Washington Post reporter and Obama lapdog Steven Pearlstein reminds us that, well, it really is us that's the problem:
It's one of the great fallacies in politics: Candidate Jones says X, Y and Z during the campaign. Candidate Jones wins the election. Ergo, the public agrees with X, Y and Z.
Certainly there are times when that may be true, but just as often it is not. After all, if that were always true, then voters should now be ecstatic that President Obama delivered on his campaign promise of health-care reform, while being mad as hell that nothing's been done about global warming.
So maybe that wasn't what voters were really thinking way back in 2008. Maybe voters were simply angry about the lousy economy and looking for a new team to take the country in a new direction. And maybe that's the story this year as well.
That's assuming that voters really believe that Obamacare is actually going to solve - rather than exacerbate - the original problem. Same goes with Cap-and-Trade. What Pearlstein conveniently ignores is the competence issue that has arisen - the feeling amongst many that what we got in Obamacare and "Wall Street reform" was bad legislation.
Beyond that, let's remember the extent of the economy's difficulties didn't really become clear until after the election. Obama and the Democrats quickly passed a porker of a "stimulus package" and then went back to the good-times issues. For them, it's been two years of business-as-usual. This is the part that Obama and the Democrats don't get:
When the economy is bad, nothing else matters.
They pursued an agenda that was no longer relevant to large portions of the electorate, despite ample warnings that in doing so they were setting themselves up for serious problems come November, 2010. (Remember the Summer of Discontent at the townhall meetings, Steven?)
Anyway, none of that matters to Pearlstein, because that isn't the root of the problem:
As for the details of that new direction, it's not at all clear what voters have in mind. Most voters - particularly the swing voters - aren't as well-informed as they might be on major policy issues. What they do have are experiences and instincts and emotions that politicians play upon in order to win elections. Rarely, however, do the election results add up to a mandate. More often it's nothing more than a temporary license to govern.
The root of the problem is this: You're stupid. People like Steven Pearlstein are smart. If you don't listen to people like Steven Pearlstein, things will get real bad. Then you'll get scared. Or more scared, as the case may be.
Pearlstein continues:
Americans, it is said, are suddenly recoiling at the dramatic expansion in the reach and power of a federal government that is "taking over" the economy. Topping this list of alleged voter grievances is a new health-care law that requires every American to buy health insurance, a new consumer protection agency for financial products and the government bailout of the auto industry.
Now ask yourself: Do you think the results of the coming election would be tilting in favor of Democrats if the "individual mandate" had been omitted from health reform, if the consumer protection agency had been dropped from financial regulatory reform and if General Motors had been left to die. Somehow I doubt it.
Well of course you doubt it, Steven. But that isn't the issue. The issue is that, contrary to your expectations, lots of voters don't share your doubt.
It's worth noting Pearlstein's dishonesty here. General Motors, left to its own devices, would not have "died". It would have filed bankruptcy, reorganized and continued to do business. The Obama Administration's rescue wasn't a rescue of General Motors, it was a rescue of the United Auto Workers. That's what it was, and that's exactly why it was unpopular. And much like the competence issue that is so much a part of the dissatisfaction with Obamacare, Pearlstein understands this, but since it doesn't fit his narrative, it is omitted.
Then we get to the heart of the matter:
The dirty little secret is that most Americans don't really know what they think about the issues that so animate the political conversation in Washington, and what they think they know about them is often wrong.
Always remember: You're stupid.
You're stupid because, according to Pearlstein, the U.S. is going to make money bailing out the U.A.W., and A.I.G., and the deficit, well, that just happened... because, you know, the economy is bad. And the stimulus packages? Worked wonders. Foreclosures? What foreclosures?
See? If you weren't so stupid, you'd know that. Never mind that there is ample factual evidence that could lead one to doubt that taxpayers are going to win in the bailout lottery. Or that the stimulus package has done much of anything. Hell, G.M.'s already teamed up with the Feds to cook up a series of transactions to give the appearance that bailout monies are being repaid, but that's about all it is... an appearance of repayment. Pearlstein knows that (or, at least, should know that), but as it doesn't fit, it doesn't get mentioned.
Finally, Pearlstein wraps it up:
The simple truth is that Obama and the Democratic Congress were dealt a lousy economic hand, and they've played it about as well as anyone could. Along with their predecessors and the holdovers at the Federal Reserve, they prevented a collapse of the global financial system and a 1930s-like depression. But given the magnitude of the financial crisis and the global imbalances that gave rise to it, a prolonged period of slow growth and high unemployment was almost inevitable.
Hey! It's Blame Bush time. Boy, have I missed that...
The political reality, however, is that voters are unwilling to accept that economic reality. They want to believe that government has the power to control the economy and fix it quickly when it breaks down. They are encouraged in that belief by politicians and special interest groups, by the media and by too many economists.
Translation: Voters are stoopid...
That said, trying to convince voters that things could have been worse was not a viable political strategy for Democrats in 2010. Against a backdrop of stagnant incomes and declining home prices and 10 percent unemployment, toting up the number of jobs saved, mortgages modified or bridges repaired was never going to be a winning argument. What voters needed was a broader vision of where the country needed to go and how we could get there, a credible story of how shared sacrifice today could lead to shared prosperity tomorrow.
I'll give Pearlstein credit, he did get one thing right: Trying to convince voters that things could have been worse isn't a viable strategy. Especially when, for so many people, things really can't get any worse.
What a twat.
