Re: Thoughtful essay by Jonathan Tobin- What is missing is the fact that the Republican Party remains what it has always been since the Coolidge - Hoover era, the party of the rich. Sure, who doesn't know the argument, the rich need more and more money so that they can create jobs. Also, just as surely, only ideologues don't understand that what this really means is that what the GOP wants is more-more-more $$ for the rich so that the upper 1% can control more and more of the economy and, anything but incidentally, spend millions on impressive luxuries that only create jobs for Nieman Marcus. The Capitalist system is the best economic engine in today's world. But it happens to be riddled with serious problems, and worship of laissez faire only guarantees that none of those problems will be addressed. The article highlights tensions within the Democratic Party. The guiding light of the party has been ever-increasing expansion of its voter base. But as Tobin points out, sometimes the addition of a new minority to a coalition chases away a major element of the party's base. Two large blocs of once solidly Democratic voters are now lost to the party because of the perception that homosexuals, in the case of how seniors think of them, are anti- all values they -seniors- hold dear. In the case of white voters who mostly are working class, you need to couple disgust with homosexuals to resentment about a flood of illegal immigrants that threaten American jobs. The Democratic argument that seniors will all be dead soon is dead wrong even if some % of this demographic does die off at a significant rate every year. But in terms of demographics, we won't see a decline in the % of seniors who vote until ca 2030! Until then their share of the electorate will increase year by year. Hint: Its the Baby Boom population bulge, stupid. By the 2020s more than 20% of the electorate will be 65+ As for white Democrats, especially white male Democrats, uhhh. where'd they go? You can still find them on the Coasts but everywhere else they are no longer Democrats, and now are Republicans or Independents. Of all white males, somewhere between 2/3rds and 3/4ths, with 70% being about right, are not Democrats. As one of this number who once voted Democratic I can tell you my sentiments, which I think are typical: The party has become a cesspool of every neo-Marxist idea in existence, it cares far more about minorities than about anyone who is -the horror, the horror- a white male, a group defined by feminists ( who vote 99% Democratic) as the enemy gender, plus the party is anti-religion and hates every "faith" except Atheism and Islam. And then there is the party's "Negroes can do no evil" syndrome that excuses every riot, every black criminal as justified by circumstances, and that now has given us a total incompetent as president. To hell with that s**t. But no way can I possibly switch to the GOP. Why, exactly, should I vote against my own economic self interests? This leaves me and other Indies with a dilemma. The best we can do is vote strategically, and pull the lever for the lesser of two evils, or vote in protest for some third party. We need a new major national party that tells both the Republicans and Democrats: F**k off, we don't need you, we don't want you, you are obsolete. What happens to you is not our concern. We choose something new and superior. My honest opinion Billy ============================ Commentary Dem Civil War and Demographic Destiny _Jonathan S. Tobin_ (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/author/jonathan-s-tobin/) 12.04.2014 Coming as it did on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday, I don’t think enough attention was paid to Senator Charles Schumer’s _National Press Club speech last week_ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/25/schumer_obamacare_wasnt_the_change_we_were_hired_to_make_in_2008.html) that lamented the Democratic Party’s decision to expend all of its capital on passing ObamaCare in the wake of their 2008 victory. Schumer said that rather than addressing a problem that affected a relatively small percentage of the public, the Democrats should have used the two years when they controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress focusing on measures that would have increased employment and helped the middle class. If you think that sounds like sour grapes in the wake of a midterm elections drubbing, you’re right. But Schumer is hinting at something more serious than second thoughts about an unpopular piece of legislation. He and other liberals are only just beginning to realize that rather than riding demographics to certain triumph in the future, Democratic alienation of white working class and middle class voters may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Schumer’s political analysis is must reading for both conservatives and liberals. Though he insists that tackling health care was a good idea in principle, he points out that although the plight of uninsured and rising health-care costs are important problems, 85 percent of Americans were getting their insurance from either their employers or the government (via Medicare or Medicaid). Since most of the uninsured are either not registered or don’t vote even if they are: To aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense. So when Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought, the Democrats are not paying enough attention to “me.” But Schumer shouldn’t have stopped with his second-guessing of the misnamed Affordable Care Act. The same argument can be made about President Obama’s executive orders mandating amnesty for five million illegal immigrants. Though this measure is assumed, with reason, to be popular among Hispanic voters, the notion that it will ensure their monolithic support for Democrats in the future is a theory, not a certainty. But even if we are prepared to make that assumption, by investing so heavily in a measure that is focused on appealing only to minorities and which, at the same time, has the potential to alienate large numbers of working class and middle class voters who worry about the nation’s inability to control its borders and intensely dislike the president’s end run around the Constitution to accomplish this goal, they increased their demographic weakness in other areas. Republicans have spent the years since their 2012 loss in the presidential election pondering their problems with Hispanics, African-Americans, unmarried women, and young voters. The ensuing debate has created an ongoing argument between those who urge greater outreach to these constituencies and those who believe the GOP has to concentrate on mobilizing its base. One needn ’t choose either option to the exclusion of the other, but this discussion has become a keynote of the simmering conflict between the party establishment and its Tea Party and conservative base. But while the mainstream press has obsessed about this Republican civil war, it ignores the looming battle among Democrats. That civil war pits people like Schumer, who may be hardcore liberals but understand that ideological policies carry a hefty price tag, against left-wingers like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who appears to speak for the Democratic base in the same way that Ted Cruz represents Tea Partiers. Democrats paid the price that Schumer spoke of in the form of two midterm election landslides even if Barack Obama ’s historic status and personal popularity enabled them to hold onto the White House in 2012. The two presidential wins interspersed with two midterm losses has led many pundits and politicians on both sides of the aisle to conclude that the two parties are fated to continue this pattern because of the larger turnout of Democratic constituencies in presidential years. That has led many to embrace the notion that demography is destiny, which holds that the increasingly larger share of votes cast by non-whites will not only ensure that the pattern continues but that Republicans will never again win the presidency until they become more attractive to minorities. That’s not an idea that the GOP should ignore, but it may be that the Democrats’ decision to embrace policies that alienate a far larger group—white middle class and working class male voters—will be as much of handicap in 2016 as it was in 2014. All indications are that, like that ultimate weathervane Hillary Clinton, many Democrats prefer to follow Warren’s example and steer to the left. That may endear them to minorities as well as their liberal base. But in doing so they may be the ones dooming themselves to future disasters, not Republicans who understand that so long as they avoid looking foolish or extreme they are well positioned to reap the benefits of opposition to both ObamaCare and amnesty for illegals. Having spent the last six years branding their opponents as extremists, it seems Democrats have forgotten that the same problem exists on the left as it does on the right
-- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
