Massachusetts Postmortem: Whose Party Is It Anyway?

Tuesday, one day before the anniversary of President Barack Obama's historic inauguration, the Democratic Party managed to lose the late, great Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat to a Republican State Senator and former Cosmopolitan centerfold who made a made his pickup truck a centerpiece of his campaign:

(Never mind that this straight-talking, truck-driving Everyman is a wealthy lawyer who owns four homes and a time share in Aruba.)

The national health insurance reform bill currently before Congress — seen by many as the legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy, a long-time champion of health care reform — is remarkably similar to state-level health insurance reform legislation that passed with majority support in Massachusetts in 2006 and has since successfully made Massachusetts the state with the least number of residents who lack health insurance.

Scott Brown opposes national health insurance reform. The Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who lost Tuesday's race to Brown, supports it.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since a state Supreme Court decision in 2004. In fact, Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Conservative efforts to bring an end to same-sex marriage by amending the Massachusetts state constitution have repeatedly failed. 

Scott Brown opposes same-sex marriage, and in fact once publicly declared it was "not normal" that lesbian Democratic State Senator Cheryl Jacques had chosen to raise children with her same-sex partner. 

In her role as state Attorney General, Martha Coakley sued the federal government in July of 2009 over the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in an attempt to get it overturned. 

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who boasts local job approval ratings above 50% and won 66% of the vote in his 2008 re-election, has repeatedly spoken publicly against the use of torture and indefinite detention by the U.S. government in its fight against terrorism. The Massachusetts School of Law held a convention in 2008 to investigate avenues for prosecuting former President George W. Bush for war crimes in connection with his administration's abusive interrogation policies. 

Scott Brown endorses indefinite detention and government use of waterboarding to interrogate suspects. Martha Coakley opposes torture.

So how did this happen? How did the Democrats lose a traditionally Democratic Senate seat to a man whose policy positions seem so out of touch with the values a majority of people in Massachusetts seem to support?

Democrats and progressives everywhere are asking that question today, and there is plenty of finger pointing to go around. Countless TV political pundits have pointed out that Martha Coakley seemed too sure of herself after her primary victory, and ran a poorly coordinated campaign during the general election, failing to spend enough money and effort on voter outreach, and committing careless verbal gaffes that made her come off as haughty and disinterested (including her now-infamous comment to the Boston Globe regarding her reluctance to stand outside in Fenway Park in the cold shaking hands). Supporters of Coakley have countered that the national party, also too sure of victory, failed to give Coakley enough support until it was too late. 

Some have noted that gender bias against Coakley may have been a factor in her loss. Massachusetts has, after all, never sent a woman to the Senate. In fact, Massachusetts had not elected any woman to any statewide political office until 1998. And Martha Coakley herself is the state's first-ever woman Attorney General.

In my view, it's likely all of those issues played a role in this race. But I believe another issue entirely dealt the killing blow:

Progressive activists are tired.

It's become common wisdom that Barack Obama upset Hillary Clinton in the primary and then defeated John McCain in large part because of his brilliant, massive ground operation that registered millions of new voters, reached out in person to fence-sitting independents, raised record amounts of campaign cash through small individual donations, and executed the largest get-out-the-vote and voter protection campaigns in American history.

That operation may have been masterminded by smart, slick political operatives like David Plouffe and David Axelrod. But it was fueled by bright-eyed, idealist, mostly young progressive volunteers who were eager as hell after eight years of Bush (and anemic Democratic establishment opposition to Bush Administration policies) to pin their hopes on a Democratic candidate with a positive message whose very audacity in launching such a serious primary campaign against a well-liked populist former V.P. candidate and an insider-favored, well-known former First Lady with near-incumbent status seemed to mark him from the start as a candidate more than willing to challenge the party status quo.

And many of these volunteers made serious personal sacrifices to donate their time and energy to the campaign. As a volunteer Neighborhood Team Leader for the Obama campaign myself, I saw college students put off a semester or even a year of school to work for the campaign for free. I saw young parents sacrifice time with their children (I myself missed my son's fourth birthday to attend the Missouri State Democratic Convention as a state-level delegate for Obama). I saw people with two or three jobs give up their limited free time to canvass neighborhoods and make phone calls.

And as a blogger, I saw smart writers who normally wrote about food or parenting or travel or fashion practically abandon their personal or professional blogs during the presidential election to write political opinion pieces at places like Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, BlogHer (and yes, MOMocrats), all in the hope of contributing whatever small effort they could toward a Democratic win. 

Barack Obama, supported by a team we all now know to be some of the best political operatives in the business, ran a smart and inspiring campaign. But he would not have won — he could not have won — if he had not been riding a wave. A wave of progressive backlash against a corrupt, pro-war, pro-corporate oligarchy, neo-conservative government that had moved a moderate country too far from its Constitutional values, too deep into debt, too removed from the world community, and far too far to the right.

But in the year since President Obama's election, I fear that wave has broken. In 2008, the progressive wing of the Democratic party worked harder than anyone (except for perhaps the greedy mortgage sharks of Wall Street) to assure a Democratic win for the Presidency and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Many of the individual progressive volunteers and political activists who devoted major parts of their daily lives to political work that year were understandably a little sick of politics by November 5th.

And little has happened in the year since then to revitalize them.

It's quite likely the Obama Administration's quick action on economic recovery legislation immediately after his election averted a deeper economic disaster. But while Wall Street has rebounded enough to return to its culture of ridiculous executive salaries, lavish corporate getaways and bonuses that equal some Americans' lifetime earnings, the unemployment rate for The Rest of Us has risen to 10%, and homeowners nationwide continue to default on overpriced mortgages, without aid or recourse, as rescued banks refuse to share their taxpayer-funded wealth.

Congress passed legislation to regulate the credit card industry, but left enough loopholes that the same banks that helped cause the mortgage crisis by pushing people into exotic home loans have now raised interest rates on even the most responsible individual cardholders to ridiculous amounts, and continue to deny much-needed credit to small businesses.

Tighter regulation on the financial industry and a stronger government jobs program would likely help to solve many of these problems, but time and again centrist and Blue Dog Democrats in Congress, fearing to risk the ire of corporate donors and quailing in the face of right-wing cries of socialism, have put their own reelection fears ahead of the interests of the American people and the values of their own party base, and blocked meaningful action. As a result, middle and working-class Americans continue to suffer economic hardship.

Climate change legislation has been delayed. The question of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell has been tabled. Guantanamo's prison has not been closed. The war in Iraq is not really over (over 100,000 American troops remain there), and, in the wake of a corrupt Afghan election, the war in Afghanistan has begun to appear a hopeless exercise.

And the sweeping health care reform vision put forth by Democratic leaders during the 2008 campaign has been edited and amended and pared down again and again to placate Blue Dog Dems and please conservatives who still refuse to support it, all in the name of prudent, cooperative governance and bi-partisanship, despite the fact that a majority of the American people, when presented with their options in clear, non-partisan language, have said time and again in polls that they would like to have a much more progressive version of reform. 

Let me be clear that I do not believe these failures to deliver on positive progressive change are entirely President Obama's fault, or even entirely the fault of the Democratic leadership in Congress. Good government is hard under any circumstances, and the circumstances our nation has faced during the past year have been extraordinarily difficult.

But the fact is, the progressive base of the Democratic Party —the very sort of people who volunteer to walk door to door and talk to their neighbors in support of a candidate, who will fire up rallies and register voters and create internet buzz and physically drag their friends and relatives in to vote on election day — the very sort of people who might have managed to save Coakley from herself by supplementing her poorly-run campaign with relentless grassroots activism from the day of her primary win until election day — those people are tired. They are no longer inspired. They are feeling disappointed and frustrated and worn down. 

Meanwhile, the Tea Party activists on the right are dressing up in tri-corner hats and carefully lettering their, erm, often creatively spelled signs and taking to parks and churches and street corners and making noise. And to the Democratic leadership, they may look too crazy to succeed, with their Obama is a Muslim Socialist HITLER who wants to KILL YOUR GRANDMA!!1! rhetoric, but they're loud, and they're televised, and as we just witnessed in Massachusetts, they're firing up rallies and registering voters and creating internet buzz and physically dragging their friends and family out to vote.

And what's worse, they're well-funded and well-organized and well-listened-to by professional inside-the-Beltway conservative operatives and corporate-backed lobbyist organizations like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. And they're embraced by the Republican party establishment.

Unlike progressive Americans, who are currently being referred to by leaders of their own party as left-wing fringe. 

In the face of Martha Coakley's loss, the Democratic Party leadership will probably be tempted to move once again to the right, to try to recapture independent voters, and appeal to the centrists who make up the majority of the American electorate.

But a recent poll shows more Americans approve of the job Democrats are doing in Congress more than approve of Congressional Republicans. And historically speaking, polls have shown that when a majority of centrist and independent Americans have become dissatisfied with their government, they have become dissatisfied not so much because they fear their government is leaning too far to the left or right, but because their government can't seem to get anything useful done.

So, an ordinary American, a voter, a progressive, and one of those volunteers who helped carry Barack Obama into the White House, my advice to the Democratic Party is this:

Pass health care reform. Nothing less than the current Senate version. Pass it. In any way you can. Just GET IT DONE.

You must give the progressive members of your party some small sense of victory, even a victory as hollow as the passage of a stripped-down health reform bill that lacks adequate cost controls for consumers and lacks a public insurance option.

And no matter how confused and uncertain independents awash in dumbed-down media hype and vitriolic partisan rhetoric might feel about health care reform now, the sooner Democrats pass a bill that starts making a positive impact on their doctors' bills and their health care access, the sooner independents — and for that matter, conservatives — will forget they ever considered opposing it. After all, just look at what happened with Medicare — what was once a controversial entitlement bill, referred to by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as "socialized medicine" in the 1960s, is now a sacrosanct American institution that no rational politician dares oppose. 

Then, track down some of those ordinary American progressive volunteers who made the Obama campaign tick. Not the high-level volunteers who got swept in to the administration and now accompany the President in his White House bubble, or the ambitious political science majors taking a semester off who wound up getting a paid post-election job with the second incarnation of OFA.

I mean the ordinary volunteers, who gave up their lives for a month, or ten, to win the election on the ground. Track them down. Start talking to them again. And hire them. Make them your consultants on how to relate to the American people. Ask them how they changed the minds of skeptical neighbors and fathers-in-law about that young Senator with the foreign-sounding name. Ask them what it would take to bring some enthusiasm back into the progressive base. 

They might be tired right now. But many of them have been hoping, nonetheless, since November 5th, to hear from you.

Comments

[Cynematic]

Jaelithe, like you, I'm one of those tired people. Exhausted. Lucky enough to have employment when so many don't. Between working outside the home and working inside it, making sure my kid eats his veggies and brings his completed homework to school on Fridays, I. AM. EXHAUSTED.

But. I still phone banked for Coakley. I still care deeply about what's happening. And I know many worthy, valiant public servants have been fighting for all the things you listed. Certainly no one wanted to stay until the very last minute to Christmas Eve in the Senate or all weekend in the House to endure every last parliamentary procedure so they could finally vote to pass a health insurance reform bill.

We're all tired. But as tapped out as I am, I still support the agenda candidate Obama ran on and that President Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to enact.

And I'll be mad as hell if there's NOTHING on POTUS' desk for him to sign A.S.A.P.

[Lisse]

I feel like I've been saying this all over the web, but I just don't believe that the Coakley loss had anything to do with sexism. Vicky Kennedy could have stepped into the race and won it. Hell, Theresa Heinze (John Kerry's wife - not anywhere near as respected as Vicky K)might have run and won if she had reached out and not simply assumed that the seat was hers.

Coakley won the primary handily with connections, donations, and name recognition, but she was never the people's candidate. Our own (female) state rep put more personal energy into Coakley's campaign than did Coakley herself.

OTOH, Scott Brown did everything right, and benefited from some persistent ugliness that has transpired over the previous couple of years on the Democratic side of the aisle on the state level. One example is that our Dem Governor Patrick came in with great fanfare and has gotten nothing done because the Dem legislature is too busy pulling power plays. It's disgusting.

Patrick is probably going to lose his election, but Obama has another 3 years He has an immediate opportunity to restate his agenda in the form of the SOTU address. He needs to take a page out of Newt Gingrich's book - make a checklist, make it public, and stick to it. If he can accomplish some things on that list (hint - health care is probably not one of them, not in its current form), and address job creation in a serious, public and private sector manner, he has a good shot at a second term.

[nancy]

you are as foolish as Obama. pass reform when the country is opposed? you might like totalitarianism but American does not!
the people have spoken.

and, don't you think it is a bit freaky that you state that you are, in essence forcing your kids to think like you do, to think as they are told to think.

looks like totalitarianism is alive and well in CrazyCrats household

[jaelithe]

Nancy, you may want to look up totalitarianism in an encyclopedia before you go accusing people of supporting it. And I don't mean go search a conservative blog. I mean go to the library, pick up an encyclopedia, and look up totalitarianism. I'm not trying to be condescending, here. I assume you are an intelligent person. Plenty of intelligent people haven't had time to educate themselves thoroughly about politics, and I understand that. It's just that I literally cannot have a conversation with you if we're not speaking the same language. So if you'd like to debate me on this, please inform yourself of the proper definitions of political terms first and then come back and I'll be happy to have a conversation with you.

I am not advocating totalitarianism. I am asking an democratically elected majority to proceed with legislation they campaigned on and got elected by a majority of Americans to enact. Incidentally, unbiased polls do show that the majority of Americans do support the actual legislative changes proposed in the House version of the health care reform bill. It's just that people are frustrated with the political process surrounding the bill. I'm one of those frustrated people myself. Which is why I'm doing something about it by writing.

I assume you refer in the second part of your comment to our blog tagline, "Raising the Next Generation of Blue." How is teaching our children our values the same as "forcing" them to think like we do? Doesn't every mother teach her children what she believes is morally right? I don't know whether you have children, but if you do, I can't believe you've never even attempted to pass on your moral values to them.

Incidentally, one of the values of liberalism is TOLERANCE. That means if my son grew up and decided to be a Republican, or a Libertarian, I would be tolerant of that choice. Would you feel the same way if one of your children decided to become a liberal?

[nancy]

silly silly, I am a liberal. but you ma dear are a whack job of the far left sort.
just as bad as a far right whack job.

you say:
I am asking an democratically elected majority to proceed with legislation they campaigned on and got elected by a majority of Americans to enact.

The grammar of this sentence shows your literacy level. that said, the blindness you display to the reality of what the country now thinks of Obama and Pewwwlooosi is disturbing.

you get back to the re-education of your kids to be true Blue whack jobs, oblivious to anything but blind love of Teh One.

He is about as tone deaf as you, ma dear.

[Lawyer Mama]

Nancy - No way in hell you're a liberal. I call BS. And I wouldn't go attacking Jaelithe's grammar, which was probably typed on a tiny phone key board, before taking a look at your own.
Anyone who would look to Jaelithe's well reasoned and well written post as evidence that she is a true blue whack job has clearly been watching a little too much Glen Beck.