First Thoughts on McCain/Palin and the Middle Class
Only hours after Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced his surprise choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the National Review weighed in with glowing praise. No surprise there.
What’s noteworthy is that even the ultraconservative journal is framing the election in terms of middle class issues:
We hope that the choice of Palin also signals a decisive turn toward a campaign theme of fighting for the middle class… [McCain and Palin] should not accept the portrait of middle-class Americans as hapless victims that so many of the Democratic speakers this week portrayed; but they need to show that they share middle-class frustrations. Strength in foreign policy; reforms of taxes and health care geared to the middle class; and a moderate social conservatism: It’s a potentially winning message, and now Republicans have a ticket that is suited to it.
My take: yes, “fighting for the middle class” is a good thing. And “moderate social conservatism” is probably the dominant attitude of the middle class—which is one of the reasons Democrats so often feel (and are) frustrated in their attempts to connect with Middle America.
What’s troubling in the National Review’s assessment is that it refers to fighting for the middle class as a campaign “theme” and talks about a winning “message.” That’s the kind of lingo advertising execs use when they’re trying to get you to buy their new detergent.
We don’t need candidates who are good at talking to us. We need candidates who are genuinely willing to listen to us. If they “share middle class frustrations” (McCain certainly doesn’t, but perhaps Palin does), then they need to do something about them.
It will be interesting to hear what McCain/Palin, and Obama/Biden, have to say as the campaigns progress, and to assess whether what they’re saying is merely a well-crafted “message” to lure middle class voters, or a genuine commitment to doing what is right for the great American majority.
Ooops! I’m not quite sure how you came to the following conclusion, but it’s just not true. “And “moderate social conservatism” is probably the dominant attitude of the middle class—which is one of the reasons Democrats so often feel (and are) frustrated in their attempts to connect with Middle America.”
The real reason is Democrats are horrible sales people and don’t have clue about how to market. On the other hand, Republicans only know how to sell us on anything that slithers out their playbook (I know it’s a little strong but I’ve never liked pushy salesmen), they certainly don’t know how to run government.
Here’s where people really are on public policy:
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/whats-difference-between-carnival.html
Hmmm… well, let’s see. Your post quotes the following statistics of what the American people want:
1. increase the minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living (88 percent)
2. increase government spending on things like public-works projects to create jobs (86 percent)
3. put stricter limits on pollution we put into the atmosphere (85 percent)
4. limit rate increases on adjustable rate mortgages (82 percent)
5. provide quality healthcare to all, regardless of ability to pay (81 percent)
6. impose higher tax incentives for alternative energy (81 percent)
7. provide government-funded childcare to all parents so they can work (77 percent)
8. provide more paid maternity/dependent care leave (76 percent)
9. make it less profitable for companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries (76 percent)
10. expand unemployment benefits (76 percent)
I would define “social issues” as those which primarily concern how our society reflects our underlying values, especially those in which government has a role in shaping and responding to societal norms: e.g. abortion, prayer in public schools, race relations, gay/lesbian issues, drug legalization, and so on. Arguably, all issues are in some sense social issues (since all issues affect how society functions). The whole concept of “social issues,” however, only came to the forefront during the 1960s and later, when politicians started to realize that many people came down at different points on the conservative/liberal spectrum on social and on economic issues. For example, there are many economic conservatives who favor low taxes and minimal welfare benefits, but who are “liberal” in supporting gay marriage.
Of the issues you cite, all have a strong economic component, though (3) is an environmental issue. All, except (3) and (6), reflect traditional liberal economics, which has at its core ensuring that working Americans get their fair share of the economic pie through governmental benefits and regulations. I agree that the American electorate overwhelmingly supports these things, if for no other reason than because the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction. Republican ideologies have controlled our government for over a quarter century, since 1980. (The hiatus of the Clinton administration didn’t really roll back “Reagonomics” in any meaningful way.)
So why haven’t the Dems fared better at the polls? I think your explanation that they are “horrible sales people” with no marketing savvy is a cop-out. Sales and marketing people are hired guns available to anyone. Both parties have plenty of money to pay for the best of the best.
I believe (and you may disagree with me) that the problem goes deeper. Republican funding is dependent on big business. The big corporations gladly tolerate a lot of Republican posturing on social issues as long as they get their low taxes, free trade, and favorable regulations. These goodies are largely handed out covertly, in the fine print of long, boring bills that are passed in Congress and signed by the President. Tax rates are high-profile, and there was a little bit of protest when Pres. Bush gave his huge tax breaks to the billionaires. But mailing out checks for a few hundred bucks each to the peons kept most people quiet.
Democrats, by contrast, get much of their funding, and their grassroots support, from special interest groups such as the pro-choice lobby; the gay/lesbian lobby; the ultraliberal public education lobby; various racial minority groups; and the fashionable pro-diversity set in Manhattan and L.A. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats can’t pay these people off under the table, and then use faux populist rhetoric to rope in the masses. That’s because unlike corporate fat cats, the Democratic moneygivers want highly visible social change.
And there’s the rub. Again, you may disagree, but I think that there are tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans in what politicians call “flyover country” (the mostly rural red states) who have no use whatsoever for the agenda of the special interest groups I mentioned. Much of this group is deeply, traditionally, religious (think Southern Baptist or Pentecostal). Such people generally oppose abortion; consider homosexuality sinful or at least believe it cannot be blessed by the sacrament of marriage; don’t want their kids brainwashed (as they see it) with an anti-traditionalist agenda in public schools; live in a predominantly white culture and like it that way; and don’t want (as they see it) a bunch of Chardonnay-sipping, sushi-eating penthouse dwellers telling them how to live.
How do you please both the average folks who cast the votes, and the people who put up the money? The Republicans have found the formula. The Democrats haven’t, at least not until now, but not for lack of salesmanship, but because it’s harder for them to find a narrative that sounds good to both sides. Obama’s trying very hard, and he’s doing better than anyone I’ve seen so far. His speech at the end of the DNC proved his phenomenal oratory skills if they haven’t been proven already.
If he pulls it off, it will be interesting to see how he navigates the great divide when it comes to nuts-and-bolts policy decisions.