Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Campaign Spot

Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty.


Print   |  Text
 

What Do Democrats Really Stand For Today?

The Tuesday edition of the Morning Jolt features more on Barney Frank’s surprise retirement, some explosive news out of Iran, and this discussion in the shift in the thinking of the Democratic Party:

Democrats to White Working-Class Voters: Drop Dead

Over in the New York Times, Thomas Edsall says that Obama can lose the white working-class vote and be okay in 2012: “For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class. All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”

At Red State, Moe Lane marvels at the Democrats’ shift in philosophy:

Whether you agreed with the New Deal program or not, you could always actually define it in terms that were internally self-consistent. Broadly speaking, it was a broad agreement among various groups that America’s most pressing problems could be managed and ameliorated on a broad scale through ‘expert’ and judicious government intervention; and that such intervention dampened the uncertainty and anxiety that might otherwise cause societal panics and economic dislocations. Again: you don’t have to agree with that (I don’t) to recognize that it existed as a coherent policy.

But now that has gone by the wayside, to be replaced with a system that… apparently plans to trade support for permanent government dependency programs for minorities, in exchange for legislating the fringe progressive morality of affluent urbanites. Aside from the utter lack of an unifying intellectual or moral framework to such an arrangement, it’s unclear exactly who benefits less from it; while it’s certainly not in minority voters’ long, medium, or short-term interests to become a permanent underclass, it’s not exactly clear that minority voters are even particularly ready to vote for a progressive social policy (as an examination of recent reversals in same-sex marriage movement in California and Maryland will readily attest). But then, that is not really the goal, is it? The goal is to re-elect President Obama – which is something that poor African-American and rich liberal voters both wish to do – and if that is accomplished, then anything else is extra. Which is just as well, because nobody really expects Obama to have much in the way of coat-tails this go-round.

Ah, but look, today’s Democratic party isn’t really about addressing economic opportunity or even dealing with America’s most pressing problems – for starters, many Democrats are not persuaded in the slightest that the annual deficit, accumulating debt, and ticking time bomb of entitlements are pressing problems at all. If Democrats really expected that electing Obama would solve problems, they would be angrier with him than we are. No, for most Democrats, their political party is about a cultural identity. That identity is heavily based on not being one of those people, i.e., Republicans or conservatives.

As far as I can tell, there are three inviolate principles in the modern Democratic Party:

  • Any form of consensual sexual behavior is to be accepted if not celebrated; with that central belief comes the policy abortion on demand for any woman at any age free from parental consent for minors; free contraceptives in schools, gay marriage, and the insistence that Bill Clinton’s lying under oath about Monica Lewinsky didn’t count because it was about sex. Complaining about explicit sexual content in pop culture reaching an audience that isn’t ready for it – i.e., Tipper Gore in the 1980s – is the sign of the square and the prude. As no less an expert political philosopher than Meghan McCain told us, “the GOP doesn’t understand sex” and has “an unhealthy attitude about sex and desire.” (Republicans are supposedly repressed and sexless, even though they generally have more children.)
  • America is a deeply racist country, even though you have to look far and wide to find anyone who openly expresses the belief that one race is superior to others. Everybody recoils when Imus says something snide and obnoxious about the Rutgers womens’ basketball team. Racism is never found in the central tenet of Affirmative Action, that minorities must be judged by a lower standard, or in the until-recently all-white lineup of MSNBC or the claims that Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain are Uncle Toms or in the career of Robert Byrd. The fundamental belief of the Democratic Party is that racism remains a serious problem in America today and that the problem is found entirely in the GOP.
  • Credentials are to be respected, and any scoffing or skepticism at, say, the Ivy Leagues is a sign of anti-intellectualism, ignorance, jealousy and insecurity. Those who go there are indeed the best and the brightest, and undergraduate and graduate degrees from those schools are key indicators of one’s intelligence, good judgment, and overall character. The success of dropouts like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg are strange anomalies, and no serious reevaluation of the higher education system is needed. As Rush Limbaugh observed, Bill Clinton said he wanted a cabinet that “looked like America” and declared he had achieved it after assembling a group that was almost entirely Ivy League-educated lawyers.

Everything else is negotiable. For a while, it appeared that Democrats were organizing themselves around the principle that almost every dispute with every other nation and group can be resolved through “tough, smart diplomacy,” but now President Obama has started killing foreigners left and right and not too many Democrats complain at all. Obama even used a drone to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Alwaki, with nary a peep. Don’t get me wrong, Alwaki had it coming, but this is precisely the sort of don’t-bother-me-with-legal-details-I’m-fighting-a-war philosophy that Democrats spent seven years denouncing.

You think the Democratic Party cares about wealth? Come on. In their minds, George Soros spending his money to help out his political views is noble, but the Koch Brothers are evil incarnate. Higher taxes are good, but no one will complain if Tim Geithner or Charlie Rangel cut corners on paying them. One might be tempted to argue that the righteousness of unions represent an inviolate principle to Democrats, but in New York, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo is trimming here and there and living to tell the tale.

No, the party really is about identity politics now; us vs. them. And everybody knows which side they’re on.

The Jammie-Wearing Fool: “Barack Obama 2008: Hope, change and bringing people together. Barack Obama 2012: Screw those stupid white people. Could you imagine the firestorm if Republicans explicitly stated they’re abandoning any effort at winning over  minority voters?”

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Demographics

New on The Campaign Spot. . .


COMMENTS   23

EXPAND  

   11/29/11 07:37

Unfortunately those white non-college educated working class voters were all ready heavily Republican and are not not anywhere as numerous as they once were. With the demographic changes that have taken place over the past few years Kerry would have won with same voter breakdown among white working class, white college educated, and minority voters because of the increases of later two and the decreases of the former. When Clinton was president they made up half the electorate, now they are mid-thirties and shrinking. The Democrats are abandoning them because they don't need them to win anymore and they aren't worth the effort anymore when it takes away from their message to the College educated whites and the minorities.

And the truth is Republicans are going to not only need to clean up among white working class voters like never before, they need to get a larger share of the college educated ones and the minority voters as well. Demographics are not moving are way and it is a problem.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/29/11 11:42

<< Everybody recoils when Imus says something snide and obnoxious about the Rutgers womens’ basketball team. >>

Even though, I would add, saying snide and obnoxious things was basically his job. Frankly, I had been under the impression that the particular snide and obnoxious thing he said was tame by his standards, though I have to admit that I never listened to his show because I never cared to listen to snide and obnoxious things, which is what I understood his show to consist of.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/30/11 08:25

Agreed. My thought is that, in a healthier culture, Imus would have been disdained long ago for his schtick, but that particular comment wouldn't have required such outrage, real or feigned as a genuflection to political correctness.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
takethat
   11/29/11 15:24

"All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”

No mention of public sector workers - the people with real skin in the game as they are voting for and campaigning for who their boss is going to be. You could add 'who work for the government' to all the designations. Maybe 'voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment' is code - LOL.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Hiram Maxim
   11/29/11 17:29

Secession is all but guaranteed within 50 years.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Rob S
   11/29/11 17:31

According to that NYT article, Obama lost college-educated whites by four points.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/29/11 17:54

"professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists" - weren't those the people that a civilization blasted off to their own planet in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy so as to be rid of them?

("OK, our world is going to explode - we're going on three ships - all you professors, artists, designers, editors, etc. are going to be on the first ship - we'll meet you there")

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/29/11 18:27

"No, for most Democrats, their political party is about a cultural identity. That identity is heavily based on not being one of those people, i.e., Republicans or conservatives."

This is the most perfect analysis of the bipolar Democrat identity that I have read. In my opinion, this says it exactly right.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/29/11 18:52

"Abandoning any effort at winning over minority voters!" For obvious reasons, white working class people willing or able to contribute more to government than they seek from government is a shrinking minority in this country. The democrats have abandoned this minority. The way to beat them is not to attract this minority . . . done and done . . . . You have to attract the democrats' self-described base, by showing that unjustified [public] consumption destroys the value of the money supply, and any chance for advancement by the lower classes trapped by the collapse of capitalism. Give the racial minorities a capital stake in financial progress, and show how the left destroys their chances out of the true racism that resides on the left, and you have a chance to tip the balance. Anything else does not appear to be worth the effort. Capitalism creates money and wealth, since money is nothing other than congealed profit. Teach the poor the real genius of profit and how the left steals it from them. Nothing else will work. This strategy also has the benefit of having truth and the established curve of history on its side.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
baal
   11/29/11 18:56

You know, I think that we're letting an implicit idea slip by here without question. That idea is that there is ACTUALLY an educational deficit on our side of the equation.

While there may be a surplus of completely useless liberal arts degrees on their side, I think that if you factored those things out, the numbers would invert.

Just a thought....

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/29/11 18:56

"Abandoning any effort at winning over minority voters!" For obvious reasons, white working class people willing or able to contribute more to government than they seek from government is a shrinking minority in this country. The democrats have abandoned this minority. The way to beat them is not to attract this minority . . . done and done . . . . You have to attract the democrats' self-described base, by showing that unjustified [public] consumption destroys the value of the money supply, and any chance for advancement by the lower classes trapped by the collapse of capitalism. Give the racial minorities a capital stake in financial progress, and show how the left destroys their chances out of the true racism that resides on the left, and you have a chance to tip the balance. Anything else does not appear to be worth the effort. Capitalism creates money and wealth, since money is nothing other than congealed profit. Teach the poor the real genius of profit and how the left steals it from them. Nothing else will work. This strategy also has the benefit of having truth and the established curve of history on its side.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Aarradin
   11/29/11 19:22

If they really go through with this strategy, it will be interesting to watch the long term effects it has at the State level in places where there are lots of working class whites that still vote Democrat. WV, KY, AR, for instance. IA, WI, MN too (I'm sure there's a few others). Much of the south is now permanently lost to the D's. The state level D's are still in control in a variety of states that are predominantly white-working class. D politicians at the state level talk a VERY different game than their counterparts in the US Congress and Senate. That disconnect is bound to get resolved one way or another, eventually. We saw, after the 2010 elections, a fair number of politicians at the state level switch from D to R.

States that have major urban slums (Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago for example) will still be either D or in play, but this seems to me a politically suicidal strategy. Blacks are only 11% of the population, and with immigration and abortion being what they are that % may well decrease. Hispanics are nowhere near as beholden to the D's as Blacks, and never will be. As they assimilate they will gravitate to the GOP. There are only so many socialists in the country.

The D's are in danger of becoming the Party of the inner city, university towns, DC, and state capital cities. I agree with your ideological assessment, but I find myself usually defining the D/R divide as between Big Government / Small(er) Government. The D's represent people that live off the Government whether they are: state/federal employees, teachers (including college), and dependents of various social welfare programs. The D's have lost the white working class for the simple reason that they don't represent their economic interest. If you work and pay taxes, the D's exist to raise your tax and give your wages to someone else. The D's ideology holds no interest for the working class.

I have to believe this is going to result in permanent loss of some Senate seats. Sooner or later some/all of the states I mentioned above will shift from D to R, as the deep south already has. The D's will not just lose control of the state legislature, they'll lose seats at the national level as well.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Aarradin
   11/29/11 19:33

Here's a white-working class state/national disconnect:

West Virginia:
State Senate: 28 D / 6 R
State House: 65 D / 35 R

WV US Senators: 2 D
WV US Congress: 1 D / 2 R

WV Presidential 2008 Vote: McCain 56%, Obama 43%

How long can a state stay solid blue at the state level when a strong majority despise the national D platform? Most of these voters vote D at the state level out of tradition and habit, formed back when the D / R divide was akin to Labor / Management.

R's need to make a serious effort to attract current/former private sector union workers. The current R platform represents their interests.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
jelynn
   12/05/11 10:20

OR the Republicans voting in the presidential election didn't CARE enough to vote for state Senate/House? I love how the article and commenters make all these correlations or conclusions with absolutely no reference to, ya know, fact or citations. Compelling stuff.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Eddy
   11/29/11 21:56

I disagree with one significant aspect of the above. This is best illustrated with the closing statement:
"Could you imagine the firestorm if Republicans explicitly stated they’re abandoning any effort at winning over minority voters?”

First, 'the Democrats' didn't say this explicitly, unles you mean unnamed Democrats speaking on background. What I mean by that is that Obama himself would never say that explicitly, and neither would any Republican presidential candidiate speak that way about votes of the black community. But lets face it, anyone who is willing to speak without worrying about the speech-police knows full well that all Republican strategists and candidates have written off the black vote. That's not to say we don't want their votes, and frankly, conservatives rightly claim that our policies will, over the long-term benefit minorities, even if we don't target our get-out-the vote effort to Harlem. So yes, I CAN imagine that Republicans don't do a lot of targetting of the black vote, and they haven't done so for decades. But that is an indication of the fact that we know that our policies may not be embraced by the groups which they help the most (such as welfare reform in the mid-1990s). Although I can't stand Obama, the message of the Times article is merely that Obama's advisors have come to the conclusion that they can't convince white working class voters that Obama has their interests at heart. That is NOT an admission that they will not work for those voters,,,,,

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Lee Reynolds
   11/30/11 01:18

The modern Democratic party is founded upon corruption and the quest for power for its own sake. Democrats dream not of creating a better world, but of empire.

It is not an accident that the Democratic party lacks a coherent or even internally consistent philosophical foundation. Such a governing influence would interfere with the power mongering of party operatives. It would provide both a yardstick to measure the efficacy of their efforts, and a moral guide to help keep them going in the right direction.

Without it, party operatives are free to act without any care or concern for whether they are doing the right thing. In short, the Democratic party has no conscience, no soul.

Sadly the Republican party is only marginally better.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
glitchus
   11/30/11 02:09

Well, irrational hatred for political power and graft I believe sums it up quite nicely, especially when you toss in a heaping dose of rank hypocrisy.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
New Class Traitor
   11/30/11 07:07

Behold the hideous face of "progressive" "liberalism" (actually regressive illiberalism) in the USA today.

May it be consigned to the ash heap of history speedily and in our days.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
New Class Traitor
   11/30/11 07:16

Good for saying "credentialed" rather than educated --- it's actually distressing how little these people actually LEARNED in the glorified finishing schools we call humanities 'colleges' today.

In truth, the relationship between the New Class (the people you describe) and the groups dependent on government handouts reminds me a lot of that between a "patronus" and his "clientes" in ancient Rome. The patrons would literally buy themselves permanent electorates, first with their own money, then (once elected) with the public treasury.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kevin Murphy
   11/30/11 07:57

I remember when my Democratic friends told me it was wrong to legislate morality. Apparently, they have no problems with regulating morality.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact