Democrats are in trouble, that much is certain. Even the most objective onlooker would agree the Democrats have managed to implode themselves. They enjoyed historic levels of popularity both for their party and policies, while their Republican opponents were so distrusted that politicos speculated the beginning of a new 40-year Democratic majority in Congress.
Since then they have lost key elections in New Jersey and Massachusetts (of all places) and were overwhelmingly defeated in Virginia. They stand to lose at least a few dozen seats in the House as well as a few in the Senate (including possibly Obama and Biden's old seats as well as that of Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader). The fact that they enjoyed historic majorities in Congress, but still managed to derail themselves only makes the situation that much more embarrassing.
The most embarrassing detail of it all is that the Democrats managed to do this to themselves in just one year. If nothing else, the Democrats proved that it is still possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
There are several explanations for the current political state Democrats find themselves in. First and foremost, the party didn't explain its objectives clearly. Putting aside the arrogance inherent in such a perspective, the strategy didn't help the Democrats very much. Either they knowingly pushed an agenda Americans largely disapproved of, or they were completely oblivious to the will of the people they claim to represent. How either is supposed to comfort Americans is puzzling.
Most nonpartisans would probably acknowledge that the downfall came when the Democrats decided that the best way to advance their policy proposals was to ram them through Congress as quickly as possible. Cap-and-tax, "stimulus" spending, banking regulation and health care "reform" were just a few of the key initiatives that Obama wanted to see enacted into law within a year. To do so, he willingly engaged in the backroom bargaining and lobbyist pandering he campaigned against in 2008. The scheme didn't work, however, and left Americans irritated with the Democrat's expand-government-at-any-cost agenda.
So now, finally, the Democrats have decided to tackle concerns over jobs. That they waited a year to address the biggest concern Americans have during the largest recession in U.S. history is rather unfortunate. That they waited so long to make time for liberal policies that Democrats knew couldn't get passed in an election year with people watching is upsetting.
What's outrageous, however, are the tactics currently being employed by Democrats, the president especially, to explain their ineptitude. The strategy is basic and simple, but one the Democrats hope is effective: blame Bush and Republican "obstructionism."
In Obama's State of the Union Address, which sounded much more like a State of the Democratic Party address given the president's unending reiteration of liberal policies, Republicans were scolded for not doing enough to work with the president. That the Democrats failed to accomplish what they promised in the campaign and lost the support of the American people, the president explained, was the fault of the Republicans. A bit of a stretch given that Democrats enjoyed large majorities in Congress and a widely popular president.
The president went on to say that the Republicans had not done enough to work with the president on pushing his own agenda through. Reality, yet again, is at odds with the administration. Simply consider the fact that health care reform failed to get a single Republican vote despite the fact that Maine's own two moderate Republican senators voiced a willingness to talk with Democrats. All they asked was that the debate be slowed down a bit so as to more fully flesh out issues with the legislation. But Harry Reid and Barack Obama wanted the bill quickly so they refused to even make the slightest concession. Not to mention, of course, the fact that the Republicans did indeed draft a health care reform bill that was scored by the Congressional Budget Office and cost a fraction of Obamacare.
Of course it doesn't really matter if Republicans have policy alternatives, since whatever they advocate will be slandered as coming from the "party of Bush." Seldom a day goes by, much less a campaign, that Democrats don't try to use the former president as an excuse for their own failures or as a way to undermine the Republican alternative. Such tactics work initially, but the public eventually expects you to take responsibility for the direction of the country if it votes for your party in large margins. The Democrats didn't, and many still want to run against Bush. Whatever your feelings on the former president, the fact remains that Barack Obama—not George W. Bush—is the one responsible for the current state of our union.
The future doesn't look promising for Democrats. They have alienated independents and continue to attack their opposition for opposing them as if to do so were an unspeakable sin. Their latest target seems to be the faceless corporations and banks that are largely unpopular (many for good reason). Will perhaps, for once, the current administration and its Democratic allies in Congress actually learn to take responsibility for their actions?
Jose Cespedes is a member of the Class of 2012.