Posted on 04/18/2005 6:02:11 AM PDT by bitt
By all accounts, the presidential inauguration celebration of Gen. Andrew Jackson was a wild affair. When Gen. Jackson of Tennessee defeated John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts in the election of 1828, the modern Democratic Party was born. That election, which has been described as the first triumph of the common man in American politics, pitted the moneyed interests of the Northeast against the rural interests of farmers and laborers from the South and West.
But somewhere in the last century and a half, the whiskey-slamming, farm-working, back-slapping Democrats of old have been replaced by green-tea-sippin', modern-art-buying, NPR-listening, progressive liberals. Massachusetts millionaires, academic experts and Hollywood crazies have taken control of the "people's party." Urban snobbery has somehow replaced rural pragmatism as the dominant Democratic creed.
At the same time, country club Republicans are a dying breed, or at the very least, what is left of them now play second-fiddle to NASCAR Republicans when conservative politicians go vying for support.
As a result, the old perception of Republicans as the party of the wealthy and Democrats as the party of the common man is now about as accurate as the CIA's weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the last few decades have revealed a fundamental realignment of the electoral map and a new wave of party leadership. Entire blocs of "common man" voters - police officers, construction workers, housewives, rural residents and military veterans - have drifted to the Republican Party. Simultaneously, large portions of America's wealthy elite - trial lawyers, media moguls, academics, Hollywood executives, even Wall Street financiers - have begun to vote Democratic. Jonathan Riches Columnist
Research from the Ipsos-Reid polling firm suggests that these perceptions are more than just allegorical. In counties that voted strongly for George W. Bush in the 2000 elections, only 7 percent of voters earned at least $100,000, while 38 percent had household incomes below $30,000. In pro-Gore counties, 14 percent of voters made more than $100,000, while 29 percent earned less than $30,000. Both parties have their fat cats, but this data suggests that wealthy Americans now vote Democratic over Republican by a 2-to-1 margin.
Even among the wealthiest political donors, Democrats are still more likely to outnumber Republicans. One good example is trial lawyers - who contribute some of the largest sums to political campaigns. By the summer of 2004, law partners had donated $112 million to the presidential political candidates. By contrast, the entire oil and gas industry donated only $15 million. And, as should be no surprise, 71 percent of the money from wealthy lawyers goes to Democrats, while only 29 percent goes to Republicans.
The divide, however, is more than just economic.
One glance at an electoral map from the 2004 election indicates that Democrats may have gained the wealthy, but they have lost the heartland. Those maps show a red expanse of Bush states across most of America, with Kerry states along the coasts and the Great Lakes.
John Kerry, in fact, is the perfect embodiment of the new takeover of the Democratic Party by rich elites. If elected, Sen. Kerry would have been the richest president in the history of the United States. His Senate and Democratic colleagues, Jon Corzine and Jay Rockefeller, are also among some of the wealthiest politicians in Washington.
However, according to an article by Karl Zinsmeister of The American Enterprise: "It's not as if the Democrats have taken over the top of the socio-economic ladder and the Republicans the bottom. Rather, Democrats dominate the very upper and lowest rungs, while Republicans find their following in the middle."
So, what happened to the party of Andy Jackson, John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman? When did the Democrats begin to alienate the apolitical moderates and become so, well, elitist? How is it that the parties have switched positions on the common man-rich guy divide?
Of course, not all Democrats have been drawn to this liberal elitism. There are still many moderates within the party and many more outside of it with leftward leanings. If the Democratic Party is ever going to appeal to mainstream America again, it is up to those individuals to take the party back from the elitists who have permeated its ranks.
In the meantime, we would all be wise to take our respective political compasses in for a little readjustment. And, if the Democrats have learned from the last round of elections, they will do the same.
Jonathan Riches is a first-year law student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu
Interesting stuff, but like most articles about the metamophosis of the parties, it fudges a few details to make the change look too black and white. For example, it ignores the fact that until the mid-twentieth century or so, blacks voted Republican.
Interesting but I would take issue with the statement about John Kerry being rich. The thing he's married to has all the money, Johnny boy is just along for a free ride.
As you say, a number of inaccuracies. Kerry would have been the fifth or so wealthiest pres, if inflation is taken into account.
However, if only the money HE actually worked for was used, he would probably be the poorest!
Rich bottom-feeders everyone of them.
These liberal Democrats may know how to make short-term money, but not one of them can wage a war that instills freedom in people around the world. These are the same people who would be the first to jump ship if this country fell apart.
If inflation is taken into account, wouldn't Jimmy Carter be the King of the Hill? ;^)
If anyone takes an objective look at Andrew Jackson as President, he was an absolute DISASTER for the young American Republic. Ol' Hickory took on most of the worst attributes of Napoleon Bonaparte, and lacked the social graces. He hated the native American Indians with an intensity that could not be mustered today by Robert Byrd against the "mongrel race" of Negros (Byrd's own words). Many of the wars against the Eastern tribes of Indians, and the great saga of the "Trail of Tears", were all instigated and carried out either directly by, or on the behalf of, none other than Jackson himself. The banking system was demolished, and replaced with a vastly fragmented loose combine of regional banks, none of which could muster much clout for the principles of capitalistic expansion. This makes it all the more surprising that Jackson's image is on the $20 bill, because he strove mightily to destroy the value of the dollar as currency everywhere.
If the Civil War tore at the fabric of the Union, Jackson was the one who set up the stress points and put the strains into motion. The slavery issue would probably have been settled with a compromise much sooner, if he had not insisted on preserving the sharp delineations between the industrial North and the agrian South.
How to people come to decisions about what side or other they're sticking with? The media has been "telling" people what to think for years. The decline in traditional media is on a parellel with the decline of the traditional Democrat.
9/11 was a milestone, not in the decline itself, but in the masses actually noticing "hey - something's wrong here".
this author is a first year law student, and tells it like he sees it...another example of the Y generation learning and deciding what is right for them.
You are right; 9/11 was a wake up call for those who still believed that they were getting honest reporting from the BigMedia. Election2000 turned many of us away, but 9/11 cemented it...
if he isn't a freeper YET, he should become one...
Considering it's not his money but his wife's I wouldn't even put him THAT high on the list.
With the possible exception of Zell Miller I take exception to this. There are no moderate democrats. They are all pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. You can tell by the fact that they call themselves democrats and support that party of death and perversion
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.