“The Groups–all the left-wing outfits from the abortion people to the enviros–didn’t deliver in the last election, and not because they didn’t try. They worked their hearts out. But they had no one to deliver. They had only money. The secret: Nobody likes them. Nobody! No matter how you feel about abortion, no one likes pro-abortion fanatics; no one likes mad scientists who cook environmental data. Or rather only rich and creepy people like them. Stand up to the Groups–make your policies more moderate, more nuanced, less knee-jerk”. –Peggy Noonan “If I Were A Democrat”
Search
A Republican thinks the solution to the Democrats’ problems is for the Democrats to become more like Republicans.
There’s a surprise.
A Republican thinks the solution to the Democrats’ problems is for the Democrats to become more like Republicans.
Peggy Noonan’s advice was more fundamental than that. She wasn’t necessarily saying Democrats should be more like Republicans, but for Democrats to be more like the American people where ever the American people voice their opinion loudly.
If issues that the American people speak loudly on (dislike of taxes, no on gay marriage, general view that free market is better than government etc) happen to fall under the Republican platform, that just means Republicans are better at listening to what the American people are demanding than Democrats are.
She is basically saying Democrats need to start paying more attention to what the American people want instead of what some in the Democrat party want.
Noonan’s recommendations are in the negative:
- Stop being fanatical about abortion. Where are the Democrats fanatical on that issue? The Democrats have pro-Life leadership. Abortion fanaticism certainly hasn’t hurt the Republicans, whose leadership includes people who want to see the death penalty leveled against people who perform abortion.
- Scientists who cook environmental data? Where have the Democrats been doing that? Certainly, having scientists cook data hasn’t hurt Republicans, for example, in regards to teaching reproductive issues in the schools.
You raise a couple of more issues:
- Dislike of taxes. The GOP has been the most fiscally irresponsible government in the history of the U.S., increasing spending and the deficit while cutting taxes. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay for these errors.
- “No” on gay marriage. John Kerry was against gay marriage, as far as I can recall.
- Free market better than government? The GOP has expanded the size of government to an unprecedentet level, adding at minimum tens of thousands of new government jobs.
I understand your points Mitch, believe me I do. But I still don’t think you understand Peggy Noonans point.
She is saying more than ‘do this and that on a particular issue’, she is saying act like you believe it.
For example, you write, Dislike of taxes. The GOP has been the most fiscally irresponsible government in the history of the U.S., increasing spending and the deficit while cutting taxes. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay for these errors.
That may be so, but who do you think is seen by the general public as the anti-tax party? It sure isn’t Democrats. Democrats sound like the only reason they bring up the big deficits and increased spending (valid points) is not because they really hate big deficits, but because they hate tax cuts that they believe caused those deficits. Not because they hate big spending, but because they hate where the spending is going, instead of where the the Democrats want it to go (education, health care etc).
When is the last time you even heard a prominent Democrat talk badly about taxes?
You also write, “No” on gay marriage. John Kerry was against gay marriage, as far as I can recall.
Yes, he did say he was against gay marriage, but he only said this once or twice. Nobody really believed that he was, he was seen as more of a ‘I’ll try to take the middle ground here to get elected, but I really do believe in gay marriage’ type person. As Bill CLinton said, he needed to say he was against gay marriage 300 to 400 times, not 3 or 4 times.
Free market better than government? The GOP has expanded the size of government to an unprecedentet level, adding at minimum tens of thousands of new government jobs.
That may be so, but the general public doesn’t connect the dots as easily as it would, say, on the social security debate. Read my recent post “Liberals And Social Security”, it is a fact that liberals in general are fighting against the privatization of social security. Almost as a knee jerk reaction. They are doing this despite the clear lesson of history that the default position should always be privatization instead of government.
Stop being fanatical about abortion. Where are the Democrats fanatical on that issue? The Democrats have pro-Life leadership. Abortion fanaticism certainly hasn’t hurt the Republicans, whose leadership includes people who want to see the death penalty leveled against people who perform abortion.
The Democrats have only recently, after losing another big election, opened up the doors to pro-life Democrats. Before they were shunned by Democrats. In addition, it is Democrats that are fighting against ‘common sense’ abortion laws. It was them who fought against a partial birth abortion ban, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the right to know law. Democrats give the impression that they have moved from being pro-choice, to being pro-abortion.
Granted, on all the above cases you can point to underlying factors that concerned the Democrats, but that is beside the point. THe point is what impression the general public gets. And that is what Noonan is addressing.
Yes, I agree that you have accurately summarized the public perception of the Democratic party. The Democratic Party is a mess. However, this simply shows that the American public has no idea what’s going on.
On the issue of fiscal conservativism: remember that it was the period when we had a Democrat in the White House when we had a balanced budget. Ronald Reagan spent eight years running on a platform of fiscal conservatism, and he proceeded to rack up the biggest deficits in the history of the U.S., a record which held until the next two-term GOP president took office.
HP: the clear lesson of history that the default position should always be privatization instead of government.
No, HP, the clear lesson of history is that there are some things that the market is good at, some things that government is good at.
I see no evidence that there is a crisis in Social Security, and, if there is a crisis, no evidence that privatization is the answer. There is certainly a problem, one which is by no means critical and which can be fixed by some minor adjustments to the program.
I did read the essay that you pointed to about Krugman and DeLong—interestingly, the author of that essay did not seem to refute either of them, nor did he seem to want to.
Remember that social security was never intended as a pension the way you and I might think of the word. A pension is designed to allow a person to continue to live more-or-less the same lifestyle in retirement as they did when the were working. Social Security was not designed for that purpose, it was designed as an insurance policy against poverty, at a point in time—the Great Depression #8212;when the elderly were literally dying of starvation and exposure in the streets. Social Security is designed to prevent that, to help the elderly to at least have shelter and food.
Earlier, you posted a manifesto of sorts, why you are a conservative. My manifesto on why I am a liberal is this: Because prior to the great liberal reforms of the 20th Century, trade unions and Civil Rights and the social welfare programs that began under FDR, we saw a vast inequality in the distribution of wealth. Before FDR was the era of Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, of vast personal fortunes, and of starvation, of people gasping out their lungs working for pennies in coal mines, and children laboring in factories. It was the era of Jim Crow and lynchings.
Under liberal governments, beginning with FDR, we saw a vast increase in equality and the middle class.
And I’m not willing to throw out those improvements simply to satisfy some social theorizing about the virtues of the private sector. Because I know that human nature has not changed in 70 years. If we roll back liberal social programs, the children will return to the factories, the coal mines will once again be filled with dying workers, and the streets will once again be filled with the homeless and starving.
You think you’ve seen poverty in Compton and Mexico? Well, I suppose you have, worse than I’ve ever seen. But I remember New York during the conservative Golden Age of Reagan and Bush I, I remember the floor of Pennsylvania Station being filled with sleeping rows of homeless people, packed so densely that there was only a narrow lane for people to walk single file.
On the issue of fiscal conservativism: remember that it was the period when we had a Democrat in the White House when we had a balanced budget. Ronald Reagan spent eight years running on a platform of fiscal conservatism, and he proceeded to rack up the biggest deficits in the history of the U.S., a record which held until the next two-term GOP president took office.
Right, but Republicans controlled everything else. They had control (for the first time in some 50 years) of the senate, the house, and arguably the fed (Alan Greenspan is Republican).
During Reagan’s years, that is all us Republicans had, the presidency. Democrats controlled everything else.
I remember reading once that Milton Friedman argued that the best way to get the best of both worlds is when the senate and house are controlled by a different party than the presidency. I tend to agree with him, only I would pick the presidency to be the Republican one (I want the judges).
As far as social security and privatization goes, I am not here arguing one way or the other. I am just trying to show you the impression people get. It seems like modern day liberals have a knee jerk reaction against privatization.
As for your points about FDR, let me lay down some facts that weigh pretty strongly in my mind.
1. FDR was not the great saint people make him out to be…there is much proof that his social programs made things worse for the poor, not better. In fact, I would go even further and say most modern day economists side with my view than your view of him.
2. Contrary to your experience of the dramatic change through history, almost everytime a country moves from a ‘government doing something’ to a ‘leave it in the peoples hand’, the standard of living improves and *everybody* is better off. This has been the experience and direction of the rest of the world in general. So I have no reason to doubt it would be the same here in the USA.
3. Modern day liberals are different than the liberals of the past.
With the exception of number one, I would say the average person shares these same beliefs with me. So what impression do you think the ‘average joe’ gets from the modern Democratic party when it seems to be only liberals arguing strongly against ‘privatization of social security’?
I am not arguing social security should be privatized here, I am only trying to get you to see the impression people are getting from modern day liberals, and arguing that they need to change that. That’s all.
Lest you think I am being unfair by only giving Republicans as examples, take liberal Matthew Yglesias word for it. He seems to agree with me.