic Snyder Announces His Retirement

There are no shining progressives in Arkansas' political delegation. One is a robotically obstructionist wingnut Republican and two are reactionary Blue Dogs. Vic Snyder is a moderate Democrat who votes with his party as much as he feels he can. On November 7 he voted for the healthcare reform. Anti-family reactionaries Mike Ross (Blue Dog) and John Boozeman (R) both voted against it. Here are the 4 Arkansas House members career-long ProgressivePunch scores on substantive votes:


No Donna Edwardses or Jan Schakowskys or Raul Grijalvas in Arkansas. But just hours after a website working with Republican operative Grover Norquist published a poll purporting to show Snyder would be defeated for voting in favor of healthcare reform, he threw in the towel.

Yes, Martha Coakley Is Going To Win A Week From Tuesday, But...

Many of the pollsters and pundits predicting a Republican win in Massachusetts' special election to replace Ted Kennedy have proven themselves absolutely worthless-- unless you use them as contrary indicators. Conservative operations like Rasmussen, GOP pollsters masquerading as nonpartisan, and clueless old Charlie Cook are among the most reliable contrary indicators in the profitable Inside the Beltway scam they're always working. One laughable poll-- by always-wrong-about-everything PPP-- even showed Scott Brown ahead of Coakley 48-47%. Their analysis:

Here are the major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs:

* As was the case in the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it looks like the electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008. Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.

* Republicans are considerably more enthusiastic about turning out to vote than Democrats are. 66% of GOP voters say they are 'very excited' about casting their votes, while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment-- and that's among the Democrats who are planning to vote in contrast to the many who are apparently not planning to do so at this point.

* Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama's plan with 59% opposed.

* In a trend that's going to cause Democrats trouble all year, voters disgusted with both parties are planning to vote for the one out of power. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Brown's standing is that only 21% of Massachusetts voters have a favorable opinion of Congressional Republicans...but at the same time only 33% view Congressional Democrats favorably. And among voters who have a negative take on both parties, who account for more than 20% of the electorate, Brown leads 74-21.

* Because he's basically been untouched so far, Brown's favorability spread is a remarkable +32, at 57/25. For some perspective on how good those numbers are, Bob McDonnell was at a +20 spread with Virginia voters in our final poll there before going on to a 17 point victory.

If you're a betting man, I wouldn't rush out and put any wagers down on Brown winning on January 19th, not just yet. Though Republican bloggers and tweeters are already celebrating their victory on the Internet and delusional party hacks are already screeching that Democrats will prevent Brown from being sworn in until after the healthcare vote (the way the GOP blocked Al Franken for half a year), the most recent credible polling shows Coakley with a solid 15 point advantage over Brown. Perhaps Sarah Palin, some Bushes, Marco Rubio, the Club for Growth, Huckabee, former Governor Mitt, Karl Rove, Rudy Giuliani, Ann Coulter, Miss McConnell, Mike Pence, Michael Steele, Michael Savage, Michael Crapo, Michael row the boat ashore, Glenn Beck, and the whole panoply of Republican heavyweights can fly to Boston and swing the race. And by all means, bring GOP "It" boys John Thune and Paul Ryan along for the thumping.

I feel confident that Coakley will be sworn in as the next senator from Massachusetts, but this discussion shouldn't even be taking place. Obama beat McCain there last year 62-36%. And Coakley is very well liked and respected in Massachusetts. Why is it even looking close enough so that bad faith operators like Rasmussem and the NRSC can blow it up into a story for the slow and credulous? My friend Mike Stark hit the nail squarely on the head with the two massive problems Democrats are facing. If you spend any time listening to Fox or hate talk radio you already know that--

1) there's a government takeover of healthcare in the works;
2) going to your doctor will be like going to DMV;
3) our taxes will be increased to pay for deadbeats' Viagra and abortions;
4) those with health care will see their services rationed

As Mike Lux made clear in his brilliant book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, progressives have faced that kind of bullshit from conservatives before and still managed to declare independence from England, win the Revolutionary War, enact universal suffrage, free the slaves, go forward with public education, regulate industries that were poisoning the population, pass Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and so on.

In the above cases, progressives had solid and capable leadership. When Obama was given a clear and definitive mandate for Change last year-- winning 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173, primarily in the racist old slave holding states of the Deep South-- he responded by kissing up to conservatives and corporatists and stocking his administration with characters who could have just as easily worked for George Bush. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, of course, did. And they must have thought Obama was talking about changing his underwear. That's sure what it looks like to voters.

You've probably read Ken and Noah and me going on and on about it ad nauseum, so let's put it in Mike Stark's poetic words:

Folks that voted for Democrats in 2008 have learned:

1) they made Joe Lieberman President;
2) they will be mandated to send money to a health insurance company that may or may not provide adequate care;
3) Obama's promises mean diddly; if you have decent health care, he wants to tax it;
4) the rich deserve everything Bush gave them and then some... the stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts...
5) Wall Street bankers deserve 7 digit bonuses on the taxpayers' dime;
6) war is awesome
7) torturers are pretty cool too... prosecutions smoshecutions!!
8) cap and trade? EFCA? financial reform? accountability of any sort? As far as Democrats are concerned, [Yawn... Whatevah...]

Last year we hoped against hope that Obama was going to turn out to be a new FDR. You don't hear anyone bringing that up anymore. Coakley's going to win, and the terribly compromised healthcare bill will probably pass-- although by only one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate-- but the midterm landslides in Congress that Democrats won in the face of hysterical GOP obstructionism after FDR's initial win in 1932 (after losing 101 House seats in 1932, Republicans lost 14 more in 1934, and 15 more in 1936, leaving them with just 88 members while the Senate low left the Republicans with just 17 seats) will not be duplicated this year. Instead, Obama's weak, ineffective and tepid leadership will see voters revert to form and punish Democrats for disappointing them. As we saw so clearly in Virginia and New Jersey, Democratic voters are let down and demotivated. What a tragedy, and what a lost opportunity!

Stephen Lynch Thinks He Should Fill Ted Kennedy's Shoes-- Or At Least His Seat

Every member of Massachusetts' congressional delegation has a voting record that spells "progressive"-- except one: Stephen Lynch. Even his isn't a bad voting record. Over the course of his House career he'd be ranked the 111th most progressive member, which isn't terrible-- a respectable moderate. Although... when you look at the South Boston-Brockton district he represents, and see how solidly Democratic it is (PVI is D+15; Obama, like Al Gore, won with 60%; home state boy John Kerry did slightly better), he looks like he could be doing a lot better. And this year, he's actually done worse-- the 120th most progressive, nestled between two Blue Dogs, Adam Schiff and Joe Baca. Still, not a bad voting record at all, just the least good in the whole delegation. And on Friday he pretty much declared that he's running for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat.

A leader for working families he isn't. And if there's one thing we really and truly need in the House of Lords-- other than abolishment-- would be some leaders on the issues that can bring some relief to working families. It gets mighty lonely being Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Ed Kaufman, Jack Reed, Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin and Frank Lautenberg. It looks like Al Franken may make it 10 members of the upper chamber who will be consistently more interested in the interests of working families than the interests of their campaign donors. That's one in 10. It would be kind of nice if the man person replacing Ted Kennedy isn't just a so-so backbench moderate but an actual liberal leader-- kind of a roaring lion...

I've been far more impressed with the only other declared candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Joseph P. Kennedy II (whose public record is, at best, sketchy), and liberal congressmen Mike Capuano and Ed Markey are also considering joining the fray. Lynch, who will run as the conservative in the race-- a Massachusetts conservative isn't the same as Jim Inhofe, Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann-- wants as many liberals in the race as possible so he can benefit from them all splitting the vote.