 | |
| Image from marketing-chine.com |
In my lifetime, the United States has not been in a place similar to where it is right now. Barack Obama is only the second Democrat to be President for more than six years since FDR in the 1940's, and Bill Clinton was mired in impeachment proceedings during his sixth year as President. Things are going so much better for the country right now (comparatively low unemployment, high stock markets, low inflation, no active wars, new freedoms) that we are due for a big change of direction in 2016. That is why I see it unlikely that Democrats will win the Presidency in 2016, and I'll give you ten reasons (plus a bonus reason for good measure).
(1) America is not ready for a woman President. Many other countries have had women heads of state, including England, Germany, Australia, Israel, India, Brazil, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, and several African countries. Russia, China, Japan and the United States have not had a woman leader since Russia's Catherine the Great in 1796, and I don't see that changing. Though I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is as tough as any male leader in the world, the American people are still too biased against women. In the conservative South and Midwest, women have their place, and that place is not as a leader of a powerful country. This reason is closely associated with the next one.
(2) Two steps forward, one step back. Having a woman President would represent a big change for this country, and we've had a lot of changes in the last few years. Conservatives feel it's time to resist and even roll back the changes we've accomplished. Liberals have brought the country a new health care system, a woman Fed chief, equal marriage rights for LGBT couples, repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a revitalized auto industry, Wall Street reform and have ended two wars. That's too much change for most conservatives. The mind-set in this country is that change should be done in small increments, if at all. It's simply time to go backward, because in the last several years we've progressed beyond what most of us could have imagined and predicted in 2008.
(3) It's Time For Another War. Now that we've officially exited Iraq and greatly wound down Afghanistan, it's time for another war, and a Republican is much, much more likely to bring us into another war than a Democrat is. Hillary Clinton is, first and foremost, a diplomat. Conservative America doesn't like diplomats, because diplomacy involves compromise. Diplomats somehow appear as weak people to many Americans, and people who lead us into war somehow appear as strong people. I was raised to think of diplomats as smart people and those partial to war as stupid people. If given the simple choice--Hillary Clinton OR another war under a Republican President--I'm sure the result would be close to 50/50 in this country.
(4) America's Gun Addiction. Related to its propensity for war is America's gun addiction. By far, the United States has more gun deaths than any other "high income" country in the world. We also have the most lax gun laws in that collection of countries. As I see it, the subjects of guns and religious rights (i.e., anti-abortion prejudice) are the two most deeply-rooted biases of conservative America, and the subjects have come more to the forefront in the last several years. Not only are mass shootings happening almost weekly in our country, but other "far right" hot issues, such as opposing gay rights and restricting voter rights, have swung more to the left due to recent legislation. America's gun addiction will only increase, and that's bad for Democrats who support and campaign for gun laws.
(5) The Myth of Reducing Big Government. Whenever a federal spending law is passed or an executive order is given, conservatives complain about "Big Government" invading private lives and adding to the national debt. Conservatives seem to only blame Democrats for contributing to the size of government, but that's an inaccurate assessment. As of the middle of March, 2015, Obama had given 205 executive orders in his term. George W. Bush gave 291, Nixon gave 346, Bill Clinton gave 364, and Reagan gave 381. Obama's number of executive orders is certainly not excessive, and yet his executive orders draw more attention than the executive orders of other Presidents. The attention is all part of the myth of Big Government--that it is evil and not to be trusted--and yet there is no alternative, regardless of which party is in office.
George W. Bush added 101% to the national debt during his presidency, while Barrack Obama (through FY 2014) has added 53% to the national debt during his presidency. The amount added to the national debt in 2014 ($1,086 trillion) is very similar to what Bush added in 2008 ($1,017 trillion). By far, the largest expenditures each fiscal year are for the Defense Department, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt. To not fund things like Energy, Education, Health and Human Services, and HUD is just plain stupid, because they cost a small fraction of the sum of the other five.
While part of the general population may want to reduce Medicaid (and thus increase the medical expenses of all of the paying population), no politician will campaign for reducing Medicare or Social Security benefits. The myth is that we can do without Big Government--we can't. We depend on Big Government for hundreds of things in our daily lives. Any service we cut at the federal level will have to be supported at the state level if it is to continue. So, the main result of reducing Big Government is for millions of people to lose or settle for sub-standard services they currently have. That, in fact, is happening with the accelerated deterioration of our roads and bridges. Congress won't fund long-term infrastructure repairs, pushing the burden onto the states, which can't afford them.
Of course, to fund the deficit reduction, we'd have to raise taxes. Before I retired, my wife and I belonged to the top 3-1/2 percent of the U.S. population (based on income), and we would not complain if we saw our taxes go up to help the bottom 96-1/2 percent. We also recognize that any tax cut is tantamount to increasing the deficit. Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, while Republicans, if anything, want to reduce taxes and services. Therein lies the dilemma. The myth of reducing Big Government will always work against the Democratic candidate, because Democrats are loathe to reduce services to people, and it will work against Hillary.
(6) Non-Stop Political Campaigns Hurt Democrats. Because the Supreme Court ruled to allow super-PAC's (as organizations) to fund political campaigns, there is now no practical limit to how much time and money is spent on those campaigns. We have a broken political system in America, because of unlimited spending--something that Republicans, ironically, say they're against. Political campaigns are as attractive, useful and non-stop as tabloid journalism--little, if any, substance and constant rants by dunderheads.
The conservative columnist, David Brooks, has stated many times that there is no proof that gross, excessive spending affects the political process, but I think he's dead wrong. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, not to inform, but to inundate the voter to the point of numbness. That inundation turns off millions of people to the entire political process. I'm convinced that hurts the pursuit of Democratic values much more than it hurts the pursuit of Republican values.
Somehow Americans love non-stop political campaigns that involve a feeding frenzy--the messier and more controversial, the better. Since Hillary is the presumptive Democratic nominee, and because there are no real limits on campaign spending, she will be in the cross hairs much longer than the Republican nominee is--at least one year longer!
(7) The Democratic VP Candidate Is An Unknown. Unlike most past Presidential years in my lifetime, it's hard to think of viable Vice-Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party for 2016. Whoever is nominated to accompany Hillary Clinton on the ticket, it won't be a political figure who is well-known across the country. There seems to be a dearth of charismatic, 40- to 55-year-old candidates in the Democratic Party. Hillary must choose a white male VP candidate; two minority candidates on one ticket won't fly. Martin O'Malley is a possibility, but both he and Hillary are from the northeast part of the country. By contrast, the Republicans have a host of recognizable names to place on the ballot, and people tend to vote for candidates they recognize. I need only remind people of the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket in 1988 to demonstrate how important familiarity is. (Could you even remember who ran with Dukakis if I didn't tell you?)
(8) The Inconsistency of Liberal Voters. Left-leaning voters are notoriously fickle. The mid-term elections in 2010 and 2014 showed that--very low voter turnouts among certain parts of the Democratic base. It used to be that the Democratic Party stood for American workers--and especially unionized American workers--but that demographic continues to decrease. That means that Democrats must depend on a coalition of other minority voters to win. Those voters primarily fall into four minorities--Blacks, Latinos, gays and students.
The gay community offers a dependable, consistent constituency for Democrats, but Blacks, Latinos and students are less so. Blacks and Latinos face real voter registration challenges throughout the country--partly from the lack of community leadership and voter "education" and partly from gerrymandering and efforts of white majorities to make it more difficult for minorities to register. Blacks and Latinos comprise a high percentage of America's poverty-level population, and poor people often do not even have the transportation to get to the polls.
Although today's students clearly are more open-minded and accepting of others--and thus more liberal--than previous generations were, they are also a lot less driven than the students from my era, the 1960's and 1970's. Not only did my generation speak up against the Vietnam War in mass demonstrations, but we valued the importance of voting irresponsible people out of office, thanks to the saga of Watergate. Of all the adjectives you might use to describe the students of the 1960's and 1970's, "apathetic" was not one of them. Students of this generation are more apathetic and thus more inconsistent as voters. I don't see that Republicans have a corresponding demographic that is as inconsistent.
(9) Image Is Everything. More and more, image has surpassed issues, values and policy in how people pick their candidates. Obama had a sparkling, positive image during both of his Presidential campaigns, despite the fact that many people (in 2012) disagreed with Obamacare. Romney, on the other hand, made the historic "47%" gaffe that was documented on a live recording. His image plummeted in the minds of millions of people, completely irrespective of whether the comment was factually correct.
Hillary has so far deflected accusations surrounding Benghazi and her email server, but even if she were to be 100% innocent of any wrongdoing, her image has not been enhanced by those issues. Conveniently for the Democrats, the Republicans have meanwhile built their own 3-ring circus and populated it with clowns who fill the image spotlights with daily amusements. Today's image tidbit [on 7/28/2015] was that Rick Perry challenged Donald Trump to a pull-up contest. That was after Donald Trump made fun of Rick Perry's glasses. Really?! Seventh-graders have outgrown that stuff, and these two want to be President of the United States?
But people love that type of controversy, so the personal image of the candidates will always play a big part of the selection process for President. Part of the problem is that the selection process is SO LONG, but the biggest part of the problem for the Democrats regarding image maintenance is that they only have one viable, long-term candidate. She is a marked target and will remain so for the next year. Republicans have more than 15 candidates, and it will take another year to winnow that field down to two or three.
Yesterday [on 7/29/2015] the biggest national issues were the Iran pact hearings, the shooting of a Black Cincinnati man and Hillary's $600 haircut. Well, I have to say, it was a nice haircut.
(4) America's Gun Addiction. Related to its propensity for war is America's gun addiction. By far, the United States has more gun deaths than any other "high income" country in the world. We also have the most lax gun laws in that collection of countries. As I see it, the subjects of guns and religious rights (i.e., anti-abortion prejudice) are the two most deeply-rooted biases of conservative America, and the subjects have come more to the forefront in the last several years. Not only are mass shootings happening almost weekly in our country, but other "far right" hot issues, such as opposing gay rights and restricting voter rights, have swung more to the left due to recent legislation. America's gun addiction will only increase, and that's bad for Democrats who support and campaign for gun laws.
(5) The Myth of Reducing Big Government. Whenever a federal spending law is passed or an executive order is given, conservatives complain about "Big Government" invading private lives and adding to the national debt. Conservatives seem to only blame Democrats for contributing to the size of government, but that's an inaccurate assessment. As of the middle of March, 2015, Obama had given 205 executive orders in his term. George W. Bush gave 291, Nixon gave 346, Bill Clinton gave 364, and Reagan gave 381. Obama's number of executive orders is certainly not excessive, and yet his executive orders draw more attention than the executive orders of other Presidents. The attention is all part of the myth of Big Government--that it is evil and not to be trusted--and yet there is no alternative, regardless of which party is in office.
George W. Bush added 101% to the national debt during his presidency, while Barrack Obama (through FY 2014) has added 53% to the national debt during his presidency. The amount added to the national debt in 2014 ($1,086 trillion) is very similar to what Bush added in 2008 ($1,017 trillion). By far, the largest expenditures each fiscal year are for the Defense Department, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt. To not fund things like Energy, Education, Health and Human Services, and HUD is just plain stupid, because they cost a small fraction of the sum of the other five.
While part of the general population may want to reduce Medicaid (and thus increase the medical expenses of all of the paying population), no politician will campaign for reducing Medicare or Social Security benefits. The myth is that we can do without Big Government--we can't. We depend on Big Government for hundreds of things in our daily lives. Any service we cut at the federal level will have to be supported at the state level if it is to continue. So, the main result of reducing Big Government is for millions of people to lose or settle for sub-standard services they currently have. That, in fact, is happening with the accelerated deterioration of our roads and bridges. Congress won't fund long-term infrastructure repairs, pushing the burden onto the states, which can't afford them.
Of course, to fund the deficit reduction, we'd have to raise taxes. Before I retired, my wife and I belonged to the top 3-1/2 percent of the U.S. population (based on income), and we would not complain if we saw our taxes go up to help the bottom 96-1/2 percent. We also recognize that any tax cut is tantamount to increasing the deficit. Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, while Republicans, if anything, want to reduce taxes and services. Therein lies the dilemma. The myth of reducing Big Government will always work against the Democratic candidate, because Democrats are loathe to reduce services to people, and it will work against Hillary.
(6) Non-Stop Political Campaigns Hurt Democrats. Because the Supreme Court ruled to allow super-PAC's (as organizations) to fund political campaigns, there is now no practical limit to how much time and money is spent on those campaigns. We have a broken political system in America, because of unlimited spending--something that Republicans, ironically, say they're against. Political campaigns are as attractive, useful and non-stop as tabloid journalism--little, if any, substance and constant rants by dunderheads.
The conservative columnist, David Brooks, has stated many times that there is no proof that gross, excessive spending affects the political process, but I think he's dead wrong. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, not to inform, but to inundate the voter to the point of numbness. That inundation turns off millions of people to the entire political process. I'm convinced that hurts the pursuit of Democratic values much more than it hurts the pursuit of Republican values.
Somehow Americans love non-stop political campaigns that involve a feeding frenzy--the messier and more controversial, the better. Since Hillary is the presumptive Democratic nominee, and because there are no real limits on campaign spending, she will be in the cross hairs much longer than the Republican nominee is--at least one year longer!
(7) The Democratic VP Candidate Is An Unknown. Unlike most past Presidential years in my lifetime, it's hard to think of viable Vice-Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party for 2016. Whoever is nominated to accompany Hillary Clinton on the ticket, it won't be a political figure who is well-known across the country. There seems to be a dearth of charismatic, 40- to 55-year-old candidates in the Democratic Party. Hillary must choose a white male VP candidate; two minority candidates on one ticket won't fly. Martin O'Malley is a possibility, but both he and Hillary are from the northeast part of the country. By contrast, the Republicans have a host of recognizable names to place on the ballot, and people tend to vote for candidates they recognize. I need only remind people of the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket in 1988 to demonstrate how important familiarity is. (Could you even remember who ran with Dukakis if I didn't tell you?)
(8) The Inconsistency of Liberal Voters. Left-leaning voters are notoriously fickle. The mid-term elections in 2010 and 2014 showed that--very low voter turnouts among certain parts of the Democratic base. It used to be that the Democratic Party stood for American workers--and especially unionized American workers--but that demographic continues to decrease. That means that Democrats must depend on a coalition of other minority voters to win. Those voters primarily fall into four minorities--Blacks, Latinos, gays and students.
The gay community offers a dependable, consistent constituency for Democrats, but Blacks, Latinos and students are less so. Blacks and Latinos face real voter registration challenges throughout the country--partly from the lack of community leadership and voter "education" and partly from gerrymandering and efforts of white majorities to make it more difficult for minorities to register. Blacks and Latinos comprise a high percentage of America's poverty-level population, and poor people often do not even have the transportation to get to the polls.
Although today's students clearly are more open-minded and accepting of others--and thus more liberal--than previous generations were, they are also a lot less driven than the students from my era, the 1960's and 1970's. Not only did my generation speak up against the Vietnam War in mass demonstrations, but we valued the importance of voting irresponsible people out of office, thanks to the saga of Watergate. Of all the adjectives you might use to describe the students of the 1960's and 1970's, "apathetic" was not one of them. Students of this generation are more apathetic and thus more inconsistent as voters. I don't see that Republicans have a corresponding demographic that is as inconsistent.
(9) Image Is Everything. More and more, image has surpassed issues, values and policy in how people pick their candidates. Obama had a sparkling, positive image during both of his Presidential campaigns, despite the fact that many people (in 2012) disagreed with Obamacare. Romney, on the other hand, made the historic "47%" gaffe that was documented on a live recording. His image plummeted in the minds of millions of people, completely irrespective of whether the comment was factually correct.
Hillary has so far deflected accusations surrounding Benghazi and her email server, but even if she were to be 100% innocent of any wrongdoing, her image has not been enhanced by those issues. Conveniently for the Democrats, the Republicans have meanwhile built their own 3-ring circus and populated it with clowns who fill the image spotlights with daily amusements. Today's image tidbit [on 7/28/2015] was that Rick Perry challenged Donald Trump to a pull-up contest. That was after Donald Trump made fun of Rick Perry's glasses. Really?! Seventh-graders have outgrown that stuff, and these two want to be President of the United States?
But people love that type of controversy, so the personal image of the candidates will always play a big part of the selection process for President. Part of the problem is that the selection process is SO LONG, but the biggest part of the problem for the Democrats regarding image maintenance is that they only have one viable, long-term candidate. She is a marked target and will remain so for the next year. Republicans have more than 15 candidates, and it will take another year to winnow that field down to two or three.
Yesterday [on 7/29/2015] the biggest national issues were the Iran pact hearings, the shooting of a Black Cincinnati man and Hillary's $600 haircut. Well, I have to say, it was a nice haircut.
(10) What Draws People To Hillary? Finally, there is the ever-changing issue of why people might want to vote for Hillary. What draws them to her? Many people, especially Blacks and Latinos, were drawn to the candidacy of Barrack Obama, in much the same way that Catholics were drawn to the candidacy of John F. Kennedy. An innate trust was initially based on a tangible similarity between candidate and voter. Beyond that comparison, though, there were a number of striking similarities. Obama was not only the nation's first Black President--a landmark event in our history--but he offered a profile that hadn't been seen since Kennedy. He was young, athletic, very smart, had a beautiful family and had served as a junior Senator from a liberal state. Both men were totally magnetic and captivating in their speeches.
Hillary must carve a profile of herself that is compelling to all social and economic classes. She's not young, but must appear young. She's not known for her speeches, but she must inspire when she speaks. She's arguably the toughest woman we've ever had in our government, but she must appear approachable and able to facilitate change. Unlike most Republican candidates, who have developed their speaking points over the last eight years, Hillary must somehow go beyond speaking points in order to transcend what Obama has accomplished in his two terms. That would be a difficult task for any Democratic candidate. Her appeal must be mainstream, middle America stuff, but the candidate can't simply be Barack Obama, part 2.
(11) (Bonus Reason) Rising Interest Rates. On the surface, this might seem to be a surprising reason why Democrats face an uphill battle (with any candidate) for 2016. Interest rates have been close to zero in the United States for years, but they are bound to start rising in late 2015 or early 2016--just in time for the campaign season. The bond and equity markets will remain volatile, mortgage rates will go up and earnings will stay flat or even go down. Some people understand that interest rates rise when you have a strong economy (and are lowered when you have a weak economy), but the average person will react negatively to the effects of rising interest rates. That's never good for the incumbent party. As sure as economic cycles fluctuate, so do political parties in power, and I think the two are closely associated.
Summary. There are, of course, reasons why the Democratic Party will remain in power in 2016. More and more people have become attached to Obamacare; the Republican-led Congress has all-time low approval ratings; the U.S. economy is still better than almost every other country in the world; the population of Latinos and Millennials continues to grow; Donald Trump is a distraction for the Republican Party; and the Clintons are born leaders who just seem to always land on their feet. No one can estimate how much Bill Clinton will be able to contribute to Hillary's campaign, but he has a very high approval rating right now.
Still, if Democrats are voted out of office, I believe these eleven reasons will play a large part in the change.
No comments:
Post a Comment