Mandate? Not so much

A new New York Times/CBS News poll focuses on what America wants from Bush's so-called "mandate." Surprisingly, Americans want nothing that the President claims they do, which further begs the question, 'Why in the world did they vote for him?'

At a time when the White House has portrayed Mr. Bush's 3.5-million-vote victory as a mandate, the poll found that Americans are at best ambivalent about Mr. Bush's plans to reshape Social Security, rewrite the tax code, cut taxes and appoint conservative judges to the bench. There is continuing disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, with a plurality now saying it was a mistake to invade in the first place.

One of Bush's big pushes is to make his tax cuts permanent, yet 67% of the people who gave him his "mandate" would rather Bush keep their money and use it to reduce the deficit. Only 26% of the country seems to back the idea of changing our current progressive tax system into a flat tax system, and 62% think those with more money should pay more taxes.

Privatization of Social Security is another big Bush idea, but less than half the country would like to see it occur. The President also continues to promote his gay marriage amendment, but 56% of his "mandate" say the issue is not important enough to warrant a change to the Constitution.

Less than half of America thinks Bush will competently handle the economic problems the country faces. 51% think that Bush will not be able to protect their social security benefits, and 66% think big corporations have too much influence on the President. And while 51% approve of the job Bush has done, 54% say that he is leading the country in the wrong direction. Only 44% approve of his foreign policy handling, 42% approve of his handling of the economy, and 40% approve of the way he is handling Iraq.

Not very stirring numbers, and most certainly not a mandate.

Then why did Kerry lose the election? His approval rating stands at an abysmal 40%. In a word, "ouch."

The more I've read about the morals hype and debate lately, the more I lean toward discounting it as a bunch of hooey. Why did Kerry lose the election? Because the Republicans out muscled the Democrats on the ground on election day while managing to catch the Democrats with their guard down coming out of the primary season. Republicans defined Kerry too quickly once he was the defacto nominee to allow Kerry the chance to define himself. The Swift Boaters hamstrung any chance Kerry had to pull away, and dirty tricks and Republican lies were the pillow that slowly smothered the Kerry campaign to death.

Do I think, then, that it is a waste of time to redefine the message of the Democrats? No. One of the reasons Republicans do well is they have created a "brand" of sorts, a framework that allows them to pop any candidate in the middle of and get an instant recognition of sorts of what he stands for. Do a majority of Oklahomans favor killing abortion doctors and think teen lesbianism is a big problem facing the nation? I doubt it. But Oklahomans do know what Coburn stands for as a Republican, and that is enough for most of their voters. Democrats have no such marketing power.

Things like Oliver Willis' Brand Democrat should help close this gap. Ideas like this should not only help get the Democratic message out, but also show the country that Democrats are proud of what they've accomplished and what they represent. I'm cautiously optimistic about the impact things like this may have come 2006 and 2008.

If taste and ability were enough to sell a product, you wouldn't see Coke and Comet advertised on TV all the time, would you?

[In fairness, I feel obligated to point out that the Dem/Rep/Ind numbers in the NY Times/CBS News poll skew slightly Democratic, and of those who voted this election, the split was 42 Bush/42 Kerry, with 5% declining to answer, 7% of the sample saying that they did not vote (which would heavily oversample actual voters, no?), and 3% of those polled unable to recall whom they voted for or failing to answer.]

*Welcome Change For America folk. Please take a minute to look around and tell this fledgling blogger what you think of things. Input makes us feel better. Thanks.

*UPDATE* Heh. Willis this morning:

Only then does the party's role become integral to the success. Once you've got a bedrock set of "what is a Democrat" ideas successfully out there, its time to throw in a candidate who can put the philosophy into reality. This is not just a presidential candidate. A political movement goes nowhere without a candidate, but a candidate is not a political movement. The idea is, if you can plug in an articulate person that is able to tell you that they are a Democrat, you're halfway to the endzone already. What their job is now is to tell you what their personal take is on being a Democrat, and pound the ball into the end zone. They are part of the greater narrative tale.

That's what I was trying to get at above last night. We need a narrative that helps define Democrats as strong, well thought leaders, a narrative that the Republicans have somehow managed to deny us. Carter was a weak foreign policy leader. Clinton is a sinner.

Like it or not, I bet those are the first things that come to mind for a lot of people when those names are mentioned. And that shouldn't be the case. Clinton especially managed great things while in office, but is remembered for his faults because of massive Republicans assaults that went parried, but not counterthrusted at best.

I think this is where you and I come in as Democrats. When we hear disparaging words about someone, we need to step up and defend them. Don't just call Clinton's impeachment a partisan witchhunt that was largely unfounded, but talk about the FMLA which allows parents to be with infirmed and dying children. Reagan's a great president? He ran up massive debt and illegally sold arms to "terrorist."

Since the leadership seems unable to do this on their own, it seems that it must start at a personal level. Talk to friends and family. Keep it clean and nonconfrontational. But frame the debate, for example, "I can't believe Republicans think it's okay for suspected felons to be in leadership rolls."

Perhaps I'm just not able to make my point clear enough, or perhaps I'm just spinning my wheels on a well traveled road. But if enough Democrats are despondent that the leadership doesn't seem to "get it," then it's time for us to take action ourselves.