Democrats Fall Back on Cheap Patriotism as Their Agenda Stalls

October 5, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The Democrats won a tremendous national victory in 2008—and in the ensuing six months managed to squander it.

The party of FDR, JFK, Carter, and Clinton now controls the White House, the House of Representatives, and, by a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority, the United States Senate. At the federal level they have the numbers that allow them to pass any piece of legislation they want without winning a single Republican vote and to have it signed into law. And they're stuck.

They're stuck because the political winds have shifted. Their major legislative and policy priorities—like closing down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (however they are defined), ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—are going nowhere. Even on issues they tell us have widespread, popular support like reforming healthcare and the cap and trade energy tax, things have ground to a halt with many analysts wondering if anything will ever be passed on either subject. The vaunted Obama grassroots machine, such an important part of his victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary and over John McCain in the 2008 presidential contest, seems to have all but withered on the vine.

Obama's approval numbers have fallen farther and faster than almost any president's in recent history. Things are even worse for the Democratically-controlled Congress, with the combined average approval among several recent national polls revealing almost 4 out of every 5 Americans disapproves of the job that California Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Nevada Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and their colleagues are doing.

In response the Democrats have begun to question the Republicans—not on their healthcare position or support for tax cuts—but on their Americanism.

As Politico reported Monday, Maryland Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, accused members of the GOP of "starting to put politics first and country second," adding that "The American people are starting to wonder if they are rooting against America."

Van Hollen and the other Democrats raising this issue are returning to what they think is a safe harbor. Shortly after Obama's election, when his approval numbers were high enough to break through the stratosphere, the idea that anyone wanted the president to—as radio's Rush Limbaugh put it—"fail" was enough to set tongues wagging in disapproval.

That was then, when Obama's numbers—indeed the approval numbers for the entire Democratic Party—were artificially inflated and unsustainable. Now their legislative agenda is stalled and unpopular with at least half the country. The president was handed an embarrassing defeat by the International Olympic Committee. The war in Afghanistan is heating up. And the people, it comes as no surprise, are taking another look at the folks whom they elected to run the country. Too clever by half, vague appeals to patriotism based on the fact that some people are pleased Obama and the Chicago political machine got the high hat over the Olympics is not enough to shift popular sentiment.

For the Democrats to regain momentum, they need to moderate their program and find ways to compromise with the Republicans. The all or nothing, my way or the highway approach they have used up to now is not working. Allowing the Chicago-San Francisco axis to be in charge is proving costly, in fact may prove too costly. With the Republicans running even with or slightly ahead on most of the recent national ballot tests, the Democrats would do well to consider what they have done so far as a failed experiment. Rather than point fingers at their opponents and call them names and question their patriotism, they need to find ways to reach compromises with them or they are going to remain right where they are: stuck in the political mud.

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

adjust 0 assumptions

jerronzapa of DC 7:43PM June 28, 2010

early, http://www.uxc.com, cupcake, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov, part, http://www.part68.org, google

hagleyheck of DC 7:43PM June 28, 2010

according to Merriam's Webster, patriotism means love or devotion for one's country. Country is not to be intended as just a desert desolated land but in the context of patriotism undoubtely refers to the people who live in a certain designated land. Now how patriotic could be considered a modern and civilized country that leaves its fellow citizens dying in the street because they have not financial means to survive? Is this patriotism? Is patriotism leaving your own fellow American citizens without any health care assistance when in desperate need of medical cares? Where is the patriotism in this? Despite all this, the U.S. Congress has never been and seen more devided than today. And shame should fall down to those who still oppose the healthcare reform proposed by the President of the United States who never as today deserves and conquered the title of Commander in Chief.

No modern democracy in the world would abandon its fellow citizens when in need of medical assistance, why should United States do so when its hard core value is patriotism more than any modern country today in the world? England, France, Spain, Italy, these countries all have an excellent working social security system that allow their own citizen have a universal health care coverage. In the end these countries demonstrate to be more patriotic than United States of America because they care for their fellow citizens. And no ugly beaurocrats are set between citizens and their deserved care, neither any government take over has never occurred in any of these countries because of their universal health care coverage granted to all their fellow citizens. Even if these countries certainly can be considered as dangereously socialist.

Paradoxally even if the United States have a private health care system leaving more than 50 milliions of people out of coverage, American taxpayers spend more than all european countries combined for the health care invoice in the federal budget.

Howard Hunt of NY 6:11AM October 21, 2009

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement