Kevin Drum links to this interview of Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, a consultant, in which he discusses how to woo back rural southern voters to the Democratic party. Kevin writes:
This gets to an issue I’ve long had with the whole “voting against their economic interests” argument: I don’t think it’s true. Seriously now, try to answer this question in a concrete way: if you were an average joe in a rural part of the South or the Midwest, how would it help you to vote for a Democrat? What would you get out of it?
A higher minimum wage? Maybe, but even in the rural South most people already make more than the minimum wage. Medicare and Social Security? They already exist. Money for roads? Republicans do that too. More labor friendly laws? That doesn’t resonate much in the South, and in any case they probably don’t believe that Dems can deliver on that anyway.
So exactly what economic interests are they voting against? Forget the Krugmanesque (or Drumesque) arguments about regressive taxes or rising income inequality. They may be true, but they’re way too abstract. If you want to convince these guys that their economic interests lie with Democrats, we need to offer them something real: local clinics, free healthcare, tax rebates, something. Right now, I don’t think these voters believe that Democrats are actually promising anything that would make a genuine difference in their lives.
While there is no way I can sate my anger over the fiscal irresponsibility by the Republican Congress and the current administration, it is clear that the Democrats really don’t plan to be any better- al least their instinct is to spend just as much, if we are to believe Kevin. They just have different spending priorities.
An argument over who should be given vast transfers of taxpayer wealth and for what is not the argument we should be having with a $400 billion dollar annual deficit.
*** Update ***
No sooner do I write this post than a package comes to my door. What is in the package? A complimentary copy of What’s the Matter With Kansas.
Pretty funny.
metalgrid
It pains me to say it, but of the two, the Democrats are more honest about wealth redistribution. They come right out and say that they will have to increase taxes because god forbit they cut government programs that need the funding. After all, people like getting subsidies and free shit since they think someone else is paying for it.
The Republicans stand for smaller government and curtailed spending, cut taxes, but do not shrink the size of government to accomodate it, but instead, borrow the money to pay for everyone’s free shit.
I figure my kids will have a nice time paying for those IOUs while I retire to Costa Rica. Although, I guess if you don’t have kids or intend to have kids, the borrow and spend philosophy has a lot going for it since it’ll be someone else’s kids that’ll get to foot the bill in the end – which is even better.
Rick
Since the Democrats are newly ardent for federalism, there’s nothing preventing them from enacting their utopian/dystopian visions in solidly blue states.
That’s what the Laboratory of Democracy is for. But contrary to the “wisdom” one one of the D’s favorite bumper stickers, they wish to both act and think globally. “Locally” takes the hindmost.
Cordially…
DecidedFenceSitter
[Snark]Nothing except the overly activist Supreme Court striking allowing for the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the interstate commerce clause.[/Snark]
Rick
So the progressive vision for an exemplary state government is based on doobies.
Hey, Sitter…Dood. You figure out a good workaround, and I’ll take my vacations there.
Cordially…
P.S. It wasn’t a reverse for medical users, but the Home Grown’s All Right With Me/Home Grown Is The Way It Should Be advocates.
KC
I think the Dems’ problem is simple: they don’t have their shit together. They have a chairman who may be “honest”–“sloppy” is more accurate I think–but is too stupid and insensitive to be “honest” in a nice way. A good part of their constituency doesn’t want to admit that maybe their chairman, despite his merits, may not be giving the party the best public image. And, they’ve got part of the party leadership on television bitching about their DNC chairman instead of calling him quietly and letting him have it. I mean, how hard would it be for Biden to say, “Oh he’s a little over the top Tim, but he’s doing a great job,” instead of chucking the spears he’s been tossing on television lately? They just don’t have their shit together, no discipline, backstabbing, just plain sloppiness.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Was this entire post just a thinly-veiled excuse to let us know that, for being a blogostar, you get free books? Oh, I’m sooooooooooo jealous!
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Have you ever known Democrats to campaign for anything without saying, “Here’s how much money I’m going to give you if you vote for me…?” It’s been their only manuever for 25 years now. Bush’s escapades into Clintonian “steal the issue” politics helped him win the election, but I’d like to see the GOP pull back from the Politics of Gimme Gimme Gimme any day now. I’m not satisfied with “We’re giving away less than the Dems would.”
MI
I think Democrats, especially now under Dean, will be serious about getting the budget under control. It’s interesting..I only started becoming politically aware a few years ago, so I don’t have this whole frame in my mind of how democrats are reckless with money and republicans are the responsible grown up party. For younger people like myself, it’s kinda the opposite.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
I only started becoming politically aware a few years ago, so I don’t have this whole frame in my mind of how democrats are reckless with money and republicans are the responsible grown up party. For younger people like myself, it’s kinda the opposite.
Well, you could’ve gotten a clue by reading what John “I Have a Plan. It’s on My Website. Aren’t I Modern?” Kerry wanted to do if elected.
Bush’s drug plan? Didn’t go far enough. I’ll spend more.
Education reform? Bush didn’t spend enough. I will also raise teachers’ salaries.
Medicare? I’ll spend more.
The economy? I’ll give more corporate welfare, and I’ll give you job training.
Energy? I’ll spend more on R&D.
Health care? Government will pay for it.
Military? We’re not spending enough to modernize.
Iraq? We need more troops and more money.
Never did he offer to cut any budget or any entitlement for anybody. It’s the Politics of Bribery — the only page in the Democratic Playbook for over 30 years.
Marc
If you think the Democrats play the Politics of Bribery with federal spending on social welfare programs, then what would you call the Republican approach? The “vote for me, and we’ll send you a check” attitude? Remember Bush’s promise that every taxpayer would get $300 back from his tax cut? And remember the little notes than came in the IRS envelopes reminding people just which politician had sent them money? Talk about bribery…
Marc
If you think the Democrats play the Politics of Bribery with federal spending on social welfare programs, then what would you call the Republican approach? The “vote for me, and we’ll send you a check” attitude? Remember Bush’s promise that every taxpayer would get $300 back from his tax cut? And remember the little notes than came in the IRS envelopes reminding people just which politician had sent them money? Talk about bribery…
MI
Compuglobalhypermeganet, those are good points and I wasn’t a Kerry fan. I think the future of the democratic party, at least fiscally speaking, is a lot more Dean, a lot less Kerry. But you’re right, I guess it does kind of depend on who the nominee is. But like I said, since Dean in the head of the DNC now, I expect and hope he’ll push fiscally responsible candidates.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Remember Bush’s promise that every taxpayer would get $300 back from his tax cut? And remember the little notes than came in the IRS envelopes reminding people just which politician had sent them money? Talk about bribery…
Ummmmm, one SMALL difference:
You can’t bribe someone with THEIR OWN MONEY!
Kimmitt
Sure you can — what you do is borrow $300 in their name, then mail them $300. Voila.
Rick
Kimmitt,
You mean on those occasions when I’ve had too much money withheld from my paycheck, and I get that excess amount back, I’ve been bribed?
Oh, gracious goodness! I so much wanted to avoid being corrupt, but since I accept that mystery money, rather than return it, I’m just another mook on the pad.
Cordially…