STUPID! – QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  Carl Sandburg once wrote that the ugliest word in the English language is "exclude."  Well, that's rhetoric.  But certainly one of the ugliest words today is "stupid."  The elite classes – or people who consider themselves the elite – use it all the time to describe anyone with whom they disagree.  And Democrats consider Republicans "stupid."  And, of course, Dems are so bright.  Why, look at the way they ran the last election campaign?

One reason Democrats lost is that they look down at the very people they claim to represent.  In an excellent column, and our quote of the day, Clive Crook examines the phenomenon.  From Bloomberg: 

Supporters of the Democratic Party have many theories to explain the drubbing they were handed on Election Day. The explanations seem to boil down to one basic proposition, however: Voters are too stupid to know what's good for them.

Let me say it clearly: The Democratic Party will continue to underperform until it learns to take election beatings a bit more personally.

The sheer variety of theories based on the stupidity of voters is what's so impressive. For instance, the Obama administration's record is good, and the economy is finally doing better; but voters are too stupid to see that. Or: The policy record is poor and the economy is screwed, which is the Republicans' fault for paralyzing Washington; and voters are too stupid to see that. Or: The policies are bad, the economy is screwed, and Democrats are to blame for failing to press the robust progressive agenda that voters want; then voters (who really are impossibly stupid) punish this lack of commitment by electing conservative Republicans.

These theories aren't mutually exclusive, apparently. I think Paul Krugman has supported all of them at various times. Like many progressives, he's lost count of all the ways voters are stupid.

A theory putting less weight on the stupidity of voters might run along the following lines: With Barack Obama in the White House for two more years, the electorate could choose to empower him by electing Democrats or obstruct him by electing Republicans. The voters chose to obstruct the president -- and that wasn't such a dumb thing to do.

And...

The American electorate is always skeptical about the federal government's ability to do things well, and the Obama administration has demonstrated managerial ineptitude unusual even by Washington standards. The burden of proof is on Democrats to explain that their plans are actually within their competence.

The constant emphasis on social injustice, economic inequality, class struggle and the existential perils of climate change advertises a far-reaching transformative ambition. Here's the problem: Even putting aside the question of competence, U.S. voters aren't sold on the idea of having their society transformed. They just want it made better. To be popular, the progressive agenda therefore needs to be plausibly delimited. The Democrats need to make clear what they won't do as much as what they will. Without a clear program, that's difficult.

It won't do to say, "Trust us to dismantle this fundamentally broken society and build something new. You can leave the details to us." That's what Democrats were offering the country last week. The voters said, "No, thanks." I wouldn't call that stupid.

COMMENT:  Read the whole thing.  It's one of the best columns on the election so far.

November 12, 2014