I recently read this article and thought it was one of the most interesting pieces I've read in a long time. It's written by John Judis, who co-wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority - the 2004 book Democrats hailed as proof of their destiny to run the country for the foreseeable future based on future demographic trends (minorities, young voters, etc.). He basically admits that he has turned out to be somewhat incorrect in the book, and it's just refreshing to see anybody in the modern political discourse admit that he might have been wrong about something. I'll admit that part of the appeal of his article is that he validates a lot of the crap I spout on this forum. First, he points to the dwindling support for Democrats and rising Republican support among the middle class (people with college degrees but not graduate degrees with household incomes between $50K - $100K), which is a growing demographic group. It makes sense, since they are hostile to high levels of government spending. How did this validate me? Because I've written several times that the American Left and the Democratic Party are foolish to have built this massive government that does next to nothing for ordinary working people. If you're broke-*** poor or if you're old, the government has a lot of goodies for you. If you're just a regular guy or gal who works full time and makes a decent but not exorbitant income, the government is largely a drain on your pocket book and does a crappy job when it does interact with you. (The center-Left parties of Europe understand this - not sure why the Democratic Party doesn't.) Second, while reading the article, I thought to myself, "yes, the GOP is doing well with the middle class, but minority middle classers aren't voting for them." Not if you omit black voters. Hispanic and Asian voters in the middle class lean Democratic but no where near as much as the overall numbers. Furthermore, the numbers are slumping for Democrats. In fact, Asians overall split their vote in 2014. Third, he pointed out that while the middle class voters tend to be socially more liberal than the GOP, they don't focus on those issues. They will even vote for socially conservative Republicans so long as they are solid on fiscal issues, government-skeptic but not militantly anti-government, and don't wear their social conservatism on their sleeve and say stupid ****. He pointed to recent GOP gains in blue states. As an anecdote, he considered the voters in solidly blue Maryland who comfortably elected a pro-life Republican governor, because he promised to stop the tax increases and not to try to change the state's abortion laws. He deemphasized his social conservatism but didn't abandon it. This line of discussion made me think of Seattle Husker and NJLonghorn. These are guys who should be low-hanging fruit for the GOP. They aren't hardcore liberals and probably lean Right on fiscal issues. I think they'd just like to see a candidate who puts issues that truly affect them and their families at the forefront and doesn't get distracted by social crusades of which they are indifferent. The GOP would be wise to start appealing to this kind of voter. Doing so would significantly expand the electoral map. Of course, he didn't say the GOP was heading for dominance - just that the big Democratic advantage that he saw in the past was gone and that the GOP is developing an advantage. He also recognized that HRC could bring back the middle class if she runs as more of a progressive centrist (like Bill Clinton), especially if the GOP shoots itself in the foot. I disagree with Judis on the strength of a possible HRC candidacy. I still think she sucks and has less overall appeal than Obama has. If she's the nominee, the big factor will be the GOP nominee's appeal. If they nominate some smack talker who Obama-bashes but has no constructive agenda of his own, she'll probably win. However, if they nominate someone who moves beyond Obama and pushes a real national agenda that isn't bogged down with social issues, we could see a commanding GOP victory.
Good read. Agree pretty much along the same lines. To me, the fatal flaw the Dems and BO were/are making is to continue to promote expensive govt programs that do not really affect the class you described. I also think people are starting to wake up to the fact that there isnt even fractionally enough money to tax the rich from to pay for the new programs. Despite the fact that that is pretty much the ONLY thing that the dems and BO point to for new money. So much of BOs agenda sounded so great and nice in theory and they sold all of them as being deficit neutral. It is now too obvious for even the hard core folks to ignore that they lied about where the money was going to come from. Think of the ACA as an example. It was sold that it would eliminate many insurance company problems (preexisting conditions, lifetime limits, no medical underwriting eyc.), it would get uninsured people insured, and it would save each family $2500 per year. When you think about it, there should have been 100% support for this. If it was actually true, who wouldnt be for it? And when the POTUS makes claims on national TV hundreds of times, there is a tendency to believe him. Now if you go back and ask the same people if they would support the aca if it still eliminated the problems with insurance companies, provided insurance for a small percentage of uninsureds but will cost existing insureds $5-$10K per year in increased premiums and deductibles etc the answer would be much, much different. For most people, empty promises and being made to look foolish is more maddening than no promises.
Well said, Bronco, and frankly, healthcare reform could have been an issue Democrats could have used to appeal to the middle class. Most of them were already insured, but very few were happy with how expensive it is. However, little to nothing was in the final ACA bill that could even arguably bring down costs, leaving the program's appeal pretty narrow. For all the rhetoric the Democrats spout about the "middle class," there just hasn't been a whole lot in their agenda that directly and immediately benefits them. One could argue that Medicare and Social Security benefit them, but the middle class pays dearly for those programs. Furthermore, their long term success is far from certain. In fact, their long term failure is much more likely. I used to wonder why people in Europe were willing to pay such high taxes, and now that I live here I understand why. Taxes are usually sold to the public by European center-Left (and sometimes even center-Right) parties as a trade-off. The citizens pay the government, and the government provides a service for it. Europeans believe in the trade-off, and they have good reason to. They don't have to worry about health insurance, transportation, or education. It's very cheap or free to your average middle class person, and for the most part, it's good quality. Since WWII, their governments have built up some credibility. Obviously, they've also had their problems, but they've mostly found ways to keep the trains running on time - literally and figuratively. In the US, most of us don't accept the trade-off. Ideology is part of it. Many of us (myself included) prefer freedom to security. However, the other reason is that our government has a poor record with our money when we do turn it over to them. They do little for us for how much we pay, and what they try to do (education and infrastructure), they do poorly and very expensively. As a result, our government just doesn't have much, if any, credbility with the middle class.
Our government has us at $18,000,000,000,000 in debt, give or take a dime or two. We don't have jack **** to show for it, except for failed foreign policy, millions of freeloaders who keep pumping out babies and extending the freeloader cycle, and corporations who also freeload every damned thing they can. Why in the world would anybody in the middle class ever vote to continue down this path?
So which side are they going to vote for to fix it? Of the last 10 presidents, 5 have come from each party. In general I think the article makes a lot of good points. The problem is that the people that vote in republican primaries are very different from the middle class independents that they want to attract. This is especially true on social issues. The other problem is that the national party has to pander to its religious, southern/western, rural/suburban base. Having the message appeal to people that don't fall in that group is difficult. The best hope, as it has always been, is that people just like the democrats less.
Excellent points Deez. Conservatives say the dumbest things at the wrong time and they are capitalized on by a mainstream media always ready to pillory them for espousing their personal feelings. I'm not interested in their personal views. I want them to stay away from social issues and work on economic issues that affect me and my family. I want them to secure the border, for the safety of the country. I want government out of my life and to quit making it harder on me to make a living and enjoy it. The article was very interesting and it was nice to see a liberal have a "come to Jesus" moment. thanks for posting.
This is why I had no problem supporting Reagan or voting for George Bush Sr. I support personal responsibility and fiscal conservatism. Keep your damn social conservative views out of politics and I'll vote for a Republican again.
Most of my friends are college educated and middle class. All grew up conservative other than a few. The ******* factor is really wearing on them to the point that they are very apathetic. The problem is that they don't vote in primaries. They show up on general election day and either have to vote for the right wing nut that talks like he thinks Jesus rode a dinosaur or a democrat that they don't agree with on fiscal issues. As was already stated, the conservative position isn't the problem. It's that the position has to be taken to the extreme, shouted loudly and angrily, and anybody that has a less extreme view is a commie liberal who hates America. I remember when the republicans used to be the adults in the room, not just an addition to the **** flinging monkeys on the left.
