Opinion: - It didn’t have to happen!
By Dan Schmitt | November 26, 2014 | OK, I admit I’m a disappointed Democrat! The disappointment isn’t because many Democratic cand...
https://www.elkgrovenews.net/2014/11/opinion-it-didnt-have-to-happen.html
By Dan Schmitt | November 26, 2014 |
OK, I admit I’m a disappointed
Democrat! The disappointment isn’t because
many Democratic candidates were drubbed in the recent election or because many who
did win won by the skin of their teeth. No,
I’m disappointed because the poor Democratic showing was mostly self-induced.
Over the last
twenty-five years, I’ve come to expect Republican candidates, members of the
party of NO NEW IDEAS, to lack substance. But this election, Democratic candidates were intent on matching their
opponents’ cacophony of nothingness. Democratic
candidates did poorly because they failed to articulate Democratic Party
principles and the reasoned defense of those principles that would have
resonated with voters.
Take for example the
campaign for the California Seventh Congressional District pitting
Congressman Ami Bera against Doug Ose. According to the attack television ads produced by the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, Doug Ose went to Washington back in the early
2000s and got rich being a Congressman. Utter nonsense! Businessman Ose is
wealthy indeed, but his economic status has nothing to do with his years in
Congress.
Economics was the hot election issue, and
both Bera and Ose had their talking points about building the economy and the
Middle Class. Neither candidate, however,
offered any new ideas on how that would occur, but Ose did spend lots of money
on ads touting his business experience and the 30-year Republican mantra that “lowering
taxes on corporations and the wealthy would stimulate the economy”, AKA the
trickle-down theory.
If the staff and organizations supporting
Bera had known a little history about Ose’s congressional record, they might
have jumped on his claim with a message like: “Doug Ose claims to know how to rev up the economy and build the Middle
Class. Well, the proof is in the
pudding, and the pudding says otherwise. During the Bush Administration, Congressman Ose voted for the 2001 tax
cut, the largest in American history, and the 2003 tax cut.
And how did those tax cuts work,
you might ask? Well the answer is, it
depends. If you were a corporation
(remember, a corporation is a person!), a corporate executive, or a pretty
wealthy person like Doug Ose, you made out like a bandit because most of the
tax cuts went to them. Middle Class
families got a pittance. Take for
example the pay for corporate CEO’s. During the 1970s, the average chief executives at 102 major companies
were paid roughly 40 times an average full-time worker’s pay. A few years after those tax cuts, it
increased to 367 times the pay of the average worker. And Middle Class families got their pittance!
How about the economy in general, you might also ask? Did it grow because of the tax cuts? Well, not really. The eight years of the Bush administration
saw the lowest GDP growth of any administration since the end of World War II. So much for tax cuts stimulating the economy,
and so much for Doug Ose’s ideas!”
Both sides talked about the proposed
federal minimum wage increase. Bera
thought it was a good idea; Ose, like most Republicans, took the opposite
stance claiming it would hurt businesses and the economy. Once again, if Bera and other Democratic
candidates had gone beyond their talking point and actually supported it with
historical evidence, it might have resonated with the electorate. Heck, they might have tried this: “Doug Ose is against raising the federal
minimum wage because he says it’ll hurt the economy. Well, history says differently. Back in 1914, Henry Ford, a pretty good
businessman in his own right, did something revolutionary – he doubled his
workers’ wages to $5 per day. His
intentions were not altruistic; Ford wanted to keep his rank and file workers,
and he wanted his workers to earn enough to buy his automobiles! And, how did that work? Ford Motor Corporation workers soon enjoyed
the highest Middle Class standard of living of the time. If Costco today can afford to provide its
workers with a solid Middle Class wage and still turn a decent profit, so can
Walmart and McDonalds.”
The dearth of
substantive ideas doomed the Democratic candidates. Either they lacked the necessary knowledge to
articulate the principles that have served the party and our country well over
the past century, or they lacked the backbone to espouse those principles. The 2014 election is history. It’s time to look towards 2016. Here are a couple ideas to ponder for any Democrat
thinking of running in two years and all those staffers who will be there to
help get their candidate elected.
1. Stop bleating
nonsense. Let that be the strategy of
the Republicans. Don’t treat the electorate as a bunch of idiots. Discuss sound economic principles like the
living wage and the importance of workers, once again, becoming economic
stakeholders on par with the stockholders and CEO’s. And give us reasoned
thinking that support those principles.
2. Spend less time
working your phones and crunching numbers, especially now that the 2014
election is over. Spend more time
gaining the necessary knowledge to build a credible campaign that will resonate
with voters. Gain at least some of that
knowledge by reading books? Let me
suggest a couple that will enhance the understanding of important economic
issues and the history behind them: The
Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future of Our Economy, Energy, and Environment
by Chris Martenson and Who Stole
the American Dream by Hedrick Smith.
Democratic
candidates must arm themselves with knowledge and have the backbone to trumpet
that knowledge. Now is the time to
begin.
Dan Schmitt is a retired educator, baseball coach and resides in Wilton, Calif.
2 comments
I would presume the core of your Party, the unionized public-sector and "elite" liberals, probably turned out in typical numbers. But the "swing" Democrats who can tilt elections to your Party's favor (i.e. the recipients of redistributed income who relish the handouts), probably turned out in dismal numbers because there were no major entitlement giveaways on this ballot. I would be worried that the recent giveaways have been at the expense of the squeezed middle-class (a large part of your base), and now they will now become the swing vote for 2016. Stop digging in the pockets of the middle class and maybe you will get your power back!
With all due respect Warren, if we don't spend the money on such frivolous things such as education or crumbling infrastructure, where would you like the money spent? More military spending? I already know what you are going to say - less spending and lower taxes for the extreme wealthy through such goodies as lower capital gains taxes. That works great for that sliver of the population where capital gains taxes, i.e., hedge fund manager and investment bankers make up the majority of their pay. As for reducing spending, good luck with that . Regardless if our President is D or R, once they get in, they spend, spend, spend. That is political and human nature. Just look at our own city government if you want proof, but I digress.
Now tell me, whats in your wallet?
Post a Comment