The GOP -- party of the little guy

National Post ^ | June 18 2003 | Hugo Gurdon

[knighthawk]

WASHINGTON - On the front page of Friday's New York Observer was an intriguing story about the New Democratic Network, a group of party activists who want to shape policy and to raise enough "soft money" to give the Democrats a shot at retaking the White House and Congress.

American politics has been in ferment since the 2002 mid-term elections. It was then that the law changed and banned parties from raising anything but "hard money" -- direct donations from individual Americans, up to a maximum of US$2,000.

All manner of other organizations are now rushing into the vacuum left by the parties' retreat. The New Democratic Network is one of them. It will hold a meeting in a Washington hotel today where, according to the Observer, its leaders "will make a bold pronouncement: They have discovered the political formula that could save the Democratic Party from long-term minority status."

Well, we'll see.

The thing that really caught my eye, though, was a sentence later in the story: "Out of power in Washington and without a hope of competing with Republicans for smaller hard-money contributions, Democrats are going to rely on this largely untested and disparate array of entities."

Why is that? Why do Democrats have no hope of competing for small donations?

Everyone knows it's true; Republicans enjoy a three-to-one advantage in contributions from individual members of the public. The gap has historically been narrowed but not closed by six-figure gifts to the Democrats of unregulated "soft money" from the super rich.

Why would the party that putatively stands up for Joe Sixpack get its money from high rollers, while the party supposedly in the pocket of special interests and big business get so much from the little guy.

Strange, no? Interesting, surely?

In which case, why are the causes of this inversion so rarely examined or even alluded to? Why does the odd phenomenon sit their, an elephant in the room, ignored by most the media.

The disparity in hard money giving is explicable enough; it is because the affinity between the Democrats and the little guy is more apparent than real -- a myth that no amount of reporting dynamite can explode.

The Democrats, for example, woo organized labour, which seeks trade protection (pushing up costs to consumers), a higher minimum wage (making it harder for the unemployed to get jobs) and more social programs (meaning more public sector workers and higher taxes).

This is dressed in the clothes of compassion, but ordinary Americans, the supposed beneficiaries of this compassion, would rather buy cheap groceries and manufactures, get a job, and keep more of their money in their pockets than have Uncle Sam spend it for them on worthy causes.

So why isn't there more media curiosity about this and its corollary -- the Democrats' inability to attract hard money donations.

The answer was brilliantly elucidated by James Bowman in the latest issue of The New Criterion, a conservative cultural magazine. He examines the "spurious objectivity" of the media, in which supposedly objective reports routinely ignore conservative arguments. It is so much easier than answering them.

Thus, Paul Krugman in The New York Times treats the Bush administration as, in Bowman's words, "merely mendacious and corrupt, without even the pretense of a serious case to make on behalf of their misguided policies." And Tim Russert, on his NBC show, Meet The Press, treats as axiomatic the idea that tax cuts lead to bigger budget deficits. It's so much less complicated than acknowledging the argument that tax cuts stimulate the economy and eliminate deficits.

And so it is with the idea that the Democrats represent the little guy while the Republicans merely grant favours to the rich. If you treat this myth as axiomatic, you can keep asking questions of the when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife variety.

"Is it good economic policy to grow the federal deficit with tax breaks for the rich?," sounds like a reasonable and appropriately tough question. But a genuinely objective one would be: "Why do you believe tax cuts will help the economy and close the deficit over the long term?"

So, the next time you hear or read a Democrat suggesting that President Bush's policy is "leave no millionaire behind," ask yourself a question. If he's inflicting harm on ordinary Americans, why do ordinary Americans give his party three times as much money as they give to their supposed champions on the left?

Hugo Gurdon is editor-in-chief of The Hill.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[areafiftyone]

Party of the Little Guy

IT IS NOT THE PARTY OF TOM DASCHLE - NO NO NO!!!

[miltonfried]

Well, I agree with this article's comments about the danger to the public interest posed by special interest groups such as trade unions that generally push policies that favor their members at the exepnse of the rest of the population. However, the stuff about campaign finance and the press is not entirely accurate. Yes, its true that hard money contributions comes from small donors, political individuals, but they are only small compared to soft money donors (Unions, Corporations, etc.). Hard money donors are not your average "joe sixpack", as this piece implies. It is unlikely that Joe Sixpack would be willing to donate hundreds or thousands of dollars to a politician or a party. Rather, they are people of considerable means, members of the upper middle class, small businessmen (a man with a successful small business can do quite well for himself) and yes, some of the rich (not to say that every or even most rich folks are Republicans, far from it). As for the media, I think its liberal bias is frequently overestimated. The issue of bias is more complicated than many on the right or left think and the prejudices of individual pundits should not be taken as evidence of more widespread bias. The political coverage of most media outlets is often not of the best quality, but I think this is more the product of laziness, ignorance and attempts at being evenhanded rather than actuall bias. In addition, we have a good many more ideological outlets to counter any liberal bias in the press.

[SunStar]

It is unlikely that Joe Sixpack would be willing to donate hundreds or thousands of dollars to a politician or a party.

You're missing the point. Hard money donations from individuals are limited to $2000.00 (personal) $5000.00 (couple).

[DPB101]

Somebody will have the exact figures but Bush raised a ton of money in 2000 and his average donor gave around fifty bucks. That is joe sixpack. The most anyone could give in hard money in 2000 was a grand.

Democrats are the ones who--before CFR killed it--got the bulk of the $250,000 checks. Do a search on donors. you will find most of the biggest are Democrats.

[vbmoneyspender]

So, the next time you hear or read a Democrat suggesting that President Bush's policy is "leave no millionaire behind," ask yourself a question. If he's inflicting harm on ordinary Americans, why do ordinary Americans give his party three times as much money as they give to their supposed champions on the left?

I know wbat the Democrat answer would be -- "Because the American people are stupid -- that's why they need us."

[malia]

The morping and tweening dems - they will never get it because if they did, they would be Republicans.

"The Democrats, for example, woo organized labour, which seeks trade protection (pushing up costs to consumers), a higher minimum wage (making it harder for the unemployed to get jobs) and more social programs (meaning more public sector workers and higher taxes). "

1. Higher consumer goods = more tax revenue. 2. higher wage = more tax revenue. = $$$$ for Federal Programs.

[CarryaBigStick]

President Bush's policy is "leave no millionaire behind,"

Great! This is an outstanding policy in light of the fact that I hope to be a millionaire someday soon - as a result of my own hard work.

[facedown]

And Tim Russert, on his NBC show, Meet The Press, treats as axiomatic the idea that tax cuts lead to bigger budget deficits. It's so much less complicated than acknowledging the argument that tax cuts stimulate the economy and eliminate deficits.

"Knowing that Tim Russert--the host of NBC's Meet the Press--worked for two liberal Democrats from New York (Senator Pat Moynihan and Governor Mario Cuomo) helps us understand his perspective."

bt: brain terminal, though it's common knowledge.

[miltonfried]

Well, I went and checked it out. According to opensecrets.org, which is an excellent clearing house for campaign finace information, President Bush recieved less than 11% of his funds from individual donations smaller than $200. Its more than likely that its not joe sixpack contributing the rest.

[DPB101]

In the last election cycle, 9 of the top 10 donors gave to Democrats. Haim Saban gave over $9 million. Fred Eychaner, over $7 million, AFSCME gave over $6.6 million and Service Employees International gave nearly $5 million.

Because of those large donors, Democrats raised $245 million to the Republicans $250 million.

But now soft money is banned. The most anyone can give is $2,000 (up from $1,000 in 2002).

In 2000, Bush raised about $100 million. Only 60% gave the maximum amount ($1,000).

The Democrats do not have a small donor base anywhere near what the GOP has. In the past, Democrats got their money from Hollywood and liberal CEOs. Those days are gone.

Don't take my word for it. Turn on TV. Democrats were on all night complaining about how they have to widen their donor base to be competitive.

Source