Branding is important -- it identifies a set of attributes, values, and expectations to a label or trademark. And right now, at this moment in time, the Democratic brand is pummeling the Republican brand. This is partly due to the personal appeal of President Obama, partly due to the sheer destructiveness of the Republicans' actions and policies over the Bush years, and partly due to the Democrats usually being publicly perceived as the more effective party domestically, at a time when the economy trumps all other issues.
It is because of this brand that Democrats, over the last two election cycles, have been able to pick up seats in a number of erstwhile Republican strongholds. As the Republicans drove the country into the ground, enough GOP voters in red districts began to feel real pain, and began to consider electoral alternatives. And enough of them were convinced to the point that the Democrats gained a 2006 midterm victory, followed by the thunderous Democratic avalanche in 2008. Good results indeed.
But now the Democratic Party is no longer the opposition party. It's now the majority party, and it's expected to deliver. And there is one, large, sweeping reason the Democrats were put in power -- to undo the worst excesses of Republican rule and chart a new course for the country. Votes are statements. And the public has declared that it wants the economy fixed, that it wants meaningful health care reform, that it wants an end to cowboy diplomacy, and that it wants the environment to be protected. If the public didn't care about any of these things, it would have merrily voted for John McCain and a Republican Congress last fall.
Let's be clear: The public sentiment isn't, "fix the economy, but make sure you do it in a suitably conservative way". The public sentiment is "FIX THE DAMN ECONOMY ALREADY!!!" As the layoffs and foreclosures mount, the public isn't concerned about ideology; the public is concerned with results. And last November's returns pretty clearly indicated that the voters didn't have much confidence in the Republicans' ability to deliver said results. Such is the branding gap between the two parties, which continues to manifest itself in polls today.
It appears that President Obama understands this, and after a somewhat shaky start with the too-timid-but-better-than-nothing stimulus bill, he's gone all-out on his budget proposal and signaled that he's ready to try to actually fix things. But he's running into resistance from the blue dogs, who continue to bitterly cling to discredited neoliberal economic theories that won't do anything to turn the economic ship of state around.
The usual excuse proffered on the blue dogs' behalf is that many if not most of them represent marginal purple districts, and must act and vote suitably conservatively in order to retain their seats. There might be some truth to this in normal times. But these are not normal times. And this is where the blue dogs are making a critical mistake.
These blue dogs need to remember why they got elected in the first place -- because the economy had deteriorated to the point where enough of their constituents were able and willing to vote for a non-Republican. That's a big, big step for a lot of red-district voters to take, and it requires a pretty dire situation, which is where the Republicans put us under Bush. With that in mind, the blue dogs' chances for re-election in these marginal districts will redound to one factor, and one factor only -- Did the economy improve? Are we working again? Are we making a living again? After all, that's EXACTLY why these red-district voters gave the Dems a chance to begin with.
But with their obstructionism and misguided fealty to the Rush Limbaugh crowd, the blue dogs are attempting to torpedo President Obama's economic program, which while not perfect by a longshot, remains our best bet to keep us out of a depression. And if the economy does slip into depression -- which is very, very likely to happen if the Bayh and Boren groups carry the day -- the Democratic brand, faring so well today, will take a major tumble.
And what happens when the Democratic brand takes a tumble? Well, the same thing that happened to the Republicans when THEIR brand went into the dumpster. It will be the Democrats' turn to lose elections -- the "D" next to any candidate's name will be the mark of death. A tsunami will sweep Democrats from their offices nationwide, at a level not seen since 1994.
And herein lies the irony of the whole situation. The Democrats who will get demolished in 2010 if we slip into depression will be the blue dogs, the ones who represent purple districts. There's no margin for error there, and the dead economy will overwhelm their protestations that they "weren't too liberal". The progressive Dems, for the most part, will be far more likely to keep their seats -- they'll suffer declines in votes because of the party's decimated brand, but most of them will have enough of a cushion to survive. Meanwhile, the blue dogs will be gone.
So the more "successful" the blue dogs are in allying themselves with Rush Limbaugh and jamming up the works for Obama, the more vulnerable they're making themselves in 2010. Beacuse if the economy remains a shambles in 2010, no Democrat will be able to show his face in public. And blue-dog obstructionism is a surefire path to that result. There is no voter in a red district who will tell himself, "Well, I voted for the Dem last time because the economy sucked, and the economy still sucks, but hey, at least that Dem wasn't too liberal, so I'll vote for him again."
If the blue dogs want to keep their seats, they'll stand with the President, not against him.