Posted on 09/06/2006 6:40:42 PM PDT by MNJohnnie
All things considered, Democrats would rather be talking about the economy; they think it is favorable ground for them. Yet Democrats are often undone by talking about the economy — more precisely, by how they talk about the economy.
That is the argument of a persuasive paper by Anne Kim and Jim Kessler for the moderate Democrat outfit Third Way. They note that, for a self-styled “party of the middle class,” the Democrats don’t win many middle-class voters. Democrats tell themselves bedtime stories about why this is so, including the thesis advanced by Thomas Frank, author of What’s Wrong With Kansas?, that middle-class voters get lured into voting against their own economic interests by the GOP cultural message; or the argument that Republicans scare the middle class out of voting its bread-and-butter concerns with the issue of national security.
The evidence suggests, to the contrary, that what’s “wrong” with Kansas is that it doesn’t buy the Democrats’ economic message. Kim and Kessler define the middle class as voters with household incomes between $30,000 and $75,000. Kerry lost it by 6 points, and by an astonishing 22 points among the white voters who “represent one-third of the voting population and three-fourths of the middle class.” The tipping point at which a white voter became more likely to vote in a congressional race for a Republican over a Democrat was $23,700 — “not that far above the poverty line.”
In 2000, national security didn’t loom large, but Al Gore still lost the middle class by 2 points and the white middle class by 15 points. In 1996, when Bill Clinton had defused hot-button issues by signing welfare-reform and tough-on-crime initiatives, congressional Democrats still lost middle-class and white-middle-class voters by 3 points and 12 points, respectively. It was in that year that Bill Clinton had the best Democratic performance among middle-class voters in three decades by winning them by a mere one point.
For the Democrats, the Dust Bowl is ever-blowing. Their economic message is perpetually premised on pessimism and decline (John Kerry: “Our great middle class is shrinking.”), together with promises of economic security and the flaying of big business (Al Gore: “Powerful interests stand in your way.”). None of this resonates with a public that knows it lives in a rich, wide-open country.
How does the Democratic message fall flat? Kim and Kessler count the ways. The public doesn’t buy heedless pessimism; 80 percent believe it is “still possible to start out poor in this country, work hard and become rich.” It prefers opportunity over economic security; only about a quarter of Americans say that they prefer a low-income, high-security job. It doesn’t like corporation-bashing; only 27 percent say big business is the biggest threat to America’s future, compared with 61 percent who say big government is.
Programmatically, Democrats essentially offer the middle class a nullity. Kim and Kessler run through the greatest hits of Democratic policy. The average family income for Pell Grant recipients is $19,460. Head Start is for poor children. A married family of four can make a maximum of only $37,263 to still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (to the tune of $1). Only 2.7 percent of American workers make the minimum wage, and half of them are under age 25. Giving health care to the uninsured affects only 15.7 percent of Americans, and many of them aren’t middle class.
Kim and Kessler recommend a Clinton-style, hopeful message focused on promoting middle-class aspiration through making college more affordable, helping working families, and encouraging savings and investment. Democrats are indeed calling for a college-tuition tax break this year, but otherwise are advocating their usual farrago of corporate-hating, minimum-wage-boosting doom-and-gloom. It might work, given the anti-Republican political climate. Over the long term, however, pessimistic, anti-corporate Democrats will continue to be alienated from middle-class voters, and will need still more excuses as to why they can’t reach them.
IMHO, the Dems only see opportunity in our misery...
Middle class voters have no real reason to vote democrat when it comes to economic issues. Bad tax policy, anti-business stances and welfare for people who don't work while they struggle to get ahead.
GWB and the current Congress is no friend of fiscal conservatives when it comes to spending but their tax policies have shown a profound respect for people who get up and go to work every day.
What's good news for America is bad for Democrats, what's bad news for America is good Democrats.
It didn't have to be this way, but it is the way they have chosen.
After my divorce, I set up seperate trusts for each of my three kids for their educations. Bush's tax reduction was a blessing for all three of them, for the drop in capital gains taxes helped them out BIG TIME.
During the last election, I wrote to the three of them and explained this to them(the clueless three) and said vote for Bush. They may have?
But to suggest that these tax breaks were for the rich is bizzare. My kids are not rich, tax smart, but not rich.
Dems are the party of union thugs, race-baiters, the lazy, the stupid, and the willfully ignorant. What's a pity is that this is 40% of the population.
You are correct.
They aren't the party of the middle class, but unfortunately, they've imported a lot of poor voters from Mexico, so that the middle class no longer has the power that it once had.
The Dims are also aborting themselves out ov existence.
The middle class voters know that the Dems consider you rich if you’re not on welfare, and then the Dems are coming for your money.
Democrat Third Way = Neo-Communist.
Maybe it was Clinton's statement that he may have gone too far with tax increases.
I think its little things like 401k rules where a sudden windfall makes you a "highly compensated employee" and they cut the maximum percentage of pay a middle class person can put into the 401k, thus causing a larger tax burden for a year and less sheltered savings. If you look at this abberation, it only screws the middle class, because truely highly compensated employees put in the maximum allowed for a 401k anyway.
I also think that most people in flyover country (excluding the ones that still continue to put Harkin in the Senate) got and understood the Reagan message. They know that tax cuts benefit everyone, because the increased economic activity means more tax revenues for Government and the individual.
The current crop of Republicans in the House and Senate are squandering their majority status (6 years of wasted time). They are forgetting the Reagan years. It may cost them.
Mike Dewhine sent me something the other day talking about how Sherrod Brown was liberal this and liberal that. He is. But I pointed out in my no money for you statement that is you take out a few thisses, Dewhine looks like a liberal too. I'll vote for Dewhine, but to get a campaign contribution he's gonna have to stand up for all Conservative judicial appointments. I consider Voinovichy a lost cause RINO.
The Dems have been found out to be liars. I have many friends and family that make just above poverty and they all vote Repub. They know that when a Dem says Middle Class they mean the low class sit at home and don't wanna work Class for the most part. They do not want help from the Government they want the Government to LEAVE THEM ALONE.
This is absolutely terrific news. It shows that most people still strongly believe in America and American values. I thought so. It's good to see numbers attached.
Well, you're trolling for them, aren't you?
Actually, only about 10% are race-baiters, lazy, stupid, willfully ignorant, union thugs. The rest are exceedingly wealthy, out of touch, elitist, egotistical people who think the best way to help a bum is pat him on the head and hand him a dollar.
Another problem is that they keep misunderestimating the middle class. Two public school teachers, or a senior level cop and a firedepartment administrator make $100,000. A lot of small businessmen and business women with a few employees make more than that working 80 hour weeks. None of them would regard themselves as anything other than middle class. None of them are in a position to quit tomorrow and live comfortably the rest of their lives.
One economist - whose name I've forgotten - published a chart showing ranges of income vs age. Of course it does a lot to undo "class envy" because you discover the normal course of advancement with age will equalize things a lot, and the real question is whether you are way out of kilter with your age/experience group.
The democrats just simple-mindedly miss all of that.
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.