Democrats, naturally, should win every election. Democracy, fundmanetally, is about majority rule, and it's fair to say that there are a lot more lower income people than wealthy in this country. Yet the Democrats haven't been winning.
There's been a lot of dicussion about why poor people vote against their interests. The Republican s have excelled at turning elections into issues of the social agenda, but I think there's a deeper point that's being missed. That in the end, it's about ego.
Have you ever had a friend in a serious financial situation that you could readily help them out of? You could loan them some money, or give it to them outright and suffer little and it would help them a lot. Yet even if that's true, they still don't want to take the money much of the time.
They won't take the money because to do so, they have to admit something about themselves they don't want to admit. They have to admit that maybe they can't make it on their own. That maybe they do need the help of others. It's a huge blow to the ego and self-esteem to have to get help from somebody no matter how few strings are attached.
The political system is this mentality writ large. The Democrats try to tell people that maybe this country has some problems. That maybe there are millions who can't afford health care and that people are falling into bankruptcy at record rates through no fault of their own. In the end though a lot of people don't want to hear it. They don't want to admit that maybe this country has some problems. They definitely don't want to admit that maybe they might really need such help. People want to solve their own problems because it gives them a sense of their own empowerment.
Social Security vs. Welfare
Take a moment and consider how Social Security does in comparison to Welfare.
Welfare is very consistently seen as a necessary evil, but definitely as an evil but just about everybody. People on it don't like that they're on it. Others see it as a needless handout prone to corruption. It's always on the edge of getting cut back.
Compare that to Social Security, which is rock solid even after the latest assault. People think it's a good thing and everybody has a grandmother or grandfather on it that would be screwed without it. It's generally seen as a good thing except by the free market extremists.
So why the difference? Because welfare attacks ego. Welfare requires you to come forward and say you just can't do it. Welfare is only for really poor people, and so there's a huge stigma. If you're on welfare, you're perceived by others, and often, yourself, as inferior. On the other hand, everybody gets Social Security. There's not a stigma and I don't have to admit to some personal failing to get it. I just get it.
The power of empowering ALL of us
I think this all points to a way to really seriously rethink progressive politics. We need to think in terms of creating programs that help everybody consistently. Programs that help only the poor are flawed, politically, for two big reasons:
- We must admit that we, as a country have some serious flaws.
- Individuals who participate must accept that they are not in total control of their own lives.
That means even if we get the program through, which is difficult, in the end it will become less than it could be for it's attack on our collective egos.
We must create programs that give EVERYBODY a boost. We must help people to help themselves. Yes it sounds cliche, but it's a critical distinction. If we think of these programs in terms of helping the downtrodden we will fail. If we think of them in terms of helping each and every person, we can succeed.