It would seem like the Democratic Party is doing really well and the Republican Party is really struggling, given the results of the last elections, but really what I think is happening is the playing out of a simple narrative: Republicans are more popular during good times, and Democrats are more popular during bad.
When the economy is strong, Republican rhetoric about small government and de-regulation makes more sense to people, because they don't need the government to step in and create jobs or stop financiers from creating weird, unregulated securities, because those things usually take care of themselves in the end. Folks can just keep on working 40 hours a week without fear of losing their jobs, enjoy their employer-provided health coverage, take out huge loans to send their kids to college, watch their investments steadily increase, and let the good times roll. When people aren't shooting each other but are using their guns to go hunting instead, it makes sense that people should be allowed to keep their guns and not have the government trying to take them away. When the globe isn't warming, it makes sense that oil and coal companies should be able to explore and extract to their hearts' content.
However, when things go wrong, that's when the Democrats step in. The financial industry gets a little out of hand, so the Democrats have to come in and clean things up. When unemployment is low, the Democrats swoop in with their promises to create jobs through public works. When the globe is warming, the Democrats have to put the "extraction industries" in their place. When minority rights are being trampled on or certain demographics are put at a systemic disadvantage, the Democrats are at least willing to consider helping them out.
Conservatives get indignant about the fact that the Democrats are always trying to make life a bit easier for convicted criminals, illegal immigrants, sexual deviants, people who are too lazy to get a job, people who are too irresponsible to pay the mortgage, people who shouldn't have accepted the mortgage in the first place, flag-burners, drunks, atheists, terrorists, scoundrels, rascals, vagabonds, and pirates, but do little to encourage good, honest, hard-working, tax-paying, church-going, God-fearing, home-owning families who are the perfect model of what everyone should be like. In short, the Republicans seem to say, "the Democrats are always complaining. But what is it that they want?"
That's a question that the Democrats need to get better at answering. (Not that I condone any of that nonsense about the God-fearing, home-owning families, but still, it's worth considering, for political purposes if nothing else.) Democrats are not great, but better than the Republicans, at answering the question, "How do we get us out of this mess?" But the Republicans are better at answering the question, "What does a well-functioning society look like?" What the Democrats need to do is demonstrate that America can be a thriving, stable, fun place during a period of predominantly Democratic leadership. They can't just go on being the party of the bad times.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That narrative makes sense. After all, Republicans are commonly understood as conservatives who fear change, so citizens would logically vote against them when change is severely needed.
But things weren't exactly peachy in the '04 election - American soldiers WERE dying, and the Republican party tapped the fear-tactic relentlessly, like their mantra that Kerry would be "uncertain in the face of danger." So the Rep party did a better job four years ago of answering the question "How do we get out of this mess?" (or so the majority of Americans thought).
So I don't think one party necessarily does better in bad times than the other. The two parties are ever-changing; Obama has quite different plans than Clinton, Gore or Kerry had, and the Reps are going to be doing some soul searching before 2012.
If you're right on, though, then the next few decades of long-term modern challenges like terrorism and global warming should fare well for the Dems success at the booths...
Thanks for the clarification. I guess my post pertains more to the economy than to any other issue. On that topic, the Democrats have certainly been more negative than positive; they're quick to point out the flaws in the laissez-faire, unregulated, "let-them-eat-cake" Republican economic model, but haven't come to much agreement (or really cared to) as to the types of regulations that should take place, or the proper extent of those regulations.
Initially my thought was that the Democrats have recently relied more heavily on crisis language than the Republicans have, but that's not necessarily the case. Really, they both love crisis language. In fact, they both depend on crisis language. It is no coincidence that so many "crises" have come to the front of the public's attention around election time. The difference is in what the parties define as a crisis. The Democratic crises are poverty, inequality, deregulation, failing health care, and global warming. The Republican crises are high taxes, terrorism, abortion, protectionism, barriers to the free market, disintegration of the family unit, and the government's assault on Christianity. "National crises" are political myths as much as they are descriptions.
Post a Comment