Posted on 11/05/2004 9:18:47 AM PST by beebuster2000
PA NewsPac November 5, 2004 by Maurice Codd
Amidst the ash heap of the Democratic Party election effort the search for the explanation of the wrack and ruin begins. But, to Democrats, the scariest possibility, and one which not a single Democratic leader has mentioned, is this: George Bush won because he is selling a better “product”, and that the core product, the core program, the core appeal, of the party of FDR has broken down.
Here is a scary thought for Democrats: Voters got to know John Kerry well. Democrats did a great job of showing who the candidate was, what he stood for, and how he was likely to be as a leader. The Democrat GOTV was generally effective. The bad news: the country as a whole thought it over, had a good lock on the issues, and said NO to John Kerry. And not just in the red states. In California, bluest of blue, Kerry got over 400,000 fewer votes than Gore.
Democrats will remain doomed as the minority party until they abandon the thinking that the voters were somehow too stupid to see their candidate and program clearly. Doomed to replay the election tactically, and not go to the key issue for them: obsolete and defective core product.
So what exactly is the historical core product of the Democratic Party? Hold on to your seats because here is a simple statement of the democratic “product” for the last 40 years: Free stuff from the government. That’s it!! And it has a nice ring-how could “free stuff” be hard to sell? And for decades it has been a convincing pitch. But a tide has turned. People, not everyone, but enough, have now had experience with long term government programs to realize that all is not as it appears with free stuff, and as a result, promises of more of the same from politicians were greatly devalued in this election.
An increasing number of voters believe this: the free stuff you get from the government is grade B, poor quality, in some cases really awful, stuff you would never buy for yourself if you were using your own money. The list of free stuff you can get is huge, but lets list a few key items:
Social Security? Most people under 50 know that they are paying through the nose for social security, but believe they are unlikely to ever get much back. The idea that social security can sustain you in retirement 15 years from now? Joke.
How about “free” Medicare and Medicaid? Class B healthcare, many doctors won’t even accept it the reimbursement is so low and its an open secret in the healthcare community that low Medicare reimbursement rates are subsidized through “cost shifting” from private payers. In any major city the hospital with the largest percent of Medicare and Medicaid business is always the most run down hospital. Your “free” healthcare is likely to get you an all expense paid ticket to the biggest dump in town.
How about another big freebie: public education. Great in a few spots, ok in many, poor in more, and an absolute disaster if you are Black and living in a big city. In many urban centers, Black male graduation rates are around 50% (note to incoming DNC Chairman: check this out in trying to explain Bush’s rising % of the Black vote). Talk about defective product! How long could any private business, where people were using their own money, survive with a 50% defect rate? A day maybe? But when its “free” from the government- try 30 years. And when it’s backed up by political NEA Union clout? A long time. Many, including Democratic lawmakers, who have the means, send their kid to private schools.
And what about the unions, a core constituency for years of the Party? What after all is a union? It is a license from the government to establish a company-by-company monopoly on your product, labor. A union uses the monopoly license to get a higher price for its product than it could get in a free exchange, resulting in “free stuff”. But over time, that price premium, and work rule burden it imposes pulverizes the target company. That’s why the per-cent of the private workforce that is unionized is heading into the single digits. Did “free stuff” work for the steel, auto, and airline workers who were unionized and are now out of jobs?
Welfare payments-lastly and most telling of the government programs. Here is where Bill Clinton is actually growing in stature in the rear view mirror, and maybe somebody at DNC headquarters should think about what he did on welfare and NAFTA.
Welfare is the ultimate in “free stuff”. You do absolutely nothing and the government “hires” you to keep doing it. Out of “compassion”. But following the roll back of welfare, an amazing thing became apparent: Being on welfare was debilitating, being off welfare was the first step to rejoining society as a contributing member. Remember the “Wellstoneian” wringing of hands? Clinton, and the Republicans, revised this classic Democratic program of welfare give away, and it benefited, not harmed, those most needy. Here lies the most telling data point that has been completely ignored by Democrats: If ending “welfare as we know it” was good for welfare recipients- doesn’t that go for the format of many other government programs? Voters apparently think so.
Bottom line for many Americans now: Political promises of free stuff don’t translate to good stuff in the real world. And it sure isn’t worth higher taxes; maybe not even worth the taxes we are paying now. And such promises, as John Kerry found out, sure don’t translate into votes.
The American electorate has flirted with ever-larger government for the past 50 years, a flirtation at odds with the founding roots of self-reliance of the nation. Now, voters are returning to those roots. When Bill Clinton said, “the era of big government is over” he was so right. Since then democrats have ignored his prophecy, and have now lost all.
Gee: What ever happened to Ramsey Clark and International Answer?
SHHHH! Don't wake a sleeping dog. They don't get it and that's OK with me...
He tried being both for and against everything, and I suspect it just confused the hell out of a lot of people. Furthermore, he tried paiting himself as a pro-military tough guy, was which one of the biggest attempted bait-and-switch jobs in American electoral history, considering that it's belied by his entire life history from the moment he got back from Vietnam. In the end, most people just didn't buy the lemon.
Other than giving Clinton too much credit, it's a good article.
Americans also do not want to turn their sovreignty over to the UN. And do not approve of activist judges overturning laws enacted by legislators they elected.
"It's the morals, stupid"
The problem with the Democratic Party is that they let their opponent define them. It's all over when that happens. You aren't going to get anywhere if the only thing you offer is "we are against everything the Republicans are for."
If we had found new wmds in Iraq, Kerry would have been lucky to get 45% of the vote. That's even with the huge propaganda lift Big Media gives all Dems. But that help is going to wane over the years as more people shun the big lib networks and rags. Their only hope is to grow more dependent Dems. In that respect they have an edge. But in the short-term future they are miserably out of step with mainstreet America. Hint to the Jane Smiley's etal of the world, America is not typified by effete, snob upper-West Side Manhattan salons or trendy places on the left coast. They better get a clue real quick if they want to be competetive in 2008. The Clinton's are sly, but they'll need more than slyness.
free stuff. who cant sell that?
Yes, there's a lot to it. But I think the writer is an economic conservative who may not understand that Bush was re-elected mainly on the moral issues by social conservatives. What he says is important, but there are other issues that are more important, to both sides.
The bottom line is abortion. Not just for pro-lifers, but for liberals as well. Nothing gets people on both sides more passionate than abortion. Clinton notably triangulated on everything else, including welfare reform, but refused to triangulate an inch on abortion. He twice publicly and flamboyantly vetoed the partial birth abortion bill. He could do nothing else, because this is the absolute bottom line for his base. Fudge on this issue, and he's gone.
The next-to-bottom-line is perversion. Kerry refused clinton's advice to triangulate and come out in favor of the anti-gay marriage movement. He couldn't do it, because it would have lost him 95% of his base.
So, yes, there are economic issues, and the Dems win office by giving out free lunches courtesy of the taxpayers. But there are also moral issues, and these cut even deeper into the fears, passions, angers, and burning dedication of the electorate on both sides.
I'd have to disagree with that thought. The democrats have their own goals and policies. The Republicans just point out what they are. Many people (the stupid ones, according to the democrats) don't like what they see and vote against them.
You are 100% correct. The one thing Dems could do help their party is reject some of the socialism and embrace left-libertarian views. This is the secular, individualist worldview: pro-choice, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, gay marriage, drug legalization, liberal on civil liberties, throw in some laissez faire notions to attract the tech sector types who live in the Pacific Northwest, those who work in the sciences, finance, the Sex and the City-ites... These monied narcissits don't want to march with anarchists unless there is some good window shopping to do along the way. They aren't environmentalists at heart. They like expensive things, reject traditional morality and religion, and have nothing in common with the hard hats, or the hippies save "My body My Right".
Could this segment grow? Maybe...it's not driven by baby boomers, but by Gen-X and Gen-Y types, who have never known anything but affluence. The liberal "Great Depression/Great Society" view doesn't resonate. Science and technology are their sacred cows, not welfare and unions.
pro-lifers must hit them upside the head up with a solid, cogent defense of life that includes fetal stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia. we are doing just that. we have to only continually speak the truth on this issue. and do it early and often.
Of course, another weakness in Dems courting this radical individualist view is the monied narcissists are not willing to defend the country. they live for themselves. they would likely be weak on defense and foreign relations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.