Living Poor, Voting Rich by Jasonzzz

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Living Poor, Voting Rich

POSTED BY: JASONZZZ
UPDATED: Thursday, November 4, 2004 13:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1122
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:45 AM

Op-Ed Columnist: Living Poor, Voting Rich

November 3, 2004
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just
fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first
priority should be to reconnect with the American
heartland.

I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing
the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters
are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should
be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory
workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly
against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last
few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor
to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are
still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health
care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant
and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to
values.

"On values, they are really noncompetitive in the
heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is
governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern
approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest
and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial,
Congressional and even local candidates to survive."

In the summer, I was home - too briefly - in Yamhill, Ore.,
a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit
from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many
of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize
with spotted owls rather than loggers.

One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party.
Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the
year, "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won
the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have
been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they
have lost touch with blue-collar America.

"There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism,
and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way,"
Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used
"culturally powerful but content-free issues" to connect to
ordinary voters.

To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and
Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns,
gays and grizzlies.

One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many
of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their
faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals
take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.

Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that
Idaho's Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago,
Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns
"and I use them all." He still lost.

As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have
managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most
Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some
kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "partial birth"
abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from
coat-hanger abortions).

Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way
environmentalism is often perceived in the West as
high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still
enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly
bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of
Idaho over 25 bears.

"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social
issues to get the public to stop looking at what's
happening to them economically."

"What we once thought - that people would vote in their
economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats
haven't figured out how to deal with that."

Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John
Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly
in denial.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need
to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the
way. But a starting point would be to shed their
inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more
with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the
lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be
blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?ex=1100491787&ei
=1&en=2ed386cb324b23e9

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:16 AM

HERO

Great column.

"What has happened to the Democratic Party of my youth?" Thats Zell's great line from the convention.

He wasn't just making a cheap political ploy. He was a retiring politician raising an issue of deep concern.

I knew Gore and now Kerry were in trouble when soccer moms like my sister (in West Virginia), who had never looked twice at the Republican Party, were suddenly rejecting the Democratic Platform and embracing Bush.

And its more then just security. Its tort reform, logging, mining, and moral values (it was a top 4 issue in this election).

The Republicans did not create these issues, they've merely moved into the vaccum created when the Democrats started responding to the liberal interest groups.

I think Republicans could fall into the same trap if they abandon the far right and cater to the moderates (just look at the convention, all the big speakers were moderates, the only real conservatives were Zell, Bush, and Cheney). But a conservative President running a moderate administration seems to be a viable mix for party unity. I think Clinton pulled off a similar thing running a mixed liberal/moderate administration.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:45 PM

NERVOUSPETE

I can't stand the current administration and the Neocons, but Jasonzzz is totally correct in posting this, and Nicholas D. Kristof is right in his opinion. Democrats need to show guts and kick out at those corporations that shaft the working man and woman, show them that fat cats won't get breaks at their and the economy's expense, and field candidates who able to listen with their ears to the concerns of people who care more about their traditions and bread than big issues. However I don't think the democrats should turn against gay civil unions, or propose screwy ideas such as grizzly bear reintroduction - but they should quietly stick by their Kyoto beliefs and the preservation of national parks and that these should be in the background for them. The priority is breaking the wage slavery and the monopolies crushing small businesses and independant press and radio.

Pete

"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE