Reflections on Elections Part 3

I have tried to point out that I do not believe that this election was a repudiation of Democrat positions on various issues. More specifically, I think that it would be unwise for the Democrats to abandon their long held beliefs just yet.

The economics position of the Democrats is the easiest to argue. I won't mince words, there is something inherently appealing to the electorate about big government handouts. It does surprise me that most Americans will tolerate the level of spending of the government, but it is what it is. People just expect a certain level of social spending.

I think in this election, President Bush benefited from a reasonable economy (nationally) and some specific agenda items, such as reforming social security. Senator Kerry took the Gore 2000 approach and railed against Benedict Arnold CEOs and "big" business. More than in other areas, I think Senator Kerry suffered from a lack of focus on the future. The only specific item he did say (unequivocally) was that he would raise taxes - a losing strategy.

The Clintonian approach - focusing on the needy and less fortunate - and then, awe shucks what a surprise, we need to raise taxes a little bit - is the tried and true formula for the Democrats. The generous American voting public would accept this.

***

I think the problems the Democrats face are much more difficult to remedy. Demographics are completely undermining the core of the Democratic constituency. The Democrats have classically relied on minority groups (in particular, blacks and Jews) and unions and recently added the trial lawyers as core contributors. But black loyalty is slowly eroding (and will continue to do so with each generation) and the unions (excepting public sector) are diminishing in membership. Trial lawyers? They would be just as popular embracing the pedophile priest lobby.

Where do you go? Maybe borrow a concept from the lawyers: the reasonable man standard. Tolerance, inclusiveness, liberalness with some limits. The idea that the left has no limits to what they accept as "acceptable" behavior is the major problem facing them today. In every aspect of the debate (especially the domestic debate), there is a legitimate question as to what level of behavior would not be acceptable - when would the Left draw the line. I think President Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment had a bigger impact then anyone imagined. A Democrat finally said "enough." Candidate Kerry and the DNC had plenty of opportunities for a "Sister Souljah" moment - Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, moveon.org - but never took the opportunity. In fact, Senator Kerry explicitly endorsed some of them.

The Republicans might just be better internal policeman because the left-leaning MSM brings any extremist behavior front and center (e.g., Trent Lott). Maybe the NY Times and CBS News would be more effective for the Democrats if they policed the left as vigorously.