A number of diarists and commentators on this site have suggested that a Coakley loss wouldn't be bad for the Democratic Party, since it would serve as a valuable "wake-up call" for the party leadership. The Democratic base has been demoralized by the compromises that this Administration and Congress have made with both monied interests and the Republican Party. A Senate loss is a deep blue state will surely show the leadership of the Democratic Party the error of its ways. Or so the argument goes.
Unfortunately, our politics doesn't work like this.
Let me start by saying that I entirely buy the analysis of what has depressed Democratic enthusiasm this year. Polls showed a large percentage of the public--and a much larger percentage of the Democratic electorate--in favor of a much more ambitious HCR plan, including a public option. Obama's escalation of the war on Afghanistan is also generally unpopular. And at least among the Democratic base, his refusal to deal more forcefully with the crimes of the last administration, or even to clearly change policies on some key issues of openness and civil liberties, have been disheartening for progressive voters.
The problem is that both the DC Democratic establishment and corporate media have only one way of understanding Democratic losses to Republicans: they must mean that Democrats have been too ambitious and too progressive.
And in case you don't believe that this will happen, we're already beginning to see some preemptive analysis of a Coakley loss along these very lines. A "Political Memo" by Adam Nagourney entitled "Democrats Fret that Public is Dissatisfied" has just been published on the New York Times website. The piece focuses on the Massachusetts race and, completely unsurprisingly suggests that Coakley is in trouble because the Democrats have been too progressive.
Luckily for Nagourney, he can introduce this cliché by calling on a center-right DC Democrat:
Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the atmosphere was a serious threat to Democrats. “I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.”
Of course, within a few 'graphs Bayh's rather self-serving analysis just becomes conventional wisdom. And the piece concludes:
Still, some Democrats are wondering if Mr. Obama would be in a better position now if he had embraced a less ambitious health care proposal, as some aides urged, permitting him to pivot more quickly on the economy. Depending on what happens Tuesday, that is a debate that might be reverberating in the White House for a long time to come.
Don't get me wrong. I think Nagourney's analysis is indefensible. For example, nowhere does Nagourney report that HCR became less popular with the public as it became more moderate and less ambitious. But as bad as this analysis is, it is precisely what we should expect if Coakley loses.
Democratic losses never convince the party to move to the left. I'm as convinced as anyone that the Democratic Party is on the wrong path (as it has been for decades) and needs to be fundamentally reformed if it is to become a force for actual progressive change. But Democrats losing to Republicans will not make this process any easier. And given the political choices currently available, it's important that we get the lesser evil.