Obama’s Problems with the Democratic Party
Even though President Barack Obama has said that America has reached an era of post-partisan politics, he has never stopped fighting with the Republican Party. After the midterm elections, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the Republican Party’s goal was to make Obama a “one-term president.” The Republican Party has no qualms about delaying approval in the Senate for Obama’s biggest foreign policy project to date — a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.
But Obama, depressed and dejected, not only has to deal with an absolutely irreconcilable Republican Party; he also faces an increasing surge of Democrats questioning his accountability. This is faintly reminiscent of trouble stirred up by the former Clinton-led faction, which complained about Obama in 2008.
In the two weeks since the midterm elections, many of the close elections are being announced, and the Democratic Party’s crushing defeat is becoming more and more pronounced. The results in Congress and in the state-level elections are horrible spectacles.
For example, Alabama is enjoying Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, for the first time since 1874. In Wisconsin, traditionally a blue (Democratic) state, Republicans control both houses. Even Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, a man with a depth of experience, was defeated by a Republican. Republicans will control both houses in North Carolina as well. All these states are traditionally blue states. As another example, in New England and in New York, the Republican Party made considerable gains. Even the Senate seat in Illinois, left vacant by President Obama, was given up to the Republican Party.
The Democrats’ blood bath was not just the work of Republican voters. It primarily reflected the defection of a large number of voters in America. It is obvious that besides the economic recession, the American public lost hope in the Obama administration.
Despite all this, American voters are loath to forget the eight-year political track record of George W. Bush, especially the real estate bubble and the financial tsunami that he ignored, directly causing the largest economic recession since World War II. In contrast, Bill Clinton’s administration is being remembered as a time of peace and prosperity by most Americans. Not only the Democrats and the Independents, but even a few Republicans are starting to think nostalgically about the economic prosperity of the Clinton era, when America experienced its first federal budget surplus in several decades.
At least among Democratic candidates, former President Bill Clinton was naturally one of the most popular leaders before his midterm elections. Love extended from Bill Clinton to Hillary Clinton, and her political ratings were fairly high as well.
Obama Lacks Common Experiences Shared by American Society
Even though both Clinton and Obama are products of an elite Ivy League education, they have different family backgrounds and different upbringings, which cause major differences overall. Obama was basically raised by his grandparents, enjoying an elite education and a gentleman’s life. For this reason, he lacks many of the general experiences that most in American society have had. In contrast, Clinton’s father died when he was a child, and he was raised by lower-class whites, which made his social experiences more popular.
This was reflected in his policies, where Clinton preferred a center-right path, which catered to the social conservatives, or Blue Dog Democrats, of middle America and the American South. Especially in the social welfare system reform that he advocated, he was incredibly leftist and earned the support of many centrist voters.
Even though Obama is advertised to be center-left, I have always considered him and his troupe to be too arrogant and too Ivy League. Due to this lofty elitism, the Obama administration puts too much emphasis on traditional liberalist ideology like protecting disadvantaged groups. A good example of this is health care reform.
Taking this traditional Democratic path ignores the most significant feature of American polarized politics in the past few decades: The economic status of the lower class was relatively stable and was not getting noticeably worse. But now the gap between the middle class and the upper class is constantly widening, and the position of the middle class relative to the overall distribution of wealth is slipping. This pushed the middle class to the brink of a crisis. Now, Obama is being punished by middle-class voters. One might say he deserved the punishment.
Most Democrats are perfectly clear: Obama is largely responsible for the disastrous defeat in the midterm elections. Since the president always has the most political resources, Democrats had a hard time being heard over Obama’s grumblings, although they became louder and clearer every day. The Blue Dog Democrats of the South, who lost the most, have the hardest time being heard. All of them accused the White House of making them lose centrist-voter support during the midterm elections. Hillary Clinton became more popular within the party, to say the least.
Regarding the defeat in the midterm election, it is a tradition in America that the related leader in Congress will take the blame and step down after a defeat. But this time there was a complete change in the leadership of the House. Former Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is, unexpectedly, refusing to give up her post and is serving another term as House Democratic Leader.
This reflects two facts. First, Pelosi comes from California, one of the few states where the Democrats did not lose. More importantly, it reflects the consensus that the one who deserves the most blame for this defeat is Obama.
Patrick Caddell, senior adviser to former President Jimmy Carter, and Doug Schoen, adviser to former President Bill Clinton, wrote an article in The Washington Post, requesting that for the sake of national interests, President Obama not seek another term in office. This blatant request to “tell the emperor to abdicate” shows the mood within the Democratic Party after the midterm elections. At the same time, The New York Times extolled Hillary Clinton, saying that she had gained the trust of authorities in Israel, unlike Obama, and further stating that she could resolve the Middle East issue. This article gives some food for thought.
As the political mood in America is constantly changing, it is hard to estimate whether Obama will successfully be elected to a second term in office. But the first challenge that Obama has to face is the ever-increasing wave that questions his accountability.
But Obama, depressed and dejected, not only has to deal with an absolutely irreconcilable Republican Party; he also faces an increasing surge of Democrats questioning his accountability. This is faintly reminiscent of trouble stirred up by the former Clinton-led faction, which complained about Obama in 2008.
In the two weeks since the midterm elections, many of the close elections are being announced, and the Democratic Party’s crushing defeat is becoming more and more pronounced. The results in Congress and in the state-level elections are horrible spectacles.
For example, Alabama is enjoying Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, for the first time since 1874. In Wisconsin, traditionally a blue (Democratic) state, Republicans control both houses. Even Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, a man with a depth of experience, was defeated by a Republican. Republicans will control both houses in North Carolina as well. All these states are traditionally blue states. As another example, in New England and in New York, the Republican Party made considerable gains. Even the Senate seat in Illinois, left vacant by President Obama, was given up to the Republican Party.
The Democrats’ blood bath was not just the work of Republican voters. It primarily reflected the defection of a large number of voters in America. It is obvious that besides the economic recession, the American public lost hope in the Obama administration.
Despite all this, American voters are loath to forget the eight-year political track record of George W. Bush, especially the real estate bubble and the financial tsunami that he ignored, directly causing the largest economic recession since World War II. In contrast, Bill Clinton’s administration is being remembered as a time of peace and prosperity by most Americans. Not only the Democrats and the Independents, but even a few Republicans are starting to think nostalgically about the economic prosperity of the Clinton era, when America experienced its first federal budget surplus in several decades.
At least among Democratic candidates, former President Bill Clinton was naturally one of the most popular leaders before his midterm elections. Love extended from Bill Clinton to Hillary Clinton, and her political ratings were fairly high as well.
Obama Lacks Common Experiences Shared by American Society
Even though both Clinton and Obama are products of an elite Ivy League education, they have different family backgrounds and different upbringings, which cause major differences overall. Obama was basically raised by his grandparents, enjoying an elite education and a gentleman’s life. For this reason, he lacks many of the general experiences that most in American society have had. In contrast, Clinton’s father died when he was a child, and he was raised by lower-class whites, which made his social experiences more popular.
This was reflected in his policies, where Clinton preferred a center-right path, which catered to the social conservatives, or Blue Dog Democrats, of middle America and the American South. Especially in the social welfare system reform that he advocated, he was incredibly leftist and earned the support of many centrist voters.
Even though Obama is advertised to be center-left, I have always considered him and his troupe to be too arrogant and too Ivy League. Due to this lofty elitism, the Obama administration puts too much emphasis on traditional liberalist ideology like protecting disadvantaged groups. A good example of this is health care reform.
Taking this traditional Democratic path ignores the most significant feature of American polarized politics in the past few decades: The economic status of the lower class was relatively stable and was not getting noticeably worse. But now the gap between the middle class and the upper class is constantly widening, and the position of the middle class relative to the overall distribution of wealth is slipping. This pushed the middle class to the brink of a crisis. Now, Obama is being punished by middle-class voters. One might say he deserved the punishment.
Most Democrats are perfectly clear: Obama is largely responsible for the disastrous defeat in the midterm elections. Since the president always has the most political resources, Democrats had a hard time being heard over Obama’s grumblings, although they became louder and clearer every day. The Blue Dog Democrats of the South, who lost the most, have the hardest time being heard. All of them accused the White House of making them lose centrist-voter support during the midterm elections. Hillary Clinton became more popular within the party, to say the least.
Regarding the defeat in the midterm election, it is a tradition in America that the related leader in Congress will take the blame and step down after a defeat. But this time there was a complete change in the leadership of the House. Former Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is, unexpectedly, refusing to give up her post and is serving another term as House Democratic Leader.
This reflects two facts. First, Pelosi comes from California, one of the few states where the Democrats did not lose. More importantly, it reflects the consensus that the one who deserves the most blame for this defeat is Obama.
Patrick Caddell, senior adviser to former President Jimmy Carter, and Doug Schoen, adviser to former President Bill Clinton, wrote an article in The Washington Post, requesting that for the sake of national interests, President Obama not seek another term in office. This blatant request to “tell the emperor to abdicate” shows the mood within the Democratic Party after the midterm elections. At the same time, The New York Times extolled Hillary Clinton, saying that she had gained the trust of authorities in Israel, unlike Obama, and further stating that she could resolve the Middle East issue. This article gives some food for thought.
As the political mood in America is constantly changing, it is hard to estimate whether Obama will successfully be elected to a second term in office. But the first challenge that Obama has to face is the ever-increasing wave that questions his accountability.