In the presidential race, that is? Here’s my thought — We can dicker endlessly about Iraq, and the “new message” or battles for the party’s soul, or we can chuck all that and focus on core issues, which I can sum up in one word: poverty.
Call it whatever you want:
Free trade (poverty overseas)
Immigration (poor foreign workers being exploited at the expense of poor American workers)
Globalization (emerging markets = cheap labor)
Housing (who has it and who rents)
Or even
Abortion (who gets one in an alley, who pays a private doctor)
… and others.
Thoughts? I know this points to Edwards, but I’m not necessarily thinking of him. Maybe another way to put the question is, “Should we get Hillary to focus on poverty?”
(NOTE to blog watchers: Yes, I posted the same thing at Blue Hampshire, but it’s getting little notice there (so far). Thanks.
I’m waiting for the Edwards ephipany when he realizes that those who are impoverished, don’t vote.
George Bachrach famously said after losing the primary for Tip O’Neil’s seat:(paraphrase from memory) “I had the support of all the activists for the poor and the elderly. Joe had the support of all the poor and the elderly…”
<
p>
But I agree with part of your point — since the people who think of themselves as poor are relatively thin on the ground and often don’t vote, the Edwards campaign is going to have to appeal to Clinton’s favorite target, “people who work hard and play by the rules”.
And when some people decided it was, the party started its long march into the wilderness, from which it is just emerging.
<
p>
The party is–or should be–about the middle class. Defending it against the super-rich. Protecting it from foreign predation. And helping the poor climb their way into it.
<
p>
Focusing on the poor isn’t just a bad political calculation. It’s a bad way of looking at our values. Democrats are supposed to be for the common good, for social insurance, for protections that anybody might have use some day but for the grace of God.
<
p>
Note that a lot can be done for the poor under this rubric. It’s actually pretty easy to explain to people that the explosion of immigration from Mexico comes from a collapse in the standard of living for that country’s poor (largely due to NAFTA). And single-payer health plans would provide care for the poor while simultaneously improving the system for everybody.
<
p>
Edwards needs to remember that his “two Americas” slogan was tremendously effective when it referred to the super-rich, and the rest of us–not the super-poor, and us.
that domestic policy will be anything other than an afterthought in 2008.
<
p>
Even if there is a withdrawal, Iraq will be issue No 1. Jihadist terrorism 2. Iran will be issue number 3. North Korea number 4. Pakistan and its nukes 5. The Israeli Palestinian perpetual crises 6. Patching things up with Western Europe 7. Figuring out what to do with China 9. Then Russia, then trying to rein in the neo Castroism in Latin America. Oh, and Syria. Sheesh.
<
p>
IF the Democratic candidate tries to make poverty the issue, it will simply look like a ducking of all of the above, with respect to much of which the Democrats are often perceived to project an aura of acute weakness and indecision.
<
p>
Bush has made a mess in the areas in which the president is most powerful. The next administration’s agenda, whether Dem or Rep., will be to clean up that mess. I’d prefer a guy who appreciates that from the get-go.
<
p>
Doesn’t look like Edwards is the guy.
— then we’re in a unique time, because domestic issues are always more important. Politically, the problem with poverty as an issue is that it’s seen as someone else’s problem, not our problem, which it is.
<
p>
I don’t want to grind this axe too hard, because other issues are important. But I do think a general theme of economic justice (or Opportunity, as our governors like to call it) would resonate.
John and John thought that domestic economic issues, quality of life issues, etc. would be more appealing to the swing voters and independents than Iraq which they assumed was a weakness. In fact for most people they voted for Bush because they at least trusted at the time that the guy who got us in would get us out honorably, nobody, myself included, trusted Kerry on Iraq since every week he had a new position, not to say that he should have been just as pro-war as Bush, quite the opposite. Had he consistently said “my vote was a mistake, the war was a mistake, and we need to get out soon” I think he couldve picked up a lot of the independents who were souring on Iraq.
<
p>
Instead independents, many of whom don’t trust Democrats with their money heard the tired message of “more programs, more patronage, and more taxes to pay for them”.
<
p>
For 2008 our slogan should be Peace, Prosperity, and Progress its optimistic, makes us a “pro” and not an “anti” party, it uses alliteration, and its catchy and simply. And everyone knows that peace means we’re out of Iraq and we can secure our nation without resorting to more force, prosperity means economic justice and progress means a strong economy and moving forward on social issues. Its a triple threat that will be a success if Dems start listening to their own supporters and STOP listening to what the GOP is doing.