SwiftVets.com

[ASPB]

The Party of the Rich?

One of the unique features of the American political system is that we are ruled by only two political parties. Cynics often attribute this to some flaw in the American character or a limit to the electorate's intelligence. Worse, some suggest the system has been rigged by political power-brokers.

But Thomas Jefferson observed over 200 years ago that it was inevitable that the American system would evolve into two parties. This was remarkably prescient, especially since he hated the whole idea of political parties. But he saw, as others have seen since, that the nature of the American Constitution makes having two major parties almost inescapable. This has its flaws, but has arguably served the country well for centuries.


Because both parties are so enormous, they are in reality simply two big collections of coalitions. This forces them both into endless compromises, and also forces them to evolve in response to changes in demographics. Sometimes, this causes amusing and strange transitions. The most amusing these days is the notion that certain diehard Democrats continue to peddle: namely, that the Republicans are the "party of the rich" whereas the Democratic Party is the party of the "little guy." Leaving aside the astounding condescension inherent in referring to anyone as "the little guy," what these folks seem to have missed is that, increasingly, it is they who are the party of the rich...

The poorest regions of the United States by and large trend Republican. That trend's been growing over the last few decades. This reached its most obvious zenith (so far) in the closely-divided election of 2000. Despite all the class-warfare rhetoric used by the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, he mostly won his very slim popular margin by winning three types of voter: affluent urbanites, affluent New Englanders, and black people. Bush, on the other hand, built his electoral victory on a much broader and more inclusive campaign that did not seek to divide people by race or class, and won voters in much larger and more diverse regions of the country--the poorer regions especially.

Don't believe it? Have a look at this map, if you haven't already:
http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000055.html

County-by-County results of the 2000 Presidential election

(By the way, that map is from Mike Hodges' excellent Grandfather Economic Report page, which is well worth reading in its own right.)

Diehard Democrats tend to be irritated by that map, which arguably shows that Gore's far-left agenda (a radical departure from Clintonian centrism) left most of the country cold. It also tends to validate the electoral college system; do we really want to be ruled by politicians who can win the most votes simply by appealing to aflluent urbanites and the racially paranoiad, in places like Manhattan, Hollywood, Ann Arbor, New England and Seattle?

The map is disquieting for the very wealthy elites who rule today's Democratic Party for other reasons: what it portends for the future. Al Gore won a smidge more popular votes in 2000, but did it in large part by winning an unprecedented 90% of the black vote. And he did that by whipping up racist fear and animosity to a greater extent than any candidate for President since George Wallace in 1968. This, despite the steadily growing affluence of the majority of black voters over the last 20 years.

If you just factor out those black voters (as numerous Democratic and Republican pollsters have done), Bush won a popular landslide; he didn't just win male voters, he won female voters too. Especially notable were married women, the "soccer moms" who so famously carried Bill Clinton to victory, who went for Bush in 2000 and are likely to stay with him in 2004. America's enormous middle class in general went for Bush by a landslide.

Contemplate for a moment, for example, what Gore's method of popular victory means for Democratic efforts to take back the House in 2002; black voters mostly live in overwhelmingly Democratic districts, and thus as a group cannot do much to help take seats from Republicans. Beyond them, a huge swath of Democratic Congressmen and Senators are running in areas that voted for Bush, which has them running uphill without even counting any other factor--and explains why a President like Clinton, Nixon, or Bush can still be effective in dealing with Congress even if he does not win a solid majority of voters.

Furthermore, despite all the popular talk about GOP fundraisers (like this piece from the normally astute Ara Rubyan), the fact of the matter is that for some time now, Democrats have easily raised as much money from wealthy donors as Republicans. In "soft money," money given to political parties, the Democrats and Republicans have been at parity for some time. In "hard money," given directly to candidates, the donation limit has long been $1,000, and Republicans have generally done better with that. This is not, however, because they have more rich supporters. It's because they have more support among modestly affluent suburbanites and rural voters: middle class homeowners, small-time investors, farmers, and other small business owners and self-employed workers, who can afford to contribute a few hundred bucks every now and then.

Worse for Democrats, the recent campaign finance reforms in Washington, aside from the inexcusably and horrendously unconstitutional parts, tend mostly to benefit Republicans. This is because Republicans are arguably less dependent on very wealthy donors than Democrats. A seemingly endless supply of limousine liberals has been keeping Democratic coffers full for some time, but starting in 2003, that so-called "soft" money will be strictly limited. But the hard-money donations cap has been raised to $2,000. While Democrats may have more very wealthy donors than Republicans, they don't have something that forms the real backbone of the Republican party: the growing tide of self-employed workers, small business owners and suburbanites who fear today's Democratic Party and who are quite capable of ponying up $2,000 to stop a destructive class-warfare agenda.

Possibly the worst kick in the teeth is that, of the areas of the country that are losing population, most of those went for Gore, while most of the growing areas went for Bush.

It is entrepreneurs, small-time investors, and small business owners who are the strength of the American economy. It is also they who are the real source of most GOP fundraising dollars and votes. To whatever extent money wins elections, it is the Republicans who have most of the advantages of the new reforms.

Of course, the news isn't all that bad for Democrats. Historically, it's wrong to suggest that money wins campaigns anyway; it's been shown repeatedly that in two-way races, the candidate who spends the most money is the one who is somewhat more likely to lose. It's not money that's "corrosive" to the poltical process, it's campaigns that pit race against race, religion against religion, and group against group, which pretty much defines how the Democrats ran their campaign in 2000 and are running it in 2004.

Furthermore, beyond black voters, there is another demographic group that Democrats have been making gains in over the last few years: high-income white males. The elite ranks of the Democratic party are almost exclusively made up of white male multimillionaires (it is a delicious irony that there are more "people of color" and women in positions of power in today's Republican party than there are in the Democratic party, despite their respective public images). Indeed, one of the quickest ways to get rich without running your own business appears to be to get deeply involved in Democratic Party politics. This makes perfect sense; people who don't want to make a living on their own but want to get rich by peddling power become Democrats. That's how Democratic machine-style politics worked throughout most of the 20th Century, and it seems like that's how the party plans to work in the 21st.
What's so funny about it is that these people actually think they represent the poor and the middle class---"the little people," as they like to call us. Ironic, since it's the poor and middle classes who are increasingly alienated from them.

All of this is transitory, of course. As the population changes, the Democratic Party will adapt. Neither political party can keep a lock on political power in America; it's another inescapable reality of our system that if one party wins over a chunk of the other party's constituency, the losing party simply retools and changes. The minority party eventually finds a way either to bring those voters back or to peel off a different group from the opposing party. And the separation of powers at the Federal level, and between the states and D.C., makes radical changes nearly impossible anyway.

Democrats will probably figure out that class warfare hurts both them and the country sooner or later. Eventually they'll figure out that small investors are the wave of the future. Eventually they'll retool their message and start winning back voters who they've been alienating over the last decade or so. Or they'll find a way to peel off a different group of voters who currently vote Republican. It's how the system has always worked.

The only question is how long it will take them.
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB

[NoDonkey]

Good article. I think another distinction that can be made is that affluent Democrats tend to be controlling individuals who think that the country would be much better if they were able to force more people to do what Democrats think they should do.

Wealthy/educated Republicans tend to be individualists who want to be left alone to raise their families and pursue their business interests.

Wealthy/educated Democrats tend to be people living off of Government grants, professors and professionals who favor greater rates in taxation, far more regulation on personal behavior (except of drugs/sex where everything is OK), and a foreign policy that would kowtow to the UN and European "sensibilities". The are a condescending, patronizing elitist bunch of aspiring tinpot tyrants.

The only thing Democrats love about this country is the possibility that one day they could grab power and rule the rest of us. They hate our past, they hate our present and are pessimistic about any future in which anyone other than Democrats has power.

There is nothing even slightly worthwhile about today's Democratic Party and I don't believe there will be until the death of the stuck-in-the-60's dinosaurs who control that party.
_________________
"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face." - Thomas Sowell