Well, as everyone knows, the midterm elections are seven months away, which means that everyone interested in politics is either doing a lot of polling or poll-watching, I'm no exception, except that I've already been at it for seven months. I can't say that I'm surprised by the across-the-board expectation that the odds of victory in November favor Republicans over Democrats, both in congressional and state races. But, while I'm not surprised by it, I'm not buying into it. At least not just yet.
In the predictions game here, leading the charge in the legacy media is, of course, Chuck Todd of NBC's "Meet the Press." Unlike the days of his predecessor, the late Tim Russert, Todd's hosting of the show has had a transparently obvious GQP to it, both in guest selection and interpretation of poll results. Not surprisingly, his views on 2022 follow this bias, as he demonstrated in a recent MTP program. He cited two reasons for believing that there will be a red blowout at the polls this fall: Joe Biden's low standings in the polls, and what pollsters like to describe as the "enthusiasm gap"; that is, the net difference between respondents of each party, as self-reported, regarding their enthusiasm about the election.
Ever since the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, Biden's previously-high poll numbers have been crashing to earth. There was a brief period after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Biden's subsequent State of the Union message, where the favorability-unfavourability narrowed in Biden's favor. But that period seems to be over, and, as of now, the President is doing well to climb a few percentage points above 40%.
But polling is, as much as anything, about analyzing trends as well as moments. And, in this context, it's worth using as a starting point for discussion, the fact that Biden has had thus far, by many conventional standards, a successful Presidency. Employment is up, the pandemic is winding down, infrastructure is being rebuilt, and our standing as an international leader has been restored to a significant degree, as witnessed by the unity of NATO in standing strong against Vladimir Putin's destruction of Ukraine. And, yet, Biden--and, for that matter, the Democrats--seemingly get absolutely no credit for any of it.
But all of this begs a rather obvious question.
If Biden's low standing in the polls, combined with the "enthusiasm gap" those polls claim to measure, are real harbingers of Democratic disaster, then why do polls that measure a party preference for control--the so-called "generic congressional ballot"--consistently show a dead heat between Democrats and Republicans. Because they do. There's no "enthusiasm gap" to be found their, nor any evidence that whatever animates voters' current dislike for Biden moves them to reject his party.
And this is consistent with what happened during Barack Obama's first term, and the fight over enacting health care reform. The longer that fight went on, the more compromised the legislation became, the more political and personal energy was sucked out of Obama's supporters, the more those supporters despaired of his ability to fight for the causes that had moved them to vote for him in the first place. And so, when health care reform was finally enacted, it did not poll well at all. Overwhelming majorities disapproved of what Obama's opponents derisively referred to as Obamacare.
But drilling down into those poll results shows something more complicated. Many of the people who disapproved of the bill did so not because they thought if was a government takeover of health care, but because they thought that it didn't go far enough in getting the federal government to ensure health care for all. And today, unsurprisingly, Obamacare polls well, as those who opposed it from the right begin to see its long-term benefits, while those who opposed it from the left correctly see it, as Obama did, as a base from which coverage can be expanded even further.
Is the real enthusiasm gap for Biden coming from the left, as those voters perceive him as operating has he has traditionally, as a moderate Democrat? Does that lead them to view him as playing Charlie Brown to the GQP's Lucy, as they Obama did? Is this based on the failure to enact the progressive infrastructure bill, the so-called "Build Back Better" bill, now unlikely to be enacted in any form prior to the midterms, even though that failure is based entirely on two self-dealing members of the Democratic Senate caucus? I'm comfortable thinking, based on the Obamacare experience, that the answer to that is "yes."
Which means that it's important not to learn the wrong lesson from current polls, as Democrats and their supporters did in the 2010 midterms. They need to reject the fantasy of tacking to some imaginary, non-existent "center" and understand that the pathway to success lies in reassuring their core supporters that neither they nor their goals are going to be abandoned. They need to be not merely in the media, but in their states and communities, preaching that message and listening with respect to the frustrations of those supporters. And when they come back to Washington afterwards, they need to fight in every non-violent way for the goals that got them sent there in the first place.
What is the likelihood of all that happening? Well, I wish I could say it was great. But, when I read think pieces like this one, I have a very hard time doing so.
The problem with the reasoning in this article, as is the case with so many like it, is that it treats progressive voters, who tend to be young voters, as disposable, as though it's possible for Democrats to win elections without them. It also overlooks the fact that many progressive concerns are not merely concerns shared by a broader coalition of voters, but are also, in the case for example of climate change and voting rights, existential in nature, whether with respect to democracy, or life itself.
Young voters are not simply the heart of the Democratic core now, but the leading edge of its not-too-distant future core. They aren't motivated by caution, any more than their counterparts in earlier generations were. They want what those counterparts wanted: a better world for everyone, and not just for themselves. They don't want to be told that the future is being held hostage by two Democratic Senators with a talent for presenting their self-interests as the interests of their constituents. They want, and expect, Biden and the members of his party to work visibly night and day to find a way forward. They don't want to be told that they need to get along with a party that wakes up every morning and finds new and more exciting ways to terrorize them, shoot them, call them perverts and take away their right to vote. They need to feel that Biden and Democrats care because, right now, they see Democrats as looking for excuses for failure, and all that makes them do is want to stay home on Election Day.
And young voters understand much more clearly than the rest of us that the coming midterms are not a routine election, one where expectations can be measured against the past, or in the context of a nation where "normalcy" is the rule of the day. Nothing is normal about this election, anymore than anything is normal about this nation right now. One of our two major parties is at best operating as a criminal conspiracy, and at worst like a cabal of agents for a hostile foreign power.
What Biden is doing for the center is in fact what he should be doing to rally his base. Start with termination of the so-called Title 42 expulsion program, to allow refugees to go forward with their asylum petitions here in the U.S. It's hypocritical to talk about being "over COVID" and then use COVID to indulge in the great passion of the American right: bigotry. All the more so given the current news on the employment front. Clearly, we need more workers than we have. What have we done to address situations like this one in the past? Hint: It rhymes with "immigration."
There are any number of executive actions Biden could take. Cancel student debt. Declare climate an emergency under the National Emergency Act. Offer temporary protected status to all undocumented non-criminally charged immigrants, and use that as leverage to force Congress to pass CIR. Boost workers' rights. Lower drug costs. The Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives has put together an entire list of possibilities, as has the progressive magazine The American Prospect.
Why not do at least some of these things? Because of fear that they may backfire? Then, as FDR famously said, try something else. Fear is a terrible governing strategy: people may not understand the intracacies of legislation or regulations, but they can smell fear, and they will turn away from leaders who exude it. Besides, surrendering to fear is worse than bad politics; it is a derogation of duty and one's oath of office. Leaders are elected to lead, not shiver.
Is it time for Biden to declare war on the GQP, the way he has (up to a point) with Putin? Don't take it from me, take it from AOC.
Is there the likelihood that it's too late for that to happen?
Biden and the Democrats hold the answer to that question in their hands. But, to the extent that progressives can make them feel America's pain before November, so do we all.
No comments:
Post a Comment