I read the following thought provoking New York Times article by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg Why Voters Tune Out The Democrats.
I've asked myself for some time why in the face of an economic and enviornmental crisis would anybody with less than a six figure income vote Republican? Why can Republicans turn the current economic crisis into a war against public workers and Democrats can't turn it into a war on corporate America? Why can Republicans tap into people's anger but we can't especially since we are the party of the "little guy?"
In regards to the economy and the enviornment and every issue, isn't any Democrat on his or her worst day better than any Republican on his or her best day? That is something I very strongly believe. Why don't more people see that?
Well, in a nutshell
In analyzing these polls in the United States, I see clearly that voters feel ever more estranged from government — and that they associate Democrats with government. If Democrats are going to be encumbered by that link, they need to change voters’ feelings about government. They can recite their good plans as a mantra and raise their voices as if they had not been heard, but voters will not listen to them if government is disreputable.
And this
In earlier periods, confidence in the economy and rising personal incomes put limits on voter discontent. Today, a dispiriting economy combined with a well-developed critique of government leaves government not just distrusted but illegitimate.
How do we restore people's faith in government? His answer is here
“We have to start by changing Washington. ... The middle class won’t catch a break until we confront the power of money and the lobbyists.”
In the article, Greenberg explains that surveys indicate people believe politicians and CEO's are “piggybacking off each other.” In other words, people believe government is no longer of the people, by the people, and for the people but of corporate America, by corporate America, and for corporate America. We have to change that, before we can expect a large majority to buy into an activist government that is a true champion for the middle class and the poor. When we do that, people will begin to listen.
Yes, the Democrats passed the stimulus package and the Affordable Care Act. And we can correctly argue the stimulus package may have prevented an economic free fall. But the public isn't connecting the dots. They can't connect the stimulus package to any improvement in their daily life. True, their life may have been worse without it but people usually don't see that side of things. The Affordable Care Act? That has yet to be fully implemented. And I did and continue to strongly support ACA. It isn't perfect, but was what we had.
During the New Deal and in the 1950's and 1960's, people could connect the dots a bit better. We had an independent and not a corporate owned media that tried to sugar coat its economic poison such as free trade being good for people. The mainstream economists back then were mostly Keynesian who believed a budget deficit equaled an increase in private wealth and was good for the economy. The economic debate over the last 30 years has been more between Reaganomics and Rubinomics. In reading the article, I'm convinced the public today would easily buy into Keynesian economics if we could show people a budget deficit increases average Joe and Jane private wealth, not corporate wealth. The Keynesian concept a budget deficit means an increase in private average Joe and Jane wealth is actually just as simple to explain as the false frame a budget deficit is bad for the economy because it is no different than a family overspending and going deep into debt. But it would need to repeated over and over until it sinks in.
Also, when Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and public works programs passed under FDR, people connected. Note I also believe part of the problem today is people take the New Deal for granted, and don't understand what America would be like if Republicans are allowed to further dismantle it. Third, labor unions were much stronger and more prevalent. The Unions reminded millions of people which party buttered their bread. Today, the Republicans have accomplished something similar using evangelical churches and christian TV and radio. This infrastructure incorrectly reminds millions of people Republicans are the party of "moral values." And unlike government, people do feel connected to their churches so they listen.
In the article, Stan Greenberg notes the growth of the current conservative movement began in the fall of 2008 as a reaction to the Wall Street bailout. This just fed into the belief government helps the big guy, not the little guy.
Of course, I'm not qualified to debate if the bank bailout was necessary or not. If the world economy would have collapsed without it, then the Democrats had to continue the program. I will say the political ramifications were not good.
In the article, Stan Greenberg does address what the Democratic Party should do. But I'm going to digress a bit here. The rest of this diary is about brainstorming on what I think or what you think (in the comments) we should do.
The current political culture of excess corporate influence (corporate fascism some would say) has developed over the last 30 years. That's not going to be torn down quickly or easily. No President can do it without enormous help and support. That's even harder because our election cycles are so short term. And yes any attempt to tear it down will create problems for the Democratic Party as these powerful groups donate even more heavily to Republicans and begin to spend millions of dollars on real nasty campaign ads. But are we near a breaking point where the public is so disgusted with the influence of big money, that being connected to it is a huge political liability?
Franklin Roosevelt was correct when he said government by organized business is just as bad as government by organized mob. That's what we need to bring out. Yes, I do agree with Stan Greenberg we need to propose lobbying reform. I agree we need to advocate publicly financed elections, equal and free campaign ads, transparency, and yes a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
We need to build a political infrastructure as conservatives did. When trickle down economics was discredited and almost all mainstream economists were Keynesians, conservatives didn't give up. They built think tanks and media that would promote trickle down economics. We need to do the same now but this is a long term move. Yes, Keynesian economics is simple to understand but we first need a media and an infrastructure to get the message out.
But there's more. We need to talk about tax reform and programs that truly help the average Joe and Jane. What about ending farm subsidies for corporate owned farms while also talking about unemployment reform that would include temporary workers, and the small self-employed person? We have so many more temporary workers and small self-employed people than we had a generation ago. How many millions of people could connect with that??
How about making it so temporary workers and the self-employed could buy into the same health insurance plan members of Congress get based on a sliding scale?
How about allowing displaced workers over age 50 into Medicare? And fund this by a tax on companies that export jobs and created this national disgrace?
We need to promote fair trade, not free trade. The U.S. has lost its manufacturing base. We are also sending more and more service jobs overseas. The Republicans can tap into people's patriotism and get the support to support unjust wars. They tap into people's patriotism on a flag burning amendment. Why can't the Democrats tap into people's patriotism on something as simple as keeping jobs here?
In regard to tax simplification, yes the public feels the tax system favors the rich and is far too complex. I notice progressives rarely talk about tax simplification so we've succeeded this ground it so we have succeeded this ground to the Republicans. Have we bought into the false frame that tax simplification automatically means a flat regressive tax that benefits the rich? No- the tax system isn't complex because we have graduated tax rates. The tax system is complex because there are so many different kinds of transactions, deductions, and exclusions. There's no reason we couldn't simplify the tax code, yet make it more not less progressive. And this would bring on the howls by people like Grover Norquist who use tax simplification as a way to sugar coat a big tax cut for the rich.
The best way to simplify taxes is to make it so fewer Americans have to fill out any tax forms at all. But that would involve eliminating the income tax on lower income people, and implementing more taxes that third parties pay such as taxes on carbon emissions, etc. Could that be structured so it is progressive? I talked about that a bit in this diary Carbon Taxes, Clean Energy, WPA Jobs, and a Two For One. I still think those ideas are good and relevant.
In summary, no political era lasts forever. The current conservative era began in the late 1970s and has run its course. I am fully convinced trickle down economics will be replaced with something else. Why? That's because trickle down economics and free trade has failed to solve the country's problems and can not solve them. And much as the Republicans want to, they can't fool all the people all the time. So yes I believe the surf is up for the Republicans. Note the New Deal Keynesian era replaced the laissez-faire era of the 1920's. After the Great Depression, the public rejected Wall Street economics. Likewise, the stagflation of the 1970s got unfairly blamed on the Democrats and Keynesian economics. That led to the current era which will inevitably end.
These are all indications the Democratic Party is about to and needs to reinvent itself again. Yes, to those discouraged I do believe the Democratic Party is slowly moving to the left. We just need to figure out how to connect, how to do it more shrewed in the current political culture. Yes, the last time the Democratic Party reinvented itself was after the 1984 election. Al From and others got together and decided the old New Deal coalition could no longer win and they decided to reinvent the party - taking up many positions Harry Truman and FDR wouldn't recognize such as free trade, welfare reform, and the like. But Clinton won and Mondale lost badly. But is it time to reinvent the party again? What it is replaced with is up to us!!!