How Democrats can save themselves

They must shed the delusion that their troubles are principally due to leftover Bush-Cheney problems, Republican obstructionism or the sinister influences of Fox News, Tea Partiers, the so-called Religious Right, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. What Marxists used to call “the objective conditions” (in this case, a weak and stagnant economy and worrisome international instability) would make this a tough year for any majority party. But, beyond this, congressional Democrats have endangered themselves by adhering to an Obama agenda that is out of sync with the priorities and values of a majority of the American people.

Obama campaigned in 2008 as a pragmatic problem solver intending to reach across partisan and ideological lines to end the polarizations of the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies. But, in office, he has governed with aggressive partisanship and presented an ambitious agenda going well beyond the financial and economic revival that should have been the sole objective of his first two years in office. Democratic congressional candidates are paying the price now for this overreach.

Historians will credit Obama and the Congress with helping avert a global financial collapse in 2009. The TARP effort, mainly picked up from the Bush Treasury, transferred huge public resources to the institutions that had helped create the crisis. Policymakers made it up as they went along, but it appeared to work.

Democrats’ present political vulnerability flows from the steps that were taken next: A massive economic stimulus package which provided little short-term stimulus; unprecedented federal involvements and commitments in the auto, housing and banking industries; and a deficit-swelling remake of the health sector which already has created unintended consequences for healthcare providers and consumers. Voters, hard-pressed in their own lives, see their futures endangered by a sea of long-term debt incurred to pay for programs they doubt.

On top of this, voters have legitimate concerns about security issues.

The recent release of the Afghan Papers has refocused voter attention on the viability of the Afghan intervention. President Obama undertook an intensive review of Afghan policy options and chose to double down there. Yet, today, events in Afghanistan appear eerily similar to those of the mid- and late-1960s in Vietnam. We shifted in Vietnam, as we are shifting now in Afghanistan, from “search-and-destroy” tactics, aimed at engaging the enemy in the countryside, to “clear-and-hold” tactics to secure population centers. We focused on what was called in Vietnam “the other war” — political and economic reforms to win hearts and minds. Yet, a decade later, we withdrew under terms we could have received had we simply accepted the 1954 Geneva Accords, which followed the French exit from Indochina. In retrospect, it is clear that U.S. vital interests were never at stake in Vietnam.

U.S. vital interests clearly were at stake in Aghanistan post-9/11, but they are not at stake now. Al Qaeda has moved its base of operations to Pakistan, where the main game is now being played, and could in future move to Yemen or elsewhere. Afghanistan now constitutes an expensive diversion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan, beyond Obama’s mid-2011 drawdown date, and discouraged Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s further negotiations with the Afghan Taliban. We should, instead, be encouraging Karzai’s negotiations as a way station to our eventual withdrawal. Voters properly will be asking “Why are we in Afghanistan?” questions between now and November elections.

The Justice Department’s suit against the controversial Arizona immigration law has cast doubt on the administration’s commitment to meet its statutory responsibility for border security. Comprehensive immigration reform is desirable but, right now, not doable. In meantime, Americans want human, weapons and narcotics trafficking across our southern border stopped.

All the above events are giving rise to Tea Party and other protest activity resembling that which resulted in the emergence of so-called Reagan Democrats from 1968 through the 1980s and Perotista movement of 1992. That tide cannot be blunted by charging Tea Partiers and other protesters with racism or extremism. It can, however, be blunted by individual Democratic candidates who stress local issues and their differences with their Republican opponents, and make clear they have learned from the historic Obama overreach of 2009-2010.

If this fall’s elections become a referendum on the economy, security and Obama policies, Democrats will lose badly.

Obama has lost the independents who elected him in 2008. His electoral base now lies with African-American voters and teachers and public-employee union members. Latino voter turnout may be enhanced because of anxiety over the Arizona law; but, in most cases, Latino populations are heaviest in congressional districts that are safely Democratic and not at stake in November.

Congressional Democrats, to save themselves and their party’s future prospects, must make their races local rather than national. Republicans, with good reason, have been known as The Dumb Party and will find ways to turn some prospective victories into defeat. But, at present, voters have lost confidence in Democrats’ capacity to govern effectively. Democratic candidates must convince voters that they get the message, even if the administration does not, and provide confidence that change can take place without changing parties.

Ted Van Dyk was involved in Democratic national policy and politics over 40 years. His memoir of public life, “Heroes, Hacks and Fools,” was published by University of Washington Press.