weblog/wEssays	home
	Why the Democrats Keep Losing   (June 2005) A great gnashing of teeth can be heard across the nation, punctuated at times by a low moan of frustration. Yes, it's the Democrats, adjusting their hair shirts and wondering why they keep losing. The media is full of explanations of their decline and the Republican's ascendency (or treachery, depending on the media outlet), but I think it boils down to a state of denial: the Democrats just can't see that their constituencies are no longer "the people," but elites which feed largely off the public trough. I've been a registered Democrat for most of my life; I switched to Republican to vote for John McCain, then switched back to vote for other candidates on the Demo primary ticket. But it's increasingly obvious the Democrats are out of touch with mainstream voters' concerns. It's not that the Republicans are so "in touch" but simply that they are less out of touch--and they've packaged their ideals in ways which resonate more with voters than the empty bag the Democrats clutch so tightly to their chests. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 12.5% of the U.S. workforce is represented by unions. While unions are the best hope for workers who toil at Wal-Mart to gain health insurance coverage, let's be honest about the economic realities of globalization and other macro forces in the economy: if the unions succeed in organizing workers at Wal-Mart, God bless them, the workers will not be earning $36 per hour like UAW auto workers, or $100,000 a year in wages and benefits like BART employees here in the S.F. Bay Area. Fundamentally, unions have circled the wagons in the one area where they still have clout: public employees. In the boom years, governments promised benefits based on a never-ending dot-com fueled boom of high tax receipts. As a result, many public employees have garnered wages and benefits which far exceed what typical workers in private industry can ever hope for. These rich benefits--90% to 100% pensions, payable at 50 years of age if you turn in your 30 years, full medical coverage for life, etc., are so unaffordable that local governments are being driven to the financial wall--and this is in "good times." Wait until the recession of 2006 guts their tax receipts. As for those rich UAW jobs--look for General Motors to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy by 2010. The global oversupply of vehicles will only get worse, and it simply won't be affordable for GM to add $2,000 a vehicle to pay retirees' benefits. You may not like it, but it's an economic reality. Let's be honest about the Democrats' primary constituency. Public unions are a "special interest" in the sense that their raison d'etre is to protect their member's benefits at whatever cost to the public is necessary. Their primary concern is not public welfare, despite their PR. Let's also be honest about how extreme these wages and benefits have become. You have transit workers making $170,000 a year with overtime; while it's easy to revile the gross over-the-top bonuses of Fortune 500 CEOs, this exceeds the pay of CEOs of many companies in the $20-$50 million range. If you've ever run a company, then you know the stress and responsibility is very high; your mis-step could cost everyone on the payroll their job. $170,000 for simple service work? It simply isn't worth that much. Beginning teachers are grossly underpaid, there's no doubt about that. But in the real world, would you need to offer $100,000 to find someone qualified to operate a subway train? The answer is obviously no. Then there's "pension creep." Here in California, 90% pensions (that is, pensions which pay 90% of your lifetime top wage) were once reserved for safety officers like Highway Patrol. But now every other employee is a "safety worker," allowing them to draw the high pensions designed for those whose lives were endangered by their work. The unions don't like this sort of data to leak into the media, but the average person who isn't making $100,000 is not being fooled. That is why recent tax increases even in the ultra-liberal Bay Area have been soundly rejected. The same denial is in force regarding the Democrat's alleged weakness on National Defense. Regardless of how you stand on the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq, the truth is the average middle-of-the-road voter has legitimate concerns about the Democrats' backbone for dealing with a nasty, brutish post-911 world. Let's be honest; the Democrats were more than happy to live with Soviet Communism forever in "peaceful co-existence," and their record is decidedly mixed in a way which is not the case for the Republicans. Clinton stepped up to the plate in Haiti (a forgotten victory for timely US military intervention) and again in the former Yugoslavia, and I believe that his willingness to use force despite his non-combatant history was a substantial if unheralded part of his re-election and popularity. Even combat veteran Kerry was unable to overcome many American's dis-ease with a Democratic president at the tiller of the ship of state. Yes, his character was impugned by the Republicans' hatchetmen, but it's a form of self-serving denial to dodge this reality: the last Democratic candidate to win against a viable candidate in an election unaffected by third-party alternatives was John F. Kennedy. Johnson won against an extreme candidate (Goldwater, nominated when the Republicans were wandering in their own desert), Carter won in a reaction to Watergate, Clinton won because Perot siphoned off votes from Bush Senior, and he won re-election against a weak candidate (Dole) based on his record of prosperity and a policy of active foreign engagement--without force where possible, but with force if necessary. It's worth recalling that Kennedy scored points by accusing the Republicans of being soft on defense (if you can imagine that)--the famous "missile gap." What I fear is the Democrats will only truly change when their current standard ideology exits in a coffin. The country is better off with a strong Democratic Party, and you need look no further than the gross fiscal irresponsibiity of the current Republican leadership to see why. * * * copyright © 2005 Charles Hugh Smith. All rights reserved in all media. I would be honored if you linked this wEssay to your site, or printed a copy for your own use. * * *
	weblog/wEssays	home