progressive voters on strike?

Posted by rflacks on: Tue 1st Dec, 2009

I'm writing just a couple of hours before Obama's West Point speech, hoping but not expecting that he will find a way to reassure his base that he is the guy we worked to elect. I'll reserve comment on the war till after he talks, but right now I want you to look at the above chart, drawn from the Daily Koz weekly tracking poll. These numbers tell us that the Democrats are going to lose the elections in 2010, but the underlying data are even more disturbing. They show that the heart of Obama;s support base is not planning to vote next year. Fifty four percent of blacks in the survey say they probably won't vote. The majority of voters under thirty say the same. On the other hand, two thirds of older voters plan to vote. Obama's strongest regional support comes from the north east; his weakest support in the South. Two thirds of southern voters are planning to vote next year, but less than half of north-easterners say the will vote. The elections a few weeks ago in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere had turnouts comparable to these survey results-the conservative, white, older base is energized. The progressive base is not.

Minority and young folks are the hardest hit by the jobs crisis and the housing crisis and at the same time they were among those with the greatest hope for change in the 2008 election. It's not unreasonable to see their voting behavior and intentions as a form of protest. They are going on strike at the polls and one might conjecture that is because their hopes for change have been met with reversal of fortune.

The same sort of disillusionment pervades the ranks of liberal and progressive activists. Each week we can add new instances of administration betrayal of our hopes. The latest include the handling of the Honduras coup (defying near unanimity in the rest of the hemisphere), and the continuation of Bush policies on the land mine treaty. The escalation of the war dwarfs all these other failures.

I've said in this space that it's the structure of power in America rather than Obama's weakness of will that accounts for the growing feeling that the chances for progressive reform are slipping away. Like many other progressive activists, I've stressed that grassroots collective action that demands fulfillment of progressive promises can provide a counter to elite and conservative resistance to change. The threat embodied in the poll data should be read-by the administration and congress-as genuine protest.

Today I'm worried that white house strategists who do those readings may be be blinding themselves. The most respected of these is David Axelrod. He's quoted in yesterday's New York Times:

"I think people will have the ability to separate these issues," said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president. "There is a tremendous sense of purpose to get health care done. And wherever people stand on Afghanistan, I don't think it's going to dim their enthusiasm or impede their ability to get health care done."

The subtext is that the Obamaites believe that they can only get the healthcare bill passed they will keep their base energized and in line. Certainly, health care will be a plausible response to the disaffection. But it's a great miscalculation to think that it will be sufficient to reunite and re-energize the president's supporters.

Much is supposed to happen in the next few weeks. There will be a White House jobs conference, and a presidential tour, starting in Allentown PA, focused on jobs. Then he goes to Copenhagen and then on to the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. What will he be offering other than symbolism? And, equally important, can these be occasions for grassroots voices to demand the real?

Tags: Obama, progressive movement, voter behavior

6 Comments

Comment by Dcbg on Tue 1st Dec, 2009

I'll likely be one of these striking voters. I can't think of one thing Obama has done that I approve of.  Every single major policy decision has been utterly wrong. Dick, this goes beyond the mere structural limits of the presidency.  Obama is a fake progressive.  He's had ample opportunities to take far more progressive routes, and he's chosen time and again to blabber on and on about "America's moral authority," while pumping cash into corrupt banks and killing innocent peoples abroad. The Dems' health plan sucks.  Their bailout of the banks was rotten.  The bailout of Detroit was short-sighted.  Their cap-and-trade legislation is disastrous. And now this troop surge while building the permanent bases, or sorry, "embassy" in Iraq. I can't vote for a man who is substantively no different from Bush.  Really, can anyone say how Obama is actually different from Bush, other than his methods?

Comment by Ws1 on Tue 1st Dec, 2009

@ dcbg:  I don't think he is a fake progressive. He is substantively miles apart from Bush. But I do think more could be done.  However, when we elected him, we elected him for his ability to think carefully about the challenges facing our nation (and to act responsibly). I don't think we can't expect that we'll agree with his every move and/or compromise (I don't), but I am confident (and hopeful) that his ability to think broadly about these problems will push us steadily closer to lasting solutions (if not just good starts) for healthcare, conflict abroad, job creation and recession slowing here.  I think it'd be foolish of us to expect utter transformation in less than 1 year of his administration.    I am grateful that our president is a man that can acknowledge nuance and complexity here and abroad.  I am grateful that he is pouring support into creating a green sector, smarter domestic and foreign policy. My sense is that the cumulative effect of him pushing multiple balls forward at once, will be slow but significant change.  Hopefully 'sans' the cultural backlash from the right.

Comment by Alexpujo on Wed 2nd Dec, 2009

News from South America: Obama was given a warning in Colombia, a yellow card in Honduras, and he will probably be expelled from the South American Cup with a red card any time now. South of the Rio Grande they pay much attention to the seven military bases in Colombia, the 40-year embargo in Cuba and the 4th fleet patrolling the Atlantic. A lot was expected from the first black guy in the white house. Now they are starting to suspect that this president may not be black after all, a phenomenon they refer to as "the Michael Jackson syndrome". They want to know what "democracy" means when applied to Honduras, Cuba, Afghanistan or Irak. But don't worry: South Americans do not vote in 2012. Alex Pujo

Comment by Infomaniac on Thu 3rd Dec, 2009

The problem with my progressive friends is a lack of patience.  It would be NUTS to think that Obama can undo in less than one year what Bush, Reagan, to some degree Clinton, and others have done in past decades. Progressives must realize that we have a 2-party system and yes, sometimes Obama will either move too slowly or even do things we don't like.  But overall, Republicans LOVE it when they hear purist progressives, holier than thou liberals, and others in the coalition that elected Obama criticize him and threatening to sit out elections. Such actions will just hand the next elections to the lunatic right. For my money, Obama is good enough and it's way too early for us to criticize him.  Losing the next election would be a disaster, if for no other reason than appointments to the Federal Courts including the Supremes. My personal solution is to limit my criticism to letters and emails to my congress member and senators, close friends, and more private venues. And ask yourself, "What would I do if I were president to move this country in the right direction, without alienating the moderates who elected me?" This does not mean that we should stop thinking critically, making positive suggestion, offering our ideas and constructive criticism.  Just don't do it in a way that makes Rush Limbaugh giggle with glee.

Comment by Pabbott on Fri 4th Dec, 2009

I agree. Not voting is kind of like suicide - a very expensive way to show that you're mad as hell. There were people who committed this form of electoral suicide in 2000 on the grounds, as Ralph Nader kept insisting, that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They were wrong.  Like almost all present or former Obama supporters these days, I find much in what he's done and not done to date to criticize and at times to deplore. I also want more FDR and HST, more fight, more of the one political gift George W. Bush had - resoluteness. But Afghanistan was not a topic Obama has wavered on, so far. He didn't campaign on getting out of Afghanistan but finishing the job there, whatever that means. I don't think the path he has chosen is the right one, but I'm pretty sure if he starts waffling and Clintonizing about it now, he'll be disabled for the rest of his term. If you are so moved, the time to withdraw support from Obama is in the primaries, when you can vote for someone else to represent the party. But not voting in an election is in effect a vote for whomever the Republicans are running. Commentators may say, "Whoa, Democrats sat on their hands this time - that certainly sends a message!" But the cost of such a message is way too great. Consider. Without Obama, would we have had any meaningful stimulus? Paul Krugman, who has been one of Obama's constant critics has said that, despite all, Obama probably rescued the country from a much worse and more protracted recession. And do you remember what an Augean stables W had allowed to fester in the Interior Department? All the sweetheart deals with our land, not to mention the general moral chaos in that department? Salazar has already undone a lot of damage, including rescinding W's last minute giveaways. Would this have happened under President McCain or any of the prospects for 2012? Immigration was a patchwork mess. Here, too, Napolitano at DHS and John Morton at ICE have begun fixing a cruel and totally unorganized detention system. We also have an excellent new secretary of education to match a president who is not only a great ad for a good education, but thrives on taking the message to students. Consider, too, the immense change in the justice department and the amazing, long overdue fact that at last some of our prisoners of war will be tried by the American system of justice. Gitmo is being closed. The travel ban on people with HIV has been lifted. High priority has been put on the mental health of our veterans, and in other significant ways Obama has repudiated the shameful neglect of veterans affairs under 8 years of Bush. The President has also engaged in the tough sell of cutting treasured, useless fat out of our weapons program and he has replaced the Bush missile installations in eastern Europe with an alternative and again much wiser deployment of smaller missiles. And after 8 years of total inattention by the previous administration, his administration is racing to renew START. How much of this would you see in a Huckabee or a Romney administration? But if you're still not convinced and are willing to see a Republican administration come on board in 2013, I have one more word: Sotomayor. Chances are there will be several more significant openings on the High Court in a few years.

Comment by Ws1 on Tue 8th Dec, 2009

@Pabbott: Well put.  Not to mention the changes that are being made to the lobbying industry & culture. Those, in and of themselves is a reason to not sit on ones hands!

About

Dick Flacks here...sociology professor emeritus at UCSB. Budget cuts mean that I can't continue my annual course on political sociology. Maybe a blog will be a space for me to continue to ruminate and pontificate. And maybe (as a veteran teacher on these matters) I can offer some ways of thinking about what's happening nationally and locally that will be useful, as we struggle to make sense of the tortured complexities of these times. I've been a leftwing activist for more than 50 years. What we've been struggling for all these years is full democracy--to increase the opportunities for people to have real voice in the decisions that affect them. Step by step over these years we've made some gain...but it is a long march, and one that never ends. The big barrier to democracy in our society is the concentrated power of corporations. At the same time, democracy is undermined by the felt powerlessness of people in their daily lives--the persistent belief that our problems are only our own personal concern. It's a strong cultural theme--such individualism--constantlly reinforced by mass media and everyday circumstance. But the current big crisis of the economy maybe makes it more possible for more people to understand that we've got to have social reform and economic reform. So my writing here is aimed at helping us figure out what to think and act on that so that we can hope for new democratic possibilities. WE'll be talking about the local and the national. The blog name comes from an old labor union hymn: Step by step the longest march can be won. Many stones can form an arch...singly none. And by union what we will can be accomplished still. Drops of water turn a mill, singly none, singly none. For 27 years I've had a weekly radio show on KCSB (91.9 fm. www.kcsb.org) It's called the Culture of Protest. It's comes from my fascination with music and social movements. I collect 'political' and 'protest' music and that's what we play each week (Thursdays 6-7 pm). So sometimes here we'll share and talk about that. I'm worried about one thing about the blogosphere. And that's the way that some people use the blog comment space for anonymous nastiness. I'm sick of the kind of political blather that assaults the motives of others, and sees dark conspiracy behind every thing one doesn't like. This kind of stuff is helping to poison the political atmosphere. So I'm going to strive for a civil tone to whatever interaction may happen on this blogsite.