Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg states Democrats' electoral problem succinctly: "voters feel ever more estranged from government — and they associate Democrats with government." This is tragic for Democrats because, "Just a quarter of the country is optimistic about our system of government — the lowest since polls began asking this question in 1974."
Americans distrust their federal government for different reasons, however. Some [conservatives] think it is too big to be effective and corrupted by "special interest" (read: any well-organized lobby except the monied elite and large corporations). Others [liberals and moderates] think it is generally not too big, but corrupted by corporate interests.
Yet when those on the left and right express disgust with the government, Democrats always lose, because they stand up for the importance of government's role in our lives, whereas Republicans say government cannot do anything right except make war.
(The best metaphor for Republicans' electorally successful "government sucks" philosophy I can think of is this: Imagine Detroit Lions fans cheering on their team year after year despite zero-win seasons because the Lions squad has the courage to say, "Football is a stupid sport anyway.")
Greenberg argues that, "If Democrats are going to be encumbered by that link [to government], they need to change voters' feelings about government."
That's a tough sell. Especially when half the recipients of federal social programs deny they receive them, or don't understand that these government benefits are "welfare" paid for by other people's taxes. This is not to mention things like government-funded education, clean air and water, and scientific research. People won't understand what they've got till it's gone.
But is that what it will take -- to give Tea Partyers and budget-slashers their wish, and gut the federal budget so that our country falls on its knees? Will people understand then?
Greenberg's answer is for Democrats to champion public financing of elections and strictly limit on corporate campaign donations -- basically, pick a fight with the conservative Supreme Court. I agree -- but I have little faith that my fellow Americans will get it. Too many (including the ACLU, incidentally) have bought the stupid line that money = speech. More recently, the Supreme Court pronounced Pinocchio a real live little boy, and corporations = human beings, and yet few Americans even batted an eyelash. Even worse, using tax dollars to fund political campaigns -- if you understand the typical dirty, intellectually vapid federal political campaign as it is today -- seems obscene. (Democrats would have to use the metaphor of a controlled detoxification, where money is the dangerous narcotic, politicians are the addicts, and government is going to reduce the dosage until the patient has recovered). And I have even less faith that Democrats are willing to risk political harakiri -- even for one election -- by swearing off big corporate and private donations.
So we're stuck. The party that keeps saying government is the problem keeps getting elected to run that same government. And stupid voters don't make the connection between bad faith in government and bad government outcomes.
By Stanley B. Greenber
July 30, 2011 | New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment