Democrats: The Party of “No”

Two decades ago, before I became a college professor, I was a clinical sociologist. My job was to help clients overcome their personal problems. The initial difficulty was in figuring out the nature of these problems. Since neither they nor I might understand what was actually wrong, this was where we had to begin.
One of the techniques I used to accomplish this was drawn directly from clinical practice. Psychologists had earlier recognized that people often “project” what they are doing onto others. Instead of taking responsibility for embarrassing actions, they typically attributed these to outsiders.
For instance, an angry person, instead of admitting that he was angry, might describe another person as being so. The fault was not his own, but that of the other guy. I, in noticing this, was therefore able to direct my attention toward the client’s anger.
All this is by way of deciphering contemporary politics. With Democrats and Republicans routinely pointing fingers at each other, it is crucial to know who is genuinely responsible for what. This is especially true given that the president and his allies seem poised to force Obama-care upon the nation.
Political memories are notoriously short, but wasn’t it just a few years ago that George W. Bush was being accused overseeing an “imperial” presidency. He was said to being running roughshod over our democratic institutions in order to impose his policies on others. Specifically, he was going to take us to war regardless of what voters thought.
This, at least, was the charge as leveled by Democrats. Never mind that nothing Bush did was without the consent of congress. Never mind that time and again he modified his proposals in light of partisan criticism.
Now, in retrospect, it is possible to look at these accusations as a species of political projection. The Democrats were merely blaming Bush for what they would do once they entered office. Indeed, has there been a more imperial presidency than that of Barack Obama? Has any other administration taken such an “opposition-be-damned” attitude? Which else adopted such a “we are going to do what we want to do, irrespective of what others think” position?
A similar analysis applies to the Obama crew’s characterization of Republicans as “the party of No.” Forget about the fact that Republicans have regularly offered alternatives to Obama’s agenda. Forget about the fact that “No” may sometimes be the appropriate response to mistaken proposals. Where, in fact, have most of the No’s emanated from?
Haven’t the Democrats been saying No to the Republicans? Haven’t they of late been saying No to the American public as well? Thus, when the Tea party folks said they were unhappy, did Democrats listen? Or did they say, “No, your objections do not matter?” And when the opposition said let us join in the health care discussions, did they say, “Welcome aboard?” Or did they close the doors to the meeting rooms?
Time and again Obama accuses those who disagree with him of “posturing,” even as he is in the act of posturing. Time and again he accuses them of misinforming the public, even as he is in the process of misinforming people. Thus, although he condemns others for fear-mongering, name-calling, and tired old ideas, generally speaking he is far guiltier of these transgressions than they.
Remember, Obama bemoaned the lack of transparency of his predecessor, but who has been less transparent? He also said he would exclude lobbyists from his administration, whereas he consults them more than Bush did.
Finally, who is more partisan than Obama? When talking about bipartisanship, he seems to mean that others must agree with him or shut up. Likewise, when asking them to meet him in the middle, somehow the middle seems to be where he is standing.
Talk, they say, is cheap. People can say all sorts of things that are untrue (for example, that universal health care can be achieved while lowering costs). But words are also a window into the soul. The secret is in knowing that sometimes they must be turned around. Sometimes they apply more to the speaker than their alleged object.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University