The base and the party--some bizarre thinking that has been making the rounds.

[jpgray]

I really despise those who would always lay the cause of evil on those who have the least power, the fewest resources, and the weakest voice. This is a frequent theme of the GOP: blaming a poor job market on illegal immigrants, budget shortfalls on public employees, financial crises on poor minorities, lack of investment on welfare recipients, the list goes on.

Yet this phenomenon, to blame the actions or fortunes of those in power on those who have the least ability to affect either, is what is frequently done in the Democratic Party when it comes to excusing bad behavior in a politician, or apportioning blame for electoral defeat: if turnout is less than desired, it is clearly the fault of a sulky, lazy Democratic voter base--it couldn't at all be the fault of an anemic, aimless, dithering party and its leaders.

It is chiefly the responsibility of a -candidate- to win voters over, to inspire them to turn out, volunteer, walk precincts, work the phones, donate, etc. Yet you won't see that sentiment expressed often. More often you'll hear that the uninspired have -only- themselves to blame, as though a perpetual state of inspiration is a fair expectation even in the face of wildly uninspiring policy, rhetoric and strategy. You'll also hear that the uninspired don't matter, are a lunatic fringe who were never needed anyway, etc.

Yet these two bromides depart once the election has gone sour--it then becomes clear that the uninspired somehow are responsible for the loss. (The candidate or party, naturally, bears little to no responsibility.) The same microscopic, irrelevant gaggle of nobody bloggers and purist whiners apparently has great power, but only insofar as something horrible happens--they are the cause.

The same is often true of policy failures. 80+% of the nation supports higher taxes for the rich, yet capitulation and dithering are the watchwords from our delegations in Congress and our president. The voting public is always derided for failing to vote in its interests, but would anyone argue our party has been doing its utmost to prove itself the champion of those interests? To emphasize the utter bankruptcy of the supply-side myth? Painful austerity in a recovery? The "crisis" of Social Security?

The voters certainly bear responsibility to a great extent, but to ignore or excuse the actions of those with the most power and influence to shape events and political debate just seems completely absurd to me.