We are the problem

As a Cincinnati Reds fan, I am familiar with defeat. It isn’t just defeat, but rather continuing and unrelenting humiliation with few prospects of future success … that wears a person down. Many times I turned have away from baseball, questioned why I am even a “fan,” and tried to ignore the game and the players. After reading Michael Lewis’ Moneyball, I even imagined I could switch loyalty to the Oakland A’s, and followed them for a day or two. It’s like changing hair tint. Can’t be done. The real color always returns.

Defeat is part of learning. The word should be reserved for special occasions, and otherwise not used. The Democrats were taught a lesson on Tuesday. The question is, are they teachable?

Apparently, not at the leadership level. Obama is now assuming a conciliatory posture towards the Republicans … you know, the one he started out with. He’s going to yield to them on critical issues. You know, like he was doing before.

There’s much to be learned from his behavior, as there is some predictability there if one changes assumptions about his beliefs. Could it be … he’s a double agent, one who sleeps with the enemy? Is such a thing even possible?

Twenty-two House seats that the Democrats lost were “Blue Dog” seats. From an ideological standpoint, those seats were never Democratic anyway. They have merely changed their tint. So 22/60, or slightly more than one-third of this is not even a loss.

Conservadems generated so little enthusiasm that they were either undone (or almost undone) by challengers that should have had no credibility at all. Michael Bennet and Harry Reid, were they men of conviction rather than just second-rate politicians, might well have sailed into office. Of course I cannot know that, but do rely on the axiom that when people have to choose between a Republican and a Democrat who sounds like one, they’ll usually go with the real thing. (The only real pain I felt on Tuesday night was the loss of Russ Feingold.)

But it is not as simple as pandering. Bennet and Reid do not pander, in my view. They are not weak and conciliatory. They simply lack Democratic convictions, which is why they attract financial backing from Republican-centric wealth, and have electoral success. And that is the underlying problem of Democrats – the “viable” candidates rely on the same funding source as Republicans. Therefore, they are essentially the same people in different uniforms.

A dog cannot bite his master and hope to stay well-fed.

Americans seem to want to reduce politics to voting. That’s where all our energy goes – political campaigns. They are the beginning and the end of our involvement. “Politically active” people are those who work for various candidates at election time. Others – the environmentalists, peace activists, champions of the underclasses – have all been marginalized since the 1960’s. We’ve been re-purposed in our thinking.

(The photo above is a demonstration in France. “Lutte Ouvrière” means “Workers’ Struggle” – democracy is alive in France. All politicians of all parties must take heed of organized power.)

But underlying reality has not changed. Politicians are by and large second-rate people attracted to power, maybe even suffering a touch of narcissism. They can as easily mislead as lead, and will always adapt their behavior to the wishes of those who can affect their careers. They will always bend to money.

I have been hard on Democrats since the first day we started this blog, and that will not stop. I have repeatedly said that “Democrats are the problem.” That needs to be refined a bit – it is not so much Democrats, but rather the idea that Democrats are the solution that is the problem. They cannot solve anything so long as they need lots of money to succeed.

We are the solution, as always, and for so long as we see Democrats as the answer, then we are the problem.
____________
P.S. Here in Colorado, even though we are stuck with six years of Senator Bennet and four of Governor Hickenlooper, we also overwhelmingly rejected initiatives to limit the ability of government to levy tax and collect revenue, borrow money, and one to define an embryo a legal person. These campaigns, which drew no corporate support in opposition, were defeated by 60%+ margins. There is some clarity of purpose there even if candidate-driven politics is hopelessly muddled.