If Democrats aren’t providing voters with a great message, are they providing voters with something of substance? Good question. It usually helps your reelection chances if you can provide voters with accomplishments that make them want to vote for you again. What’s the Democratic majority’s track record when it comes to niceties that Congress has given voters? It’s not insubstantial, but not great.
Obviously, without a health care bill Congress can’t give voters a guarantee of coverage or nice things like that. The stimulus bill gave people a few bucks more a week in their paychecks, which is easily forgotten. It also led to a politically embarrassing method of calculating “jobs saved” by the stimulus (and really? Nobody thought this through before the numbers were crunched?); however, it did save jobs, and the Obama administration and Congress would do well to trot these police officers, teachers, and other people whose jobs were saved at every opportunity. They are really failing to take advantage of this. Reminding people of their extra four bucks every paycheck won’t cut it. Things like Cash for Clunkers and the home buyers’ credit helped a few people, but even more thought it was bad policy and bad politics, which I happen to agree with.
Financially, Congress did pass some big changes to credit card regulations; unfortunately for Congress, the credit card companies decided to screw over customers before the regulations went into effect. Again, it doesn’t seem like they thought that one through. Instead of giving people who are in danger of losing their homes bankruptcy cramdown, which would actually work, the HAMP program has been a dismal failure, even leading to increases in the amount of money homeowners owe. Not exactly something you can campaign on. TARP, while probably averting a major financial catastrophe, is not exactly seen by the majority of Americans as a good thing, especially since the banks are already going crazy again.
It’s not even all about money. Giving voters something to feel good about can do wonders. Obama voters voted for hope and change, but since the election there has been very little of it. Obama kicking “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” down the road is a bewildering political decision: most people support it, and it would make voters feel good to end a kind of discrimination that is becoming less and less acceptable (although CNN is reporting he will ask Congress to repeal DADT tonight). Obama and Congress have also dropped the ball on increased government transparency, like putting all bills online ahead of time. Again, simple to do, but makes people feel good.
With the relatively skimpy list of substantive accomplishments, it’s little wonder that Obama voters are feeling unmotivated. It’s not like legislation such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act are unimportant; they certainly are. But Obama voters didn’t vote for incremental change. They wanted significant changes in the way government works in their lives, and significant changes in their own financial situations. They gave a lot to Obama, and they understandably want something in return.
In a short while, Obama will give his State of the Union address. From the sound of things, he won’t be making any grand statements on health care. He probably won’t be doing a whole lot to make voters feel better about themselves. He’ll talk about increasing the child care tax credit (probably good politics, although as a tax policy purist I despise it), and accelerated business depreciation (now that’s an exciting topic!). It’s not exactly the transformational address that many people are looking for. Will it give voters a good reason to return Democrats to power?