 |
| Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) |
The reality is that, for the most part, Americans don't vote based on issues outside of the economy and, in times of conflict, national security. Yes, there are some people who vote solely on an issue like abortion or gun control, but by-and-large the biggest thing the electorate cares about is the economy. This is largely how both parties continue to operate-they have a ying-and-yang thanks to the cyclical aspects of the economy, and also because their platforms tend to favor specific sectors of the country.
The problem for the Democrats in particular in this regard, and something they have continued to have an issue with, is that their economic policies are by-and-large costing them the House of Representatives and many state legislatures principally based on their economic policies. Democratic support for programs such as the Affordable Care Act, unemployment insurance, and food stamps may be morally right (in this author's humbled opinion), but they are frequently seen as the only economic policies by the left by a growing number of working-class and suburban (predominantly) white voters, which is a problem when it comes to the House.
This is because Democratic voters have become increasingly centralized in cities and inner-suburbs. While Democrats frequently will point to states like Pennsylvania and Ohio when they talk about gerrymandering and unfairness in this process (and they have a point-these maps are clearly drawn with Republicans in mind), the reality is that even in fairly apportioned states, the Democrats are disadvantaged in the House due to so many of their supporters being in one geographic area. Using Minnesota as an example, the reality is that it's not really gerrymandering to draw, say, Minneapolis into one district, even if that means that 73% of the district is going to support President Obama. Gerrymandering would be drawing slight lines into Erik Paulsen's district to make it easier for a Democrat to win there. Minnesota illustrates the issue well: in a very blue state, the vast majority of the Democrats in the state are centrally-located into two districts, leaving Republicans very competitive or winning in six districts.
This is true in almost every large state in the country. Places like Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida all have enough Democratic voters to make major gains in the House, but short of gerrymandering those states to the hilt or asking people to move, the Democrats are going to have to re-embrace that Big Tent party and find some messages (preferably economic) that will appeal to a broader geographic area of the country. I'm not asking to abandon a large number of the fairness principles that the Democrats have moved toward in the past few years, but it's vitally important that we also make a key part of the 2016 platform (which every political reporter is pushing that Hillary Clinton is creating right now) some issues that will make us more competitive in rural and suburban environments. Here are five that I think might work:
According to the ASCE's 2013 report card, the United States is currently receiving an overall D+ on our current infrastructure (click that link, by the way-it's weirdly addictive to compare states), and in certain categories such as inland waterways, levees, and schools the grades get even lower. All-in-all, the ASCE estimates that we would need to spend in the neighborhood of $3.6 trillion in order to bring the entire country up-to-code. This is a massive problem that would probably take a solid decade to attack, if not several. So why not start with this as a major aspect of the upcoming campaign? If you look at unemployment rates in this country, manufacturing has been hit hard, as have people with less education. This is a great way to jump start that sector of the population-start hiring them for this much needed repair-work. This would increase their overall income, increase the tax base of struggling states, and spur jobs that would start to close the income gap. It's also a win for larger industry, as improved transportation routes means that we can more quickly move goods and services across the country, resulting in increased revenues for the country. It's a win-win-win, and it's something that Democrats can use as a reason to continue to support the party with rural populations. And, quite frankly, it's something that the party already supports, they just don't trumpet it loudly.
2. Make It Easier to Retire
If we're being honest, middle-income and upper-middle income voters have the same sorts of concerns as the lower-income voters: how will I continue to be able to afford my current living situation, or possibly improve it? One of the bigger issues that they worry about is in regard to retirement, and hoping that they have enough money so that when they don't or can't work anymore, that they can continue to sustain a strong quality of life. With more and more worry about financial pressure on Social Security and Medicare, it's vitally important that more Americans are saving parts of their paychecks each month and putting them into IRA's, 401ks, and other investments that they can use to sustain themselves in their old age to ease the burden placed on Social Security to take care of an aging populace.
Democrats can quite easily trumpet this by including incentives to companies when restructuring the tax code, which is desperately needed. Give greater incentives and tax credits to companies to do a matching 401K or 403B program. In individual taxes, give a greater incentive to certain income brackets who invest in a retirement program (you get a tax credit of some sort if you make less than $250k and invested X% of your paychecks in a retirement program). This helps ease a financial worry that many Americans across all income brackets, but particularly suburban voters, have, but also solves a growing issue of how to make programs like Social Security and Medicare less central to people's future retirement plans by forcing them to save more money for retirement.
This is, thankfully, an issue that people like President Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have brought more to the forefront, but outside of retirement and their employment status, nothing eats more into the financial worries of the middle class and suburban voters than student loans, and the burden they are putting on Millennials in particular. Concerns about their children ending up with six-figure student loans that could take decades to pay off is something that President Obama's community college bill would address, as well as Sen. Warren's bill to let people refinance their student loans using the Buffett Rule to pay for it. The nice thing about all of this would be that, unburdened by student loans (or lessened loans), Millennials and Generation Z would be able to start contributing to the housing and auto markets earlier, and start putting aside more money earlier for retirement, taking better advantage of their compounding years, resulting in a stronger overall economy.
4. Stop the "War on Women" Campaign
Listen, it worked in 2012, but if 2014 illustrated anything, it's that the Republican Party has found a way to make the "War on Women" campaign look ridiculous. People like Bruce Braley and Mark Udall tried to run on this tag, but got eviscerated, with Udall in particular being targeted hard. The reality is that while the issues that are under the tag of War on Women (including access to birth control, women's reproductive rights, and equal pay) are extremely important, they aren't resonating with swing and tossup voters in the way that Democrats had hoped or expected. This is still something that we should champion in hopes of registering new voters and because it's the right thing to do, but it cannot be a centerpiece of the campaign like it was before, not unless the campaign takes a turn with a Todd Akin or a Richard Mourdock style candidate (if Mike Huckabee ends up the GOP nominee in 2016, this advice will change, for the record).
One of the weirder things that I've noticed in the past decade is that with very few exceptions (gay marriage, for example), the conversation has remained pretty constant with few new issues taking the forefront in the national consciousness. People seem willing to embrace change, and science/technology seems to be an opening for a political party to "own" in terms of leading that change. The focus of this article was on creating new jobs and easing economic burden, and this would be a perfect way to start, particularly in driving more work in the science/technology sector (and incentivizing more students to join math or science fields). The new emerging space race, the battle for better renewable energy, stem cell and health research, the combat against climate change, and the "smart house" industry has made technology the new retail, and getting America ahead of the curve again through tax incentives, student loan incentives, and pushing more government-funded research would not only create a number of new, valuable jobs, but they would also give us an international edge over technologies everyone is clamoring for, which would address one of the biggest issues affecting the country and something even conservative-minded voters are desperate to solve: the national debt.
Those are the five ways that I think the Democrats could start a new conversation and start taking back rural and suburban voters. What do you think? Any other ideas? Share your thoughts in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment