Monday, June 13, 2005
Hiatus Break
I was doing my pre-sleep news-roundup when an article by Martin Frost caught my eye, lamenting the Democratic party's recent problems with the Middle Class, as highlighted by The Third Way's recent analysis of the 2004 election. Anyone who is even marginally interested in American politics will likely find this report as fascinating as I did:
http://www.third-way.com/news/Third%20Way%20Middle%20Class%20Report.pdf
This is more than just the typical study showing that rich people vote Republican and poor people vote Democrat. What is so interesting about this report is that it breaks down into detail what "rich" and "poor" mean. Since African-Americans vote Democratic 10-1 regardless of income, this research breaks down the white vote and finds that, to their and my surprise, the white middle class votes identically to the white rich. And they're using the real definition of middle class, too -- not the tv/movie exaggeration of a "middle class" family making six figures. No, middle class as the actual middle -- a family making $30,000-$75,000 total household income a year. That's the middle 50% of the country -- the bottom 25% of familes make less than $30,000 (the "poor"), the top 25% of families make more than $75,000 (the "rich"). By the numbers, white families in the Middle Class ($30-$75) voted for Bush over Kerry by 22 points, and white families in the Upper Class ($75+) voted for Bush over Kerry by 23 points. But here's the kicker:
The findings confirm the largest reason the Democratic party survived at all the last two elections was because of the near-monolithic voting pattern of African-Americans. Hispanics are leaving the Democratic party, and whites have already left. This report tries to look on the bright side but finds little -- essentially, despite a stated and repeated claim to appeal to "middle class values", the middle class is as equally opposed to the Democratic party as the wealthy.
What's funny is that on so many issues, many of these middle class voters actually agree with a lot of Democratic principles. They just don't seem to trust the Democrats themselves, or simply can't vote for a party so out of touch with issues of great personal importance such as gun control, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Kos (dailykos.com) writes one of my favorite liberal blogs and has been trying to work out what Democratic principles actually are, and how the Democrats can do a better job selling these issues to the middle class. I think he's on to something, though still seems a little blinded by the arrogant/self-righteous "but... but... our ideas are better! why aren't we in power!" whining of those on the left these days. Come on -- this study didn't come out of nowhere. These trends have been building for decades.
In a way, the 2000 election is to blame for this coming as a shock, since sooooo many Democrats had convinced themselves that Bush had "stolen" the election, that Gore was the rightful winner all along, and the next election everything would be "fixed." It simply never occurred to them that the country was actually moving away from their ideals (or, perhaps more accurately, that the Democratic party was moving away from the mainstream voter). So for four years, they ignored all trends and polls and studies and picked a guy they didn't even like to be their placeholder, since Bush would just fall on his own cause, well, he's a moron, right? Then Kerry got beaten by 3.5 million votes and there was no "conspiracy" to blame this time. Sure, they initially tried to fault the gay marriage bans and such, but statistically those didn't account for as much as expected, and passed nearly as overwhelmingly in Kerry states as Bush states.
So now they're starting to get it. You see prominent Dems criticizing Howard Dean, urging him to calm down and moderate. 90s ultraleftists are now crawling and scraping to the center (recent speeches of Hillary Clinton wanting to reduce abortions and being "personally pro-life" come to mind). You need to win the center and drag them towards you -- not just write them off. That's why Dean's silly comment about the Republicans being mainly a "white Christian party" infuriated so many people on both sides -- as Jon Stewart said tonight: "uh, it's a white Christian nation!" For the elected leader of the Democratic Party to basically say "hey, if you're a white Christian, vote for them", to cede the vast majority of the nation like that, was one of the most incomprehensibly stupid things to say, ever. (Yes, yes I know that's not what he meant. But is there any doubt that's how it was perceived? If someone said "oh, that organization is pretty much just black people", do you think that would be likely interpretted as "hey, if you're black come with us instead" or "hey, if you're black, go there"?)
The only way the Democratic party can survive into the next decade is to win back the white Christians who have abandoned them so completely (well, at least above household incomes above the poverty line.) What's the alternative strategy -- merely increasing the already maxed out percentage of the black vote and getting a higher percentage of the ultra-poor? Yeah, that'll raise funds.
For better or for worse, I like the two party system. I think government works best when balanced. I think the reason the 90s worked so well was equally due to Clinton as well as the Republican House and Senate. So even though I voted (a bit grudgingly) for Bush and hold some Republican points of view, I'm not "gloating" at the problems with the Dems here. Because I see quite clearly that the further the Democratic party falls, the more arrogant and unbalanced the Republican leadership becomes. Absolute power, and all that. Does anyone really think one-party control -- either party -- is a good idea? No. So, Dems: stop whining, win back whitey, and we'll all benefit.
I was doing my pre-sleep news-roundup when an article by Martin Frost caught my eye, lamenting the Democratic party's recent problems with the Middle Class, as highlighted by The Third Way's recent analysis of the 2004 election. Anyone who is even marginally interested in American politics will likely find this report as fascinating as I did:http://www.third-way.com/news/Third%20Way%20Middle%20Class%20Report.pdf
This is more than just the typical study showing that rich people vote Republican and poor people vote Democrat. What is so interesting about this report is that it breaks down into detail what "rich" and "poor" mean. Since African-Americans vote Democratic 10-1 regardless of income, this research breaks down the white vote and finds that, to their and my surprise, the white middle class votes identically to the white rich. And they're using the real definition of middle class, too -- not the tv/movie exaggeration of a "middle class" family making six figures. No, middle class as the actual middle -- a family making $30,000-$75,000 total household income a year. That's the middle 50% of the country -- the bottom 25% of familes make less than $30,000 (the "poor"), the top 25% of families make more than $75,000 (the "rich"). By the numbers, white families in the Middle Class ($30-$75) voted for Bush over Kerry by 22 points, and white families in the Upper Class ($75+) voted for Bush over Kerry by 23 points. But here's the kicker:
The economic tipping point -- the household income level at which whites were more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats -- was $23,700.Which, the report points out, is only $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four.
The findings confirm the largest reason the Democratic party survived at all the last two elections was because of the near-monolithic voting pattern of African-Americans. Hispanics are leaving the Democratic party, and whites have already left. This report tries to look on the bright side but finds little -- essentially, despite a stated and repeated claim to appeal to "middle class values", the middle class is as equally opposed to the Democratic party as the wealthy.
What's funny is that on so many issues, many of these middle class voters actually agree with a lot of Democratic principles. They just don't seem to trust the Democrats themselves, or simply can't vote for a party so out of touch with issues of great personal importance such as gun control, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Kos (dailykos.com) writes one of my favorite liberal blogs and has been trying to work out what Democratic principles actually are, and how the Democrats can do a better job selling these issues to the middle class. I think he's on to something, though still seems a little blinded by the arrogant/self-righteous "but... but... our ideas are better! why aren't we in power!" whining of those on the left these days. Come on -- this study didn't come out of nowhere. These trends have been building for decades.
In a way, the 2000 election is to blame for this coming as a shock, since sooooo many Democrats had convinced themselves that Bush had "stolen" the election, that Gore was the rightful winner all along, and the next election everything would be "fixed." It simply never occurred to them that the country was actually moving away from their ideals (or, perhaps more accurately, that the Democratic party was moving away from the mainstream voter). So for four years, they ignored all trends and polls and studies and picked a guy they didn't even like to be their placeholder, since Bush would just fall on his own cause, well, he's a moron, right? Then Kerry got beaten by 3.5 million votes and there was no "conspiracy" to blame this time. Sure, they initially tried to fault the gay marriage bans and such, but statistically those didn't account for as much as expected, and passed nearly as overwhelmingly in Kerry states as Bush states.
So now they're starting to get it. You see prominent Dems criticizing Howard Dean, urging him to calm down and moderate. 90s ultraleftists are now crawling and scraping to the center (recent speeches of Hillary Clinton wanting to reduce abortions and being "personally pro-life" come to mind). You need to win the center and drag them towards you -- not just write them off. That's why Dean's silly comment about the Republicans being mainly a "white Christian party" infuriated so many people on both sides -- as Jon Stewart said tonight: "uh, it's a white Christian nation!" For the elected leader of the Democratic Party to basically say "hey, if you're a white Christian, vote for them", to cede the vast majority of the nation like that, was one of the most incomprehensibly stupid things to say, ever. (Yes, yes I know that's not what he meant. But is there any doubt that's how it was perceived? If someone said "oh, that organization is pretty much just black people", do you think that would be likely interpretted as "hey, if you're black come with us instead" or "hey, if you're black, go there"?)
The only way the Democratic party can survive into the next decade is to win back the white Christians who have abandoned them so completely (well, at least above household incomes above the poverty line.) What's the alternative strategy -- merely increasing the already maxed out percentage of the black vote and getting a higher percentage of the ultra-poor? Yeah, that'll raise funds.
For better or for worse, I like the two party system. I think government works best when balanced. I think the reason the 90s worked so well was equally due to Clinton as well as the Republican House and Senate. So even though I voted (a bit grudgingly) for Bush and hold some Republican points of view, I'm not "gloating" at the problems with the Dems here. Because I see quite clearly that the further the Democratic party falls, the more arrogant and unbalanced the Republican leadership becomes. Absolute power, and all that. Does anyone really think one-party control -- either party -- is a good idea? No. So, Dems: stop whining, win back whitey, and we'll all benefit.
