“The Democrats never ran with such promises before because it would have been a transparent lie. The economy hadn’t yet gone into the toilet while Clinton was president, so there was no need to cut taxes”
Um this assumes that the only reason to cut taxes is to stimulate the economy in a recession. But you can cut taxes just to give people some of their money back. This was Bush’s line of course but the problem was that his tax cut gave so little to the bottom 80%. The Democrats never exploited this properly by producing their own big middle-class tax cut. That is one big reason they lost in both 2000 and 2002.
First, i’d like to know how strategy and tactics substantially differ (I think you made an error there) and second, it has been said many time by many different people who are learned in matters of politics that the things that made Gore a poor campaigner and Bush a good one, are the things that would make him a good President and Bush a poor one.
BTW the Democrats would be extremely foolish to rely on a weak economy in 2004. Typically America recessions don’t last for more than a couple of years and there is a decent possibility of a reasonable recovery by 2004.
In many ways the Dems screwed up ideal economic conditions in both 2000 and 2002. In 2000 Gore didn’t exploit the strong economy to win. !n 2002 the Dems didn’t exploit the weak economy and corporate scandals and couldn’t craft a strong economic platform. In 2004 I doubt they will be as lucky with economic conditions which is why they will have to work extra hard to create a popular economic platform. (Of course Gore and the Congressional Dems did have bad luck with Lewinsky and the war respectively but that doesn’t excuse their inability to create a coherent economic platform)
Well, I’ll venture that the best reason to cut taxes is to stimulate the economy, or at least to give people some relief when the economy isn’t doing so well. I don’t think that taxes should always be cut, which is what the Republican Party seems to be saying. If you always cut taxes, eventually the government will go broke.
Al Gore ran on a promise to cut taxes, but not by the same degree as Bush. Had Gore billed his tax cut plan as a clear alternative to Bush’s, he could have taken that ball and run with it. You’re right: the Democrats should have better exploited their tax plan; the fact that they didn’t do so hurt them.
I’m generally reluctant to push for tax cuts. The simple formula I advocate is to raise taxes and cut spending during a booming economy, and to cut taxes and raise spending during an ailing economy. (This isn’t cut-and-dried; sometimes you have to do things differently. You can’t follow any strategy rigidly, without allowing for the unexpected.) My big problem with Bush’s tax policy is not that he’s cutting taxes, but that he’s not cutting them in a fair way. I agree with you that the Democrats could really eat into that issue if they pledge to cut taxes the right way in 2004, and I strongly feel that that’s the right thing to do both politically and fiscally. The Democrats also owe it to the voters to finally put to bed the ridiculous notion that there’s a party that always wants to raise your taxes, and a party that always wants to cut them. Sure, that works on stupid people, which just goes to show that we’re all much better off with an informed electorate.
In spite of the bad taste in my mouth from the recent elections, I still cling to previously stated hopes:
• The majority of the people who cast votes in 2000 did not cast their votes for Bush. Add in a few thousand more from democratic couch potatoes who didn’t vote in '00 and are still kicking themselves for it.
• Maybe a few thousand Greenies would have 2nd thoughts and actually cast a vote to put GWB out of the oval office.
• Pat Buchanan won’t run again, so an estimated 5,000 Jewish Floridians won’t be tempted to cast their vote for a Nazi.
• A few thousand fence sitters who fell for “moderate” Bush at the last minute, have grown sour after seeing him swing a hard right as soon as he took office.
Add Bill Clinton to the campaign trail, and suddenly we’ve got a decent chance at the White House again.
Well obviously you can’t always cut taxes but if you are running big surpluses as you were in 2000 you have got either to cut taxes or explain clearly what the extra money is going to be spent for and how it will help the average voter. Gore did neither particularly well.
The other thing, as you point out, is the incredible inability of the Dems to exploit the lop-sidedness of the Bush tax cut. The top 1% get a bigger tax cut than the bottom 80%. There has got to be a way to exploit this politically but the Dems can’t seem to do it. It’s amazing to see them on the defensive even on the estate tax cut most of which benefits the super-rich.
In truth Gore did talk about this briefly and then he seemed to give up. Same with the Congressional Democrats last year. That’s the problem. They can’t sustain a message. If they had hammered the basic inequity of the Bush plan for last 2-3 years and suggested their more equitable plan they would have been in a perfect position exploit the weak economy in 2002 and win. Instead they flitted from one message to another, tried to run “tactical” races without a national economic platform or message and lost.
There’s an article on the prospects for Gore 2004 in the new Time.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101021125-390894,00.html
Attreyant,
IMO it would be naive to treat 2004 as a kind of re-run of 2000. 9-11 has changed everything and raised Bush’ s stature among many moderates. In 2004 he will be the one claiming the foreign policy experience. And those supposedly chastened Green voters and newly energized Democrats sure didn’t seem very visible in the recent elections.
No the Dems will have their work out for them in 2004. Bush is by no means unbeatable but the Dems can’t rely on a weak economy or his mistakes to win. They have to create their own platform and message and sell it hard.
I think John Edwards, for one, seems to understand this and considering that he is from the South and quite telegenic, looks pretty good right now.
If you read that Time piece you will see that Gore is carving out a place for himself. A very clear place, and pretty damn left. Even I was a little alarmed at his position on health care. Yeeps.
Perhaps the reason they can’t make political hay out of this is because the public simply doesn’t agree with them. I know I don’t, and I understand the situation just fine.
Somehow I doubt that you represent the kind of voter that the Dems are looking out for. And GOP has done everything possible to prevent a clear understanding of the distribution of their tax cut from making dubious claims about how the estate tax forces family farmers to go out of business to downplaying how much of their tax cut goes to the top 1%.
As for the politics of it ,my proposal, like I said, would give a bigger tax cut to 80% of voters (and the same tax cut to 19%) compared to Bush’s. Somehow I doubt that the average voter would say “No,no I want a smaller cut for myself in order to give the guy who makes 300,000 a bigger cut”
Well, perhaps they were afraid that the voters would remember what happened the last time a Democrat ran for national office on the promide of a middle class tax cut.
As Weird_AL_Einstein pointed out, the Dems have a reputation for tax increases, not tax cuts. Many of the 80% would prefer a small tax cut from the Reps than a tax increase from the Dems. In other words, they’re more concerned about their own expenses than with class envy.
Keep in mind that if you are really talking about cutting taxes, you aren’t going to affect people who don’t pay taxes. Tax cuts affect upper-income taxpayers more, because they pay more taxes.
If you are going to eliminate the deficit, you will have to allocate the funds from the tax increases on the rich for that. So the middle class isn’t going to get their promised tax cut.
Add the increase in spending on prescription drugs. Where does the money come for that?
Tax and spend, and the federal government as Robin Hood. You really consider this a new direction for the Democrats?
(Shodan snickers as he contemplates the glorious prospect of Republican control of all three branches of the federal government as far as the eye can see…)
Regards,
Shodan
Um after 1992 the tax cut was scrapped because of the massive deficits. That wouldn’t have been the case in 2000 or even now. A tax cut would be far more credible.
“Many of the 80% would prefer a small tax cut from the Reps than a tax increase from the Dems”
I think the point is that most people would a bigger tax cut from the Dems compared to a small cut from the Reps.
“Keep in mind that if you are really talking about cutting taxes, you aren’t going to affect people who don’t pay taxes”
But most people do a fairly hefty payroll tax. That is the one the Dems should focus on (of course this would also mean that SS would have to start funding some of its payouts from general tax revenues)
“Add the increase in spending on prescription drugs. Where does the money come for that?”
As I have explained by eliminating most of the tax cut for the top 1% which is more than 40% of the Bush cut.
'Luce:
How the hell would you know what Bush is like?
You deliberately don’t watch programs like Journey’s with George, because you have no interest in his character.
How then can you comment on it?
Of course Gore is running in '04, and will be the nominee. He made that decision as soon as he decided to run in '02. Don’t kid yourselves. If he hasn’t been actively campaigning, that only reflects a strategic understanding that he can’t make people tired of him first, and can’t look like a sore victim of cheating.
As soon as he announces formally, look for several things to happen:
- The big contributors go with Gore, swallowing their differences as they always do.
- Other serious candidates (not dreamers like Dean) pull out either voluntarily or through cash starvation in the primaries.
- The press will be full of stories about how Gore has “changed” and “matured”, and their coverage will change accordingly (no relation to realities, of course, it’ll be part of the press’s playing their own hand in the constant game). Faced with the potential reality of a President Gore, they will hedge their coverage to stay on his good side as well as Bush’s.
- Poll results, always evanescent, will magically reflect the tone of said press coverage.
- Along the way, Gore will continue the populist tack he was successful with the last time, but without the hedging that held him back, and it will be much better received from the outsider he will be than from the insider he was, especially with the economy in the dumper.
I honestly have no gut feeling for the behavior of the American voting populace at this point. I don’t think I’ve been so convinced that the nation was going down the tubes politically since…maybe ever. I have recurrent visions of us becoming viewed by the other countries of the world more and more as a dangerous evil aggressor-nation, until finally a formidable coalition forms and kicks our butts or tears up the planet something fierce in the attempt.
And yet the voting public just gave the Republicans the Senate. Obviously my fears are not widely shared.
I’m with you, Ahunter3. So are most of the people I know.
Let’s all move to France. It’s prettier there, anyway.