In a two party system, you can't pick and choose what groups you want to represent. Democrats represent unions, the working class, minorities, seniors, and whole bunch of other groups. And as a Democrat you oppose policies that would significantly harm those constituent groups; it's that simple. Yet, for annoying reasons the "Very Serious People" don't like this idea that parties are supposed to serve the interest of normal citizens that want access to their government. Nope, they believed that parties should ultimately serve the interest of the chattering class and elites like themselves.
This applies to both the state and national parties, but I'm going to direct my attention at the state party in New Jersey. Specifically, this column written by Tom Moran from the Newark Star Ledger. Moran tries to make the case that "liberals" should be quite happy for having Chris Christie.
Ignoring the fact that I wouldn't use the word ''liberal" to define my politics, he basically admits that Christie has harmed every democratic constituency in the state.
Yes, this one needs some explaining. Christie just pummeled the working poor, cut funds for AIDS drugs, choked off money to the city of Camden, and even moved to close down a center for sexually abused kids. So why would he be considered a savior of anything, beyond tax cuts for the rich?
Yes, why should I as a democrat/liberal be happy for having Chris Christie as my governor? Oh that's right! he took care of those unions.
Short answer: Because he got pension and health care reform done. And without that reform, these rising costs would squeeze state and local budgets harder every year, leaving little room for social spending.
Moran tries to make the dubious argument that somehow denying collective bargaining, and cutting aid to the poor will create the conditions for future progressive reforms. Yet, when he tries to point this out to "unserious" democrats like Joe Vitale, he ends up contradicting his own argument.
Democrats don’t much like to hear this argument. Sen. Joe Vitale (D-Middlesex) is a leading liberal who has spent years expanding health programs the governor just scaled back.
He concedes these reforms will make it possible to enact progressive programs down the road, but he doesn’t give Christie much credit.
“That wasn’t his intention,” Vitale says. “If it were up to him, he would use any extra money to cut taxes for the rich, not to restore the safety net for working poor and middle-class families.”
No doubt that is true. Christie wants to spend more on higher education, but even in this crisis his budget contains a new round of business tax cuts.
Okay, so in this fiscal crisis we have to cut aid to urban cities and college students but, it's okay to spends millions of tax payer dollars on things like xanadu (or the "American Dream")?
This is not hard to figure out. The reason we will not be enacting progressive reforms is not because we don't have the money; it's because the people in charge of our government have no intention of enacting progressive policies. If we were truly serious about progressive policy, we would have enacted a millionaires tax instead of balancing the budget on the backs of people that have the least amount of political power. This is not setting us up for future progressive reforms. No, this is setting us up for years of austerity and supply side economics. All of which will do nothing but harmed the long term growth of our state.
At some point, the New Jersey chattering class needs to acknowledge the fact that Christie does not care about the poor, minorities, or any other group that reliably supports democrats. He is no different from other Republicans in that his policies will ultimately benefit the rich and the well off. That's not by accident. Why else would he would be a Republican if he didn't support policies that benefit the rich?
Conversely, why does the chattering class and even some elected officials thinks its okay for Democrats to alienate constituents that reliably vote for them in the vain hope of winning the mythical "independent" voters that are really closeted partisans? This is the reason why Democrats are always inconsistent when it comes to policy and political strategy. It's not because are diversity makes it inherently difficult for us to have a consistent policy platform. It's because we don't even acknowledge or care about the groups that reliably support us. The democratic party is the closest thing we have in America to a labor party, and the sooner we acknowledge that fact, the better chance we have in pushing back against this conservative agenda.
Note: this item is from my personal blog: http://2moneythoughts.wordpress.com/
