Thoughts on the 2014 Election.

 Why did the American people put the Republicans back in control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and in control of the Senate in 2014? Democrats did not turn out to vote in 2010, or 2014, like they did in 2008 and 2012, but did they really want the Republicans able to block Obama's programs? There is an absurdity in United States with a near majority of the people supporting a political party that operates almost entirely against their interests because it is completely devoted to helping the rich get richer, and has no interest in restoring the viability of the middle class to which most of its supporters belong, or want to belong.

In a short column in the New York Times in March on Thomas Piketty's book,Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Paul Krugman wrote, “one thing that strikes me is the remarkable extent to which American conservatism in 2014 seems to be about defending and promoting patrimonial capitalism even though we aren't there yet.” And he added, “In short, the GOP is more and more a party that consistently, indeed, reflexively, supports the interests of capital over those of labor.”¹

Not counting the racism that has shown itself in some of the virulent opposition to President Obama, why are there still millions of other middle class and lower middle class people who vote Republican even through they are hurt by the party's policies?

It may well be habit and tradition in some areas. But it also may be that the people really have not been given a true alternative and have not been shown how that alternative actually will work for them. Perhaps the Democrats and Republicans are not different enough from one another. Perhaps many people are disillusioned because they voted for a Presidential candidate who promised “change we can believe in” but who has not changed anything truly significant. Some polls have shown Americans growing more cynical of government and its ability to solve problems, and it is not hard to understand that.

The loss of the Senate in 2014 may eventually be good for the Democrats because nearly all of the “Blue Dog”Democratic senators are gone, and good riddance. As long as there were conservative Democrats in danger of losing their seats, neither the Senate, nor the President, would move ahead with progressive actions. President Obama purposely delayed his executive orders on immigration until after the election at the request of the conservative Democrats. Had he taken action before the election it might have helped to save one or two of the Senate seats in states, like Colorado, where there is a large Hispanic vote, but which did not turn out strongly for the Democrats.

How absurd it was for Kentucky Democratic Senatorial candidate Alison Grimes to refuse to say for whom she voted in the Presidential election. She might as well have said that Mitch McConnell was right all along to oppose everything the President wanted to do. And if that was the case, then why should anyone vote for her? Her loss in that election was guaranteed when she did that because Democrats had no reason to vote for her. She might have earned respect, and maybe even more votes, had she stood by the President and defended his record.

And then there is the ridiculous case of Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu trying to show her support of the oil industry by orchestrating a Senate vote on the Keystone Pipeline, a project posing horrendous dangers to the environment in a number of different ways, but providing no substantial economic benefit to the United States except that the Koch Brothers may make a billion dollars from it.

By keeping the Democratic Party and the President from becoming more progressive, these conservative Democrats help the Republicans maintain the gridlock. The Party is better off without them.

By the time Barack Obama finishes his second term, Democrats will have held the Presidency for 16 of the 28 years since Ronald Reagan left office, yet most of his conservative program that wrecked the middle class still is in place. Not all of that can be blamed on Democrats not always controlling Congress. The budget developed by the Progressive Caucus of the House of Representatives, praised by many economists, including Paul Krugman and Dean Baker, as better for the country than the budgets of either the White House, or the Republicans, did not received even a majority of the votes of House Democrats and no support from the Democrat in the White House. This has to change. The Democratic Party needs new leadership and new ideas.

The problems the nation face today cannot and will not be solved by private enterprise. It is going to take massive government action and large amounts of money. It is going to take new leadership dedicated to problem-solving.

It may be that there has not been either the right kind of dynamic leadership to bring about the changes the nation needs, or a large enough, and well organized enough movement for change that could be led. The ending of legal segregation and racial discrimination in the 1960s did not come about simply through one or two elections, or one set of protests, or through one or two leaders. It occurred because there was an enormously well organized movement over many years that had clear goals, determination to succeed, incredible courage, and developed both widespread support and outstanding leadership.

American history shows what has brought change in the past, and it can do it again. America needs a new progressive movement. That's how real change can occur.