Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

Politics & Elections
2581

Exactly on the first part. They moved the debate to the right, not just on that, but on other issues as well. Democrats also won many battles like that, mostly on social issues. I maintain that winning those battles is far more valuable than winning elections.

Now on the second part, you’re only half right. The window can be moved back, but only if there’s an effort to do so. As of right now, Democrats are pretty firm in their conviction that all but the ultra rich should never see their taxes go up. Before they can move the window back to the left, they first have to campaign for tax increases on more Americans. I’m interested in when they will acquire such courage.

Oh, and you mentioned lies, but really the answer to why the Democrats abandoned tax and spend is two words long: Walter Mondale. Ever since his loss, the Democrats have been pushing upwards and upwards the income level that they’ll tax. With Clinton it was about $70,000/yr and upwards, with Gore about $150,000, with Obama $250,000, and in the end he got $400,000 due to resistance in his own caucus. What did the ultra progressive Bill De Blasio promise: $500,000 was it? If even he can’t raise taxes except on the ultra rich, what hope does a normal Democrat have of moving the debate?

SSM wasn’t pushed by politicians, change came about because society became more tolerant of homosexuality. Economic issues don’t function the same way. The public on their own isn’t going to decide to like higher taxes, that is unless government figures out a way to deliver services so awesomely that people can’t wait to pay more for more awesome services.

If the Democrats decide to increase the public’s appetite for taxation and more services, that would actually be a really constructive way to go about it.

2582

Both parties are quite aware that the people generally like both services and low taxes, and want to have their cake and eat it too.

You can offer them high taxes and high services (Democrats), low taxes and low services (Republicans) or low taxes and low services with high debt to pay it all off later (both parties, but mostly Republicans until recently).

2583

Actually I was thinking of a different two words: “Laffer Curve”. The Reagan administration’s blatant misuse of what was basically economic-theory-by-cocktail-napkin caused untold damage to the economy by making people think that lower taxes would stimulate the economy. Instead, it merely exacerbated the earnings gap that is causing stagnation today. But if that’s something you want to be proud of, go right ahead.

More like people realizing that they can’t live without the “awesome services” they don’t want to pay for. Like bridge maintenance and environmental inspectors and schools and police. But you’re right - people are more likely to demand that the rich pay more first. Which, if the Tea Party were genuinely interested in combatting the national debt, they ought to be in favor of.

2584

The politicians aren’t totally stupid. The real issue is that entitlements are eating up more and more of the budget, squeezing discretionary spending. Yet the public considers entitlements more important, so those get protected.

Taxing just the rich won’t even cover future entitlements, much less leave money for bridge inspections and EPA employees. As Paul Krugman once said, America’s future is an insurance company with an army.

So first, Democrats have to be willing to educate the public on the realities of federal spending. So far, only the Tea Party you denigrate so much as tried to do that. Once the public knows the score, then they’ll decide whether they want to pay more in taxes, or accept fewer services.

Democrats evidently fear what the public will decide and Republicans apparently think the public will see it their way, judging by which side is trying to educate the public on the issue. Why haven’t Democrats done the kinds of informational presentations like Paul Ryan does? Robert Reich is doing it, but he doesn’t have a big bully pulpit.

2585

“Bully pulpit.” Good use of the term. The idea that the Tea Party is trying to “educate” the public ignores the political reality - they are trying to hijack the process and take their gains by force. Even if you are correct (and that’s debatable), the political reason that nobody listens is because people don’t trust the Tea Party. Nor do many people trust mainstream Republicans, since they have bungled the job so many times.

2586

I’m curious as to what you think these “entitlements” are that are squeezing discretionary spending.

And yet the Tea Party candidates seem to spend all their time passing anti-abortion legislation and trying to get the Bible back into public schools. They talk about the debt but their actual policies and actions suggest an entirely different agenda.

This is pure fantasy. The Republicans also talk a lot about “cutting spending” but they’re very vague on specifics, and when you try to drill down most of what you find is that they want lower taxes for rich guys and to screw the poor. Even Grover Norquist, the patron saint of shrinking the government, refused to actually give specifics about what kind of small government he wanted. It was all “lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes” and damn the rest of the country as long as it benefited him and his cronies. Those are the people you’ve hitched your star to, and they have been lying their asses off to you for decades now. Why do you think the deficit explodes whenever a Republican is in office? Because their economic policies are greed-fueled bullshit.

2587

Mandatory spending is increasing as a share of federal spending while discretionary is decreasing to its lowest levels since the 1960s. What that mandatory spending consists of is only relevant if we’re arguing about which part of it to cut.

The Tea Party isn’t monolithic. Down here in Florida, Allen West was doing townhall presentations about federal spending and the deficit, and Paul Ryan did a series of youtube videos on the subject. Many other Tea Partiers also did such local presentations.

If it’s fantasy, wouldn’t the Democrats want to educate the public on the coming decisions that have to be made? Republicans are doing it. Ross Perot did it. Democrats have never shown any particular interest in educating the public about where their money goes. They just prefer to say things like, “research and Head Start and police and roads”, all the things people support. Problem is, those priorities are running up against other priorities, and even high tax countries are having to figure out how to cut their budgets. You can’t have everything, no matter how high you’re willing to tax the public. Just as France and their new Tea Party Socialist President.

2588

I think I see the problem.

2589

They cannot educate the public on what they do not understand themselves.

2590

There’s a famous Dave Barry quote that goes “When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that individual is crazy.” This is the Republican way right now. They are in charge! They have a plan! It’s a vague, undefined plan that is unimplementable but it has a lot of emotive words in it and it blames Democrats, the poor and immigrants for everything! So it’s a plan!

I am aware that the Tea Party is talking a lot about federal spending and the deficit. I even said that. The problem, as I’ve pointed out, is that they’re talking crap, which becomes apparent when they get into office and discover this. So what they do instead is put in place a lot of reactionary social policies.

And the fact that you take Allen West to be a credible source for economic policy is worrying. The man is crazy - “crazy” with a capital “batshit”.

Remember the “You didn’t build that” speech? What about Obama’s "spread the wealth around” comment from 2008? Because what happens when the Democrats attempt to have an adult conversation with the American public is that the right-wing media machine goes into full hysterical “ZOMG SOCIALIST COMMUNIST AMERICA-HATERS!!!111” mode. Look at the first example - the “you didn’t build that” comment was immediately taken out of context, deliberately misinterpreted and repeated endlessly for months. It’s the Republicans who don’t want the American people to hear the Democrats’ messages, and that’s why they act like shit-flinging monkeys whenever they try.

2591

I think adaher makes a valid point. Democrats haven’t been spreading a coherent message What I’d like Obama to do is have a regular say monthly fireside chat type of presentation, with whatever charts and other visual aids as may be needed to get the points across. Democrats don’t do nearly enough messaging. In 2008, Republicans campaigned successfully on bumper stickers: War on Terror, No New Taxes, No Gay Marriage. We understood their message, repulsive as it was. Republicans tend to tell us what time it is while Democrats tend to tell us how to build a watch. Look at the healthcare debate in 2009- Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts didn’t bother with the facts, they came out with guns blazing to shoot down what they knew would be a good law because they didn’t want Obama to succeed. “Death panels” worked, even though it was bullshit, because it was simple and because Democrats thought the public was too smart to buy it.

I do take issue with saying the Tea Party “educates” the public. “Spreads lies based on racial hatred” is more accurate. And any mention of Allen West without the qualifier “batshit crazy” is incomplete.

2592

The reason the Democrats tax the rich (as opposed to anyone else) is the same reason why Jesse James allegedly robbed banks: Because that’s where the money is. It’s OK to lower taxes on the middle class, because the middle class, by and large, doesn’t have the money.

2593

Actually, the quote is associated with bank robber Willie Sutton. Sutton apparently didn’t say it in context, either, but I suspect he knew that if he wasn’t going to be known for his famous non-quote, he wouldn’t be remembered at all:

2594

That’s not so. There’s a reason the middle class tax cuts cost $3.3 trillion, while the ones they let expire for the rich only raises $600 billion.

You have to consider numbers. 100 million taxpayers paying an extra $3000 is worth a lot more than 200,000 taxpayers paying an extra $500,000.

But as far as I’m concerned, tax the rich all you want. And then live under the budget constraints that involves.

2595

Can we get rid of lower rates for capital gains and carried interest?

2596

Can we at least tax unearned income at at least the same rate as earned income? That OK with you?

2597

For people who rely on that primarily as their income, sure. For people who rely primarily on earned income, but invest to build up their savings, no.

And capital gains and dividends should remain tax free for poorer investors. That was the best tax change ever.

2598

Since we’re back to an actual policy discussion that I thought would never return, I’ll use that as a segue to my point.

Once again, adaher, you are confusing a temporary blip with a long-term trend. Though in this case, you have more foundation for doing so.

It’s certainly true that after a period of conservative domination under Reagan, Clinton cleverly used political jiujitsu to take authorship of some Republican points. This worked in national politics. His reward for doing so and getting policies approved by Republicans passed was total war against him, aided by trying to get national health care passed before the public was ready.

That taught Democrats a lesson, all right, but not quite the one you’re taking from it. They learned not to get too far out in front of the public and to watch as attitudes gradually change for the right time to act. They can afford to do so because public attitude change is nearly always in a liberal direction. Not absolutely always - conservative attitudes dominated in the 1950s and 1980s in opposition to long-term gains by liberals - but most times across most issues.

Has there been a period of large gains by liberals? Obviously not, no matter how many talking points Roger Ailes gives his troops in his morning meeting. The public is inching out ahead of national politics. Moreover, the public is already furious about Congress doing nothing. This pressure is appearing before, not after, demographic changes that will give the Democrats a safer position from which to act.

In some small ways, progressives should actually hope the Republicans take the Senate in November.* They have no forward-looking policies, they will be restrained by Obama without anything close to veto power, and every time a Republican candidate for office opens a mouth a foot is inserted. It would be like the last two years of Hoover all over again. The pent up roar for change in 2016 will be Rooseveltian. Democrats, even weighed down by a Southern wing that was more conservative than Republicans and far more bigoted - a problem that won’t exist after 2016, controlled the country for 20 years and irrevocably changed it. No matter who controls the Senate, though, everything that happens in 2016 will be extremely favorable toward progressive policies.

Obama’s accommodation of the right has infuriated progressives and has been demonstrably the wrong tack. You can’t begin a bargaining session with what should be your final compromise position and then start moving from that. No matter. That is not the start of a long-term trend; it was a temporary condition in a divided political environment. It is not the future and it is pure wishful thinking on your part to project it into a more liberal future with the voters inexorably moving Democratic. Maybe 20 years from now, after another long period of Democratic control and policy change, those hopes can come true. Not in 2016, though.

*Another parallel is with 1988. I was saying then that the Democrats should almost hope that Bush wins because Reagan’s policies were obviously going to cause an economic collapse and whoever was in office during those years would get the blame.

2599

That’s all good points, but you’re leaving out one thing: how did the right change public opinion? Through decades of educating the public, or propaganda if you prefer. The right’s economic talking points are embedded on everyone’s brain, even those who aren’t involved much in politics. Government doesn’t work. Taxes are too high. Spending is wasted.

Now I happen to think those talking points are more true than false, but whether you believe them or not, the public has internalize them and Democrats have done little to change those views. Instead, they’ve accepted them as truth(even Obama, or especially Obama), and tailor their policies with those limitations of public opinion in mind.

Even the liberal talking heads, like Rachel Maddow, rather than push liberal ideology, they just talk about Republicans. Which helps increase public dislike of Republicans, but keeps political discourse where the right wants it.

And once again, I’d rather have us in this place, then winning elections. Republicans won plenty of elections during the Bush years and what did it get conservatives other than the satisfaction of winning elections? Nothing. It actually set us back.

2600

In my reality, they did so purely through emotional appeals to bigotry, but I can understand we’re going to continue to disagree about that.

As long as we’re both happy about the Republicans losing in the future, I can live with that.