The Woes of Ineffective Democratic Leadership

Well, the debate rages on: Should we raise the United States debt ceiling? And if we do raise it, what should be the price for doing so? Which group of experts is correct ― those who suggests that failure to raise the ceiling will result in economic gloom and doom, or those who argue that failure to raise the ceiling will have little or no economic impact?


I, like most Americans, don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but I do know two things about this problem. First, what has transpired and is transpiring should have never occurred. And second, this crisis proves just how ineffective the Democratic Party has become under its current leadership.”

In the two years since President Obama took office, the republicans have controlled all the debates on policies. They controlled the argument concerning keeping the Bush tax cuts in place. They controlled the argument concerning insurance coverage for all Americans. They controlled the argument about national debt reduction, and they shifted the focus from “increasing taxes” to “decreasing spending,” as the means to do so. The republicans won all the debates and much more, but they did so with the help of the democratic leadership. What I mean by this is “Although the republicans won all these political battles, the cause of their victories weren’t their convincing arguments. Instead, the republicans’ victories often came from the democrats inabilities to capitalize on the republicans’ major areas of weakness.


For example, President Obama and the democrats have done a poor job of confronting Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and the other republicans, who supported the reckless spending of President Bush. Obama and his party have done a poor job of reminding the republicans that out-of-control spending, the high national debt, and high unemployment started during the previous administration, with the assistance of many of the current house and senate republicans. Every time a republican spoke about fiscal responsibility and reducing the national debt, the lead rebuttal from the democrats should have been , “It happened on your watch, and with your help!” The democrats should have stated this rebuttal loud and often enough for the entire nation to hear.

The democrats should have taken a similar approach on the subject of taxes and the subject of spending. They should have pointed out (often and loud) that by the time President Obama came to office, the tax cuts had been in place for eight years, which should have been enough time for these cuts to work, if they were going to do so. Every time a republican argued for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, the lead rebuttal from the democrats should have been “You had them for eight years . . . nine years . . . a decade! It’s time to try something different!


On the subject of spending, the lead rebuttal from the democrats should have been “Let cut all spending ―especially defense spending, by escalating troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and by reducing spending on military contracts for weapons research and development!”


The fact of the matter is the Democratic Party is in trouble because its leaders are good guys. President Obama, Former Speaker of the House Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid are wonderful, caring, compassionate human beings with high moral and ethical beliefs. They didn’t make these arguments loud and often because it isn’t in their nature to do so. They believe in compromise, negotiations, and corporation because they are nice guys. Unfortunately we know what happens to nice guys: They finish last. And so do the people who believe and rely on them. That includes just about everyone who isn’t rich and isn’t getting tax cuts!