Learning Stupid "Lessons," Courtesy of the Washington Post

Look, I think the “lesson” of yesterday’s election and voter discontent is pretty clear: Democrats badly underestimated how awful this recession was going to get and when they shifted their focus to health care reform they blithely assumed that the steps they had already taken, from the stimulus to HAMP to Geithner’s brilliant-still-to-be-revealed secret plan for fixing the banks, would start bringing unemployment down and would make for a more favorable political climate this year.

The Washington Post, as usual, gets this simple lesson completely wrong:

Voters, not just in Massachusetts and certainly not just in the Republican Party, are worried about government spending. Budget deficits and the national debt alarm many Americans, and rightly so. Voters also are disappointed that President Obama’s promises of pragmatic, bipartisan cooperation have not been fulfilled.

Sorry, but no. Without going into a Nate Silver-style poll projection, I think I can boil down voters’ concerns right now in the following order of importance:

• I’ve been unemployed for a year.

• My mortgage is underwater.

• My small business can’t get money because the banks aren’t lending at reasonable rates.

• The government is spending too much money.

• My senators don’t hold hands and sing the theme from “The Get-Along Gang” while drafting legislation.

It’s damn simple — the economy sucks and the measures that the administration have taken have provided very little effective, immediate relief to the average person.

So when the health care debate went into a Baucus-induced wankfest over the summer, the Democrats lost a lot of time when they could have been working harder on job creation. If somebody is really suffering, the first thing they want is help. They’ll become concerned about how to pay for it only after they’ve been rescued.

More utter dumbness from the WaPo:

The White House answer will be: We tried, and Republicans didn’t want to play ball. That’s true, and the growing strength of the party’s Tea Party wing is making cooperation ever more difficult.

But imagine that Mr. Obama had refused to take the Republicans’ no as his final answer. The president acknowledged, for example, that malpractice litigation is a factor in driving up health-care costs. He signaled he might be open to its reform if Republican senators would support his overall framework. When none did, malpractice reform fell by the wayside, which was the predictable response; why offend a Democratic interest group (trial lawyers) for no apparent political gain? But Mr. Obama could have insisted: This is a good idea, not just a Republican idea, and it belongs in health-care reform. A series of such steps, difficult as they would be, might have a real effect on public opinion and the political climate.

Well let’s see. Obama and the Senate took the WaPo’s Sensible Advice about implementing a tax on “Cadillac” health plans that pissed off a lot of union people. Did needlessly pissing off the people who vote for them change public opinion on the bill or the process? Well no, no it didn’t. Next up: the Post recommends that Obama show he’s serious about paying for health care reform by implementing a poll tax!

We don’t believe that Tuesday’s defeat means Mr. Obama should back away from his goal of expanding access to health care while controlling health-care costs. But if losing his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate prompts him to stretch a bit further beyond party positions in search of practical solutions, both he and the nation might benefit.

We recognize and regret that Tuesday’s election isn’t likely to have any such tempering effect on Republicans. With their scare talk of a “government takeover” of health care, and their demagogic about-face on Medicare savings, they no doubt feel they’ve done well for themselves. But ultimately we don’t believe voters will reward a party that just says no, either; Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell won with a very different promise, of a pragmatic and cooperative conservatism. A little of that would go a long way in Washington.

OK, so the Post’s prescription is that Obama make meaningless gestures in futile attempts to win bipartisanship so at least the American people will understand that “he tried.” Meanwhile unemployment is at 10%, there’s a second foreclosure wave on its way and the banks are just as messed up as ever. Crackers, people don’t need meaningless feel-good bipartisan gestures, they need help!

Also, can I add that Jon Walker is 100% right about this:

Let me put this as simply as possible. Democrats control everything in Washington right now. They control the White House. They have a huge margins in the House and in the Senate. Democrats have larger margins in both chambers than any party has had for decades. They have zero excuses for failing to deliver. Americans will not find some nonsense about having only 59 Senate seats as an acceptable excuse for failing to accomplish anything. If Democrats think they can win in 2010 by running against Republican obstructionism, they will lose badly.

Not only will Democrats lose badly if they adopt this strategy, but they will be laughed at. Republicans never had 59 Senate seats, and that did not stop them from passing the legislation they wanted. Trying to explain to the American people how, despite controlling everything, Democrats cannot do anything, because a mean minority of 41 Republican senators won’t let them, is a message that will go over like a lead balloon. If you try to use that excuse, people will think elected Democrats are liars, wimps, idiots, or an ineffectual combination of all three.

If the Dems use having “only” 59 seats as a reason to not do anything to help with the jobless situation they deserve to lose.

UPDATE: Krugman:

Second, David Axelrod is right: the campaign against HCR has been based on lies, and the only way to refute those lies (and stop them from being rolled out again and again) is to pass the thing, and let people see it in action. It’s too bad startup is delayed under the Senate bill — but even so, that’s what you have to do.

Finally, Democrats have to realize that politics isn’t just about where you stand on issues, it’s about perceptions of a party’s character. The rap on Dems has always been that they’re wimps — and giving in on such a central part of the party’s agenda, emerging from two years in power with nothing major to show for it, will play right into that perception.

I’ve long said that the Dems will get shellacked in 2010. But they could at least go down fighting and enact some policies that will do some good. Or, conversely, they could just turtle themselves and realize after the inevitable reaming in November that they spent two years accomplishing close to nothing.

Christ, I think I’m starting to see why people ever voted for Republicans last decade. Sure, they were crazy, but at least they had some self-respect and confidence!