A Broader Base

Before the recall vote in California even started, Larry Elder was crying foul. But he conceded and hushed up when election results showed the recall had failed substantially. Perhaps he was advised by those in his party who still want to promote another election as fraudulent. If everyone in the party cries wolf, even some of the base might tire of it.

I think there is a lesson here: with enough pressure from reality, even the most deluded may revert to acting reasonably. Some will continue to believe all the lies along with the big one that all the smaller ones were leading up to. But gradually more and more people are becoming skeptical and disgusted. And, in California at least, enough took the time and effort to vote to make a difference. Had it been closer, the Republicans might still be contesting.

Some Democrats advocate for using Republican tactics to beat them at their own game. But some of us prefer not to play dirty. We just need to show up. And we need to invite others to join us.

Many Republicans accept that Biden won the election and are (almost) as appalled as the rest of us that his opponent thought he could and should get away with overturning the will of the people. Republicans like Adam Kinzinger and Ed McBroom may be an often-despised minority among Republicans who prefer power to responsibility, but they have not disappeared.

In a choice between our country's two parties, where is a decent conservative to turn?

Kinzinger has consistently said and demonstrated that his integrity is more important to him than his job. But if he loses his next primary, who will he vote for? Who will his supporters vote for?

A traditional conservative has a hard time voting for many of the policies promoted by Democrats. But the conservative tradition also did not peddle in the lies, cheating, and bullying that have become the trademarks of the dramatically changed Republican party. Anyone with moderate political views is no longer welcome in the Republican party unless they pretend otherwise. The definition of a Republican is not what it was.

The Democrat party has problems of its own. Some members are distinctively progressive. Others represent the majority of moderates still left in Congress. On many issues, the two ends of the party continuum don't see eye to eye. Again, some Democrats want us to be more like the Republicans, with almost no one breaking ranks on a rigid set of views.

But, for now at least, the Democratic party has a bigger role. It needs to embrace a larger constituency. It needs to allow for the differences of perspective among all who have been expelled from the Republican personality cult. And we need to provide those voters caught between with a reason to vote for Democratic candidates.

I understand and share frustration with Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinnema. But if we demonize them, we are saying there is no room for debate. We are likely turning away a bloc of voters who are wondering if they can comfortably vote for a Democrat, perhaps for the first time in their lives.

If Democrats cannot find a way to tolerate the views of the center left—and now the center right—and to embrace the ensuing debates, we are unlikely to make the gains needed to undo voter suppression and gerrymandering that are already leaching votes from our base. Without a firm majority we will not address health care, immigration, climate change, and other issues of our time. And we won't gain that majority without making it clear that our party is willing to welcome and respect a broader base.

True, there's too little time to deal with rising temperatures, and we need to listen to the voices of those telling us to hurry. But if we rush without bringing enough people with us, we will fail even faster.

Especially now, as we approach the 2022 mid-term elections, there is too much at stake to vilify good people whose support we want and need. We need solid margins to quiet radical Republicans who are eager to cry foul at fair balls.

In the Cold

"The rich have their ice in the summer, but the poor get theirs in the winter."

Almanzo Wilder* uses this proverb to argue that things on the farm aren't so bad. It's a humorous take on inequality, with a measure of resignation. 

But inequality has serious consequences. A recent study from the University of Cambridge finds that 55% of millennials worldwide are dissatisfied with democracy. Why? Because of inequality. From the study's conclusion:

The broader question we are left with, then, is this: how can faith in democracy be restored in the face of systemic discontent and populist mobilisation? If there is an answer here, it may be to focus less upon “populism” as a threat and more upon democracy’s founding promise – to represent the concerns of citizens, and deliver effective and timely policy solutions. The rise of populism signals that existing structures have failed to address longstanding resentments in society, ranging from inequalities of wealth, to economic insecurity, to malfeasance among economic and social elites.

The study reports that the rise in populism—left, right, and even center—is a reaction to inequality and resulting inequities. This explains, in the US, the popularity of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Populism tends to villainize a group of elites. For President Trump that group has bounced around from liberal politicians to scientists and doctors to mainstream media, or anyone else who dares to criticize the big man. Even life-long Republicans, like Robert Mueller, are labeled crazy liberals if they fail to lick the boots of the grand pooh-bah. 

But the President has overwhelming support from most Republicans. They too want to dismiss evidence of the widening wealth gap and its causes. Promoting havens for themselves and their richest constituents trumps any concern over the failures of trickle-down economics.

A Reuters article about the Cambridge study sums it up: 

"The main reason behind the disillusion with democracy among young people was inequality of wealth and income, the report said, citing figures showing that Millennials make up around a quarter of the U.S. population but hold just 3% of the wealth. Baby Boomers held 21% of the wealth at the same age.

The group of elites that gets much of Bernie Sanders' ire goes unscathed by nearly all Republicans. The gap between rich and poor has expanded dramatically since the 1980s, while the share of taxes for the wealthy has declined. Discarding a reputation for fiscal responsibility, Republicans passed a tax reform bill that they knew would increase the deficit. That bill achieved their goal: taxes for the economic elite were reduced to the lowest rate since the 1950s, when the super wealthy paid a whopping 90% income tax rate. That tax rate has been dropping since the early 1960s, and the gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically.

To be sure, Republicans promote social causes that generate enthusiasm among some of the low-income population, but these are mostly props. Such ideals are dropped in a heartbeat if they hamper the promotion of wealth among the wealthy.

Now, as a result of the growing income gap, many people are fed up with a system that promotes the cause of the rich over that of the poor and middle class. Because this has happened in a great many democracies, this system of government has been tarnished with the results. Increasingly, the dispossessed are left in the cold.

Recently Utah Senator Mike Lee said, "We are not a democracy." Is he expressing solidarity with over half of the world's millennials? No, he seems unconcerned with growth in inequality. He is panning democracy to preserve inequality. On almost any issue, you can predict Republican policy by whether it answers yes to a single question: does it cater to the rich over the poor? 

As a Montana farmer used to say, "Don't that frost your biscuits?"

------------------

"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means—except by getting off his back."

-Leo Tolstoy

* Laura Ingalls Wilder, The First Four Years

-----------------

2024-04-22: Today I read an article worth reading on this topic: 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/neoliberalism-freedom-markets-hayek/678124/

Moderate

It's possible that the Montana farmer who taught me that Nixon was a crook will this year vote for Mr Trump. I hope not, but I'm aware that many red-state residents don't share my view. Some Democrats and independents blame support of Trump on stupidity. But I don't buy it.

There is an almost admirable solidarity among DC Republicans. Their fundamental aim: defend this president, no matter what. This fealty now defines the Republican party, which has no choice and no voice but that which exalts this person whom many of them formerly reviled (and possibly still do).

Some people always loved him. I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to moderates.

At one time, no moderate could stomach the guy. Some now appear to. There are whispers among formerly moderate Republicans in Congress that they wish they didn't have to, but believe they must, support him. And they ask their constituents for the same support, come what may.

What's to be done if you are a moderate Republican voter? Those Left-wing Liberal Democrats will ruin the country! (At least that's what a letter accompanying a "census form" I got from RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel says.) So you hold your nose, and push the R button.

Is this your only option? No, it's not. You could decline to cast a vote for president. Or you could write in the name of someone you admire.

Or you could vote Democrat. Or become one.

In 2018, Democrats who won the House of Representative were mostly moderates. They campaigned on issues that matter to most people, and they beat a lot of Republican candidates whose only platform was obeisance to the big man.

We hear complaints about how far left Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is. She represents her district, as she ought to, but she doesn't represent districts in middle America. She doesn't have to. We aren't from her district. We have other perspectives and other priorities. And Democrat candidates in our districts listen to us. Not on every one of our issues, perhaps, but on most.

Yes, I know Republicans keep saying it's the Democrats who lie and cheat. So I encourage you to do your research. You'll find just how natural lying now comes to Ms McDaniel and other Republicans, who follow the leader. You'll find some Democrats you don't like, and some you do. This is the new face of the Democratic party—out of necessity, we've become a coalition.

I'm talking to the farmers, carpenters, hunters, loggers, machinists, and pro-life voters I grew up with, worked with, and live with. I know you have been loyal Republicans, but you never bought into a cult. You never defended such wholesale self-interest by the man in power as Republicans have now committed to. I cannot bring myself to believe you have changed that much.

Can someone be a moderate in the US today and still be a Republican? If so, I must have forgotten what a moderate is. Moderation never used to include a blind following of a self-serving boss who cannot or, worse, refuses to stop lying to us. And, of course, it's not just him. Republicans have been gradually transforming for years. It's understandable if you didn't notice. But now you must.

While Republicans have been moving further and further right, so have some Democrats. They've been filling the gap. We've got a few hard-liners of our own, mind you, but most are open to discussion. The one from your district represents you. You hear propaganda to the contrary. Don't buy it.

I learned from you how to call bullshit what it is. I know you know how to figure this out.

Check us out. We're not perfect. But we're OK.


It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.
    -Thomas Paine