I'm finally getting around to writing about something that's driven me crazy for years: Daily Kossers seem to have little or no interest in, or knowledge of, or interest in acquiring knowledge of, the economy and economics.
Remember "It's the economy, stupid"?
This frustrates me because it leaves our most powerful and compelling argument, our silver bullet (especially for convincing the most important, convinceable groups, independents and "Reagan Democrats") lying on the ground, or buried under a rock.
We are the party of prosperity, and the party of fiscal prudence. The numbers prove it. The Pubs love to call themselves the party of growth, but all the empirical evidence shows exactly the opposite.
Since WW II, Democratic administrations have delivered far superior economies by pretty much every measure: GDP growth, unemployment, deficit control, the list goes on. Even the rich get richer, faster under Democrats than they do under Republicans (excepting the very rich in the last decade).
Why aren't Democrats trumpeting these "facts on the ground" to the very rooftops, at every imaginable opportunity?
Mitch McConnell said recently, "Good politics is repetition." That means simple messages, over and over. Sadly, it's not about subtlety. But happily, subtlety ain't necessary on this one.
Let me ask a simple one: looking at the dozens of economic studies of prosperous countries over the decades, does smaller government correlate with faster economic growth? Do you even know know the answer? (I mean beyond some vague notion, perhaps, maybe...)?
The answer is No. Why didn't you know that? Why doesn't everyone in this country know that? Why aren't we repeating it constantly?
Does the economy perform better under Pubs or Dems? Do you know? Can you show me the numbers? They're out there lying on the ground, ready to be repeated by every Democrat at every house party and whistle stop.
Why are progessive policies more economically efficient? There are convincing, compelling (and true) arguments out there, easily explained, that pull the rug out from under the Pub's whole economic ideology--that actually steal it and make it ours (as--based on the evidence--it should be).
Why aren't you interested? By all rights we should be owning the very issue that Pubs take to the voting bank, year in and year out.
My theory: liberals tend to be touchy-feely types who don't much cotton on to all those hard, impersonal, downright inhuman numbers. (Yes, I know, Kossers do love poll numbers, but...)
It doesn't matter what the cause is. The fact remains: there is very little discussion here of what is perhaps the most important subject around, both practically and politically: the economy, stupid. And what discussion there is gets very little attention. (I admit that some of my frustration probably arises because my posts don't get much attention. I've got as much ego as the next person. But that's not what really bothers me--it's that other people's economic posts also don't get much attention.)
In the last four weeks -- while we were, as the Pubs point out, re-engineering one sixth of our economy (by GDP) -- there was one, count 'em, one mention of "GDP" in stories: a passing, undiscussed afterthought in Cheers and Jeers.
In those four weeks there were 18 diary entries that mentioned GDP (mostly in quotations or in passing) -- out of 2031 diaries.
No wonder the Pubs own this issue. (Which--according to the numbers--is resoundingly the most important issue at the ballot box.)
I did an all-time search for Lane Kenworthy -- social economist and author of three profoundly excellent books: Egalitarian Capitalism, In Search of National Economic Success, and Jobs with Equality. He's not a big name, admittedly. But In seven years, his name has not appeared in a single story.
It did appear in two diaries over those years. Interestingly, one of those diaries includes a quote citing a Kenworthy study, concluding that "the Democrats fundamentally lost the white working class [between '75 and '90] because these voters no longer believed the Party’s central tenet—that government could restore a sense of economic security."
I can continue this indefinitely; Kossers just don't seem to be interested.
Anyone care to prove me wrong? I would be truly delighted. Here are some links to follow, cadged from an earlier diary:
All. The. Evidence. Demonstrates. The. Opposite.