https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/1114/Politics-ain-t-beanbag

Wake Up Democratic Party; Don’t be a Victim

Donald Trump won. He improved in many demographic segments. The Republican Party won. The Democratic policies, politicians and messages lost. Democrats seems to be in denial.

Most are blaming someone or something: Biden’s late withdrawal, Kamala’s tight link with unpopular Joe, American sexism, Trump’s magnetic hold on the country, the media’s unwillingness to hold Trump and Republicans accountable for lies, plainly inaccurate or misleading claims, an uninspiring centrist platform, too many far-left positions that can be exploited by the opposition, billionaire dark money, Trump’s undermining of any normal frame of reference for character or policies through his years of speaking and acting that would have never been accepted before him, the thumb of the Supreme Court on political activities that benefit Republicans, Trump’s reassembly of the Republican Party into a personality cult where no opposition exists to provide options, discussion or pressures, the Republican news media’s amazing power to shape beliefs of Republicans, independents and Democrats, the undercutting of all institutional frames of reference (media, universities, FBI, DOJ, courts, churches, intellectuals, movies, civic organizations, business, schools, government), Republican manipulation of the state election systems to create a built-in advantages, the lack of a charismatic Democratic leader, polarized politics turns out politicians and their party every 4 years, a lack of belief in any politician or political party, a “what have you done for me lately” transactional politics from many voting blocs, the transition of minority groups from being solidly Democratic to better reflecting a normal distribution of left to right views, the global embrace of populism in a post Western, capitalist, democratic, human rights, global trade and development consensus, the inherent disadvantage of progressive parties who must deliver on their promises rather than oppose and check the misguided, unrealistic opposition. The list is unlimited.

There may be important content in many of these explanations. But, overall, they fail to focus on the two core issues. What policies, politicians and messages COULD be attractive to persuadable voters, either from the base or the middle? How does the Democratic Party reestablish itself as a credible voice to be considered?

The Center or the Edge?

This election once again confirmed that the US is an individualistic, capitalist, local, independent, freedom loving, patriotic, culturally moderate society. Economics and culture both matter. A supermajority of Americans wants moderate policies. They don’t really want revolution. This is a real problem for the idealistic wing of the Democratic Party which has grown from 5% to 20% of the country and 10% to 35% of the party. The national American electorate does not support policies that can be framed or challenged as extreme, costly, risky, uncertain, elite, cosmopolitan, global, socialist, irrational, idealist, utopian, etc. Whenever these more progressive policy options are promoted, the Republican Party wins at the national level. To have a chance of winning, the Democratic Party needs to have the discipline to frame policy options that deflect Republican counterattacks yet motivate the base to support the party goals. This is difficult, requiring creative development and communications.

Politics is the “Art of the Possible”

First, take a firm stand as a center-left party and consistently reject “far left”, “new left”, “socialist”, “green”, and “postmodernist” policies that are so easily defeated. Second, focus on pragmatic policies that clearly benefit middle Americans economically. Focus on equal opportunity, rather than redistribution. Focus on basic economic fairness rather than demonizing the rich, the billionaires, the bankers, Wall Street, the 1%. See my RESPECT proposals. Focus on the middle class, not “the poor”. This strategy maximizes consideration from the persuadable voters at all income levels, in all locations.

What Do Citizens Really Expect from Politicians? Not Much.

There was a time when Americans required presidential candidates to meet high standards. Goldwater was thrashed because he was considered unstable by many. McGovern could not recover from his association with “acid, amnesty and abortion”. His running mate Eagleton’s mental health history was a big issue. Muskie could not recover from his public crying about one of Nixon’s dirty tricks and withdrew from the campaign. Bush Sr’s broken “no taxes” promise was fatal. Dukakis could not overcome the “Willy Horton” released prisoner crimes or the comic picture of him in a tank as a military leader. Kerry could not overcome the “swift boat” attack on his military career. Most importantly, Bill Clinton was elected because he convinced Americans that “I feel your pain”. His impeachment raised questions about presidential character that still resonate today. Democrats argued that personal matters are not all that important. This opened the door for Newt Gingrich and a purely “ends justify the means” approach to politics.

In a “postmodern” world, we’ve lost objective knowledge, truth or morality. We are wrestling with the loss of this agreed upon reality among our citizens and leaders. The 1960’s opened the door for a radically “relative” world view. The shift was jarring. As commentators noted about the Clinton campaigns in 1992, 1996 and 2016 we were still arguing about the 1960’s cultural revolution and the politics of the Vietnam War. The bottom line is that many citizens, left, right and center, no longer believe in a fixed, objective world defined by science, religion or natural law.

Hence, our expectations of politicians are very low. Solid truth, honesty, and objectivity are no longer required. I think what we see from Trump is that “authenticity” has been elevated to become the premier value. “I don’t agree with him but at least he is authentic. He does what he says. He is not a phony”.

What Should Citizens Expect from Politicians?

We may be at a place where all we can expect is for them to keep “most” of their “largest” promises.

Political Grey Zone

We have a complicated situation regarding political ethics. We either believe there are core objective ethical values or not. In general, I see most Democrats of both left and center perspectives as ethical idealists. There is an ethical standard. We know what it is. We ought to follow it. I agree with respect to personal decisions. I’m not sure this is the best practical rule for politicians and political parties. I think that there is an element of “the end justifies the means” that applies to real world politics. We see the same tension between idealistic and pragmatic politics at the international level (real politic). I think that pragmatism must compete with idealism in real world politics.

One Very Important Hillary Clinton Debate Question

I’ll never forget when Hillary Clinton was asked what was either a “softball” or a “gotcha” question in a 2016 debate. “As president or secretary of state, are there times when you must lie or ‘manage the truth’?” Hillary gave the George Washington response, “I can never tell a lie”. I screamed at the television. Really? As Secretary of State? Our chief international negotiator? As a leader? As a motivator? As a communicator? As a politician? Trying to appeal to diverse coalition partners? As a presidential candidate, trying to engage both the base and the undecideds? As president, trying to lead the whole country? I think that my “in-authenticity” button was pressed.

I thought about salespeople, negotiators, purchasers, supply chain managers, account managers, marketers, persuaders, speakers …. The whole capitalist system is driven by these kinds of communications that blend facts, history, relations, cultures, promises, implied threats, incentives, short-term and long-term, risks and rewards, opportunities, possibilities. It’s complicated. That’s why we collectively invest so much in managing these relationships.

Politics is the same. International politics is the same. Why do we want to claim that our politics are perfect, pure, above board? They are not. They cannot be. They should not be. When political leaders pretend to be “holier than thou”, they lose credibility with a majority of the electorate.

We’re stuck in a moral grey area. We want to think of ourselves as ethical. But, to achieve our desired ends for society we cannot be perfectly ethical. I don’t have an answer as to where the line is, or the exact tradeoffs, or a perfect example of what to do. I am sure that there is a need to consider ethical ideals and political reality when making political decisions.

Don’t Compromise on Core Values

Don’t hold the country hostage to approve an increase in the deficit ceiling.

Don’t manipulate the election process to win.

Don’t embrace special interest groups to attract funding and votes.

Don’t use the judicial and administrative regimes to win political battles.

A party that can establish credibility here will possess a major asset.

Political Parties Must Deliver on Their Promises

LBJ as senator and president is exhibit #1. Whatever it takes.

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see how they are made.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/otto_von_bismarck_161318

Ideals are “nice”, but I elected you to deliver. In a pragmatic, transactional world, results matter more than ever.

Some “Delivering Results” Examples

Inflation was growing rapidly in 2021. Biden needed to address it. Lower government spending. Pressure the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates. Apply “bully pulpit” pressure on corporations to not raise prices. Implement excess prices or excess profits controls under emergency presidential authority.

Immigrant volumes increased after Biden took office. Engage the military and national guard to “secure the borders”. Reallocate federal appropriations to “solve the problem”. Use the finances and political power of the US to intercept immigrants at the southern Mexican border.

Aggressive antitrust reviews and enforcement, given expressed Republican support.

Consolidate all welfare spending into a single bill to increase benefits while “solving” the problems of earned benefits and equity. Invest in “welfare fraud” investigators together with IRS agent funding.

Make a $15/hour minimum wage bill a top priority. Organize strikes to support it. Engage corporate supporters. Fine-tune the details to deal with teenager and agriculture exceptions.

Israeli PM Netanyahu wishes to wage war in Gaza and expand West Bank settlements. Provide a clear set of support and limits. Enforce the limits up to complete withdrawal of military support.

Create a “blue ribbon commission” on Social Security funding structured to ensure that the compromise recommendations will be approved.

Engage with Republicans to support policy proposals that benefit middle Americans.

Biden followed this “deliver results” strategy to cancel many varieties of student loan debt. A majority of Americans opposed this. it is only effective if most Americans agree. Delivering for the base or individual constituencies is inherently suspect.

Rapidly deliver visible “pilot project” results from the 2 large infrastructure bills that were passed.

Resolve the “temporary” status of the 2 federal home mortgage guarantee agencies.

Determine a long-term solution for the US Postal Service that provides some local mail delivery and reduced costs and employment.

The key to providing credibility is proactively finding solutions that meet the needs of the general public even when party supporters must incur some of the costs or risks of the solutions.

Summary

Democrats need to take a hard look in the mirror. They have lost the support of the American people. To recover, they need to refocus their policies on the economic opportunity needs of “middle America”. They must convince “middle America” that they have no extreme economic or cultural policy agendas. They need to deliver results that match their promises. There are no “moral victories” in politics. Parties must win elections in order to deliver results. When in power they must use all of the levers of power. Pragmatic means for progressive ends.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/billionaire-warren-buffett-says-this-is-the-only-measure-of-success-that-matters.html

The Conventional Wisdom

According to some on the left (and some on the right), the “wealthy, capitalists, billionaires or 1%” are evil, irredeemable, “vampire squids” only interested in making, keeping and growing wealth, power and influence. They say that the only solutions to this situation are to tax, regulate and publicize their finances and influence. Any number of laws should be enacted to fight against this force against the public good.

History shows …

The wealthy and powerful actively invest to protect and expand their wealth. In the United States, they have repeatedly “captured” the political system with two interludes of effective opposition during the progressive era and the New Deal from FDR to LBJ. Their tools include political contributions, network influence, legal actions, administrative agency capture, media control, social influence, lobbying, contracting, funding political parties and thought influencers. They can easily hire the most effective professionals to pursue their goals in all areas.

Wealth Will Find a Political Way

The American political system generally undermines centralized governmental power. [Although the imperial presidency under Trump with possible Supreme Court support will be a big test]. Federal agencies, the Senate, Congress, the President and the courts jockey for federal power and compete with state and local governments. Focused investments by a relatively small group of wealthy individuals have a strong chance of finding the weakest spots in “the government of the people, by the people and for the people”. If this group makes good choices in setting goals, investing in politics, selecting strategies and showing that they are willing to do “whatever it takes” to win, they attract political supporters and greatly leverage their relatively small investments and very small voting numbers.

Repeated Failures of Their Opponents

Progressives have tried to legislate their way to victory. The wealthy have fought back and reversed many of the gains in limiting their power to pursue greater wealth without limits placed upon them by other stakeholders: labor, consumers, investors, nations, nature, religion, or local communities. There have been some permanent gains in labor conditions/rights, consumer safety, environmental protection, progressive taxation, public education, public infrastructure, monopoly regulation, anti-discrimination, etc. There are some real changes between 1850 and 2020. No one wants to turn back the hands of time.

Yet, on the enduring core political issues, the wealthy have successfully pursued counter-offensives. Lower taxes of all kinds. Undermined support for government and government services. Judicial challenges and rulings. Weakened regulations.

They have maintained effective control of the Republican party for 175 years. They have partnered with middle America, urban elites, WASP America, industry, corporate America and small business/entrepreneurial America, mainstream and fundamentalist religion, anti-slavery and states’ rights groups, Main street America, rural America, southern America, sunbelt America, isolationists and pro-traders, anti-communist hawks and America firsters, assertive neo-conservative foreign policy wonks and inherently defensive thinkers, promoters of American power through international relations and doubters, international free traders and mercantilist tariff warriors, libertarians, the professional class and the working class, skeptical protestants and conservative true believers, farmers and bankers, philosophical conservatives and political pragmatists, fiscal conservatives and political idealogues, preserving and restoring American culture, separation of church and state versus promoting one religious group, liberal and conservative social policies, the mainstream media is authoritative or fake. The end justifies the means. Some coalition of voters and interests can always be assembled to support their core financial interests.

The defenders of wealth have effectively shaped political debates by prioritizing issues, framing positions and policies to be considered, crafting favorable and unfavorable language and stories, shaping debates against extreme strawman positions, and polarizing positions. Democrats have attempted to use the same techniques but have been much less effective. Democrats have also shifted their positions on issues and reassembled their coalitions through time but been unable to secure a solid base of support in the last 50 years. They repeatedly point to a demographic “emerging majority” and the “rightness” of their causes and hope for more success soon.

Root Cause Analysis

Why does a small group of wealthy individuals consistently capture one political party and oppose efforts to reduce their wealth and power? Are they unusually evil? Is there a “class interest”? Don’t they care about our country and those less fortunate? I think there are two key factors. First, we have lived in an individualistic, relatively equal opportunity, relatively meritocratic economy for two centuries in the US. The economic winners can honestly look in the mirror and say, “I earned this”. [note the Obama buzzsaw around “you didn’t build this”]. Like each of us, they exaggerate their own merits and discount chance, privilege, inherited assets, opportunities, and ethical choices. Second, they have such great assets that they must protect them. The scale of accumulated wealth in the US is almost [or actually] beyond comprehension. Current GDP is nearing $23.4 Trillion, up 10 times in real terms from $2.2 Trillion in 1947. Stop for a minute to let this sink in. The US was truly the savior of the world in 1947. We now have 10 times as much wealth, resources, assets, power. Real $ GDP in 1850 was only $62 Billion. Real GDP increased 35 times in that century, perhaps the most amazing century of growth in world history, despite the Great Recession and WW II.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

https://www.measuringworth.com/graphs/graph_1.php

America has grown its population, its productivity/per capita GDP, and its corporate profits by at least 350 times in the last 175 years. A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you have real money. This is the power of compound interest. Wealth begets wealth. This is Thomas Piketty’s point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty

A well invested portfolio provides 3-5% real returns per year. It accumulates to infinity sooner than you might imagine.

So … America has 350 times more annual economic output than in 1850. The wealthy have captured more than an equal share, so their wealth per person has grown 500-fold. Digest this ratio. There are more wealthy individuals. The winnings are divided across a larger population. Wealthy individuals control 500 times more assets per person than they did in 1850.

Average incomes have also increased. The reported $144/month for farmhands with board in 1850 becomes $5,800 today with 40X inflation. The current median income is $37,600, so the “typical” worker is 6.5 times better off today than in 1850.

https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1850#:~:text=The%20dollar%20had%20an%20average,Labor%20Statistics%20consumer%20price%20index.

The bottom line is that wealthy individuals or families have tremendous wealth to “manage” or protect. Some will highly value the other factors that produced their wealth and their obligations to society. Others will discount them and be the leading investors in political actors to preserve their wealth even though they too will face the “free rider” dilemma. Why should I invest to protect my wealth if others will do so for my benefit? As wealth has grown, a greater share of wealthy individuals has rationally invested in the political system to protect their wealth.

What is the Greatest Risk?

Wealthy individuals and families have much to worry about. If you have a billion dollars of assets, there are many risks and obligations, duties and responsibilities, social obligations, political interests, generational interests, black swan risks, portfolio effects, opportunities, and legacies. I would argue that the greatest risk is posed by democracy. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle all pointed to pure democracy as a threat to the wealth of the ruling class. This was clear when extreme wealth was a mere 1/1,000th of the level today. The individuals with the lowest incomes and wealth could use the power of the state to capture a greater share. Everyone thinks that they deserve more. This is human nature. The many outnumber the few. In a pure democracy they will “take from the rich”. They might reduce the top quintile by 20% to benefit the bottom 3 quintiles. They might flatten incomes. They might confiscate wealth. They might confiscate ALL wealth. This is the greatest fear of the economic winners in our society. The political system might “take” more than half of their income and all of their wealth. Wealthy individuals are “highly motivated” to prevent these outcomes. This is not spoken of “in polite company”.

Removing the Greatest Risks

Although most Democrats, liberals, leftists and progressives have an intuitive sense that they must fight wealth and power because it is right and fair, I argue that we ought to agree to permanently remove the risk of significant confiscation of wealth and income from the economic winners in our society. As those who claim to look at the big picture and the long run, we should set limits on how much income and wealth redistribution is required to meet our goals of a fair and prosperous society.

We should agree to set permanent structural limits on these areas. Enact constitutional amendments to clarify the redistribution limits of our society. We are so much wealthier today as a society.

https://www.amazon.com/The-Affluent-Society-audiobook/dp/B0030HF9EC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2CVXM0L3C09SG&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.8Unkiguo082D6kkTojJvrp5ab5dLWVF2YVnZVhTV3yZ-qywQIfAS4b3Ppr5GD9X-ohNEDNBhJp3gnTVwd6fyLvSarBvY4bAPu3HlmogLld469lRlv_I9Ss-SsB3IwsCrGy5bo00QUKLRmlW6lHJOohJOykHO2Dni8sL5rozLNFgpPHMNEm1rkG-ZMOUKnS1a4gsYfBtDkzp90Ljpmd4h6SdOW8diiSvWSiJe6iMqo_w.ukRfiFO5lYgBRfHSI-A6QaYyP3nrK6nNQg3ZUAutJ6Y&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+affluent+society&qid=1731895850&s=books&sprefix=the+affluent+society%2Cstripbooks%2C128&sr=1-1

JK Galbraith in 1958 was way ahead of the people in 1958 with his Affluent Society argument.

The wealthy can “make do” with a lesser share of our continually growing wealth. But no one wants to lose or give up what they have. This is human nature. I think the time has arrived to stop fighting the economic redistribution war that has never been won and find a solution that can gain support from a majority of wealthy individuals.

1. Federal marginal income tax rate shall not exceed 50%.
2. Combined wealth or property taxes shall not exceed 3% of value per year. Zero tax rate on the first $50 million of assets.
3. Any inheritance tax rate shall not exceed 15% of net assets received. First $5 million of assets is tax free. 10-year interest free period provided to pay inheritance taxes in excess of $100,000.
4. The tax rate on long-term capital gains shall not exceed 75% of the tax rate on earned income. Any long-term capital gains tax must include a deduction for at least 50% of the inflation rate during the asset holding period.
5. Any tax on financial transactions shall not exceed 0.5% of the transaction amount.
6. Fix the independence of Federal Reserve Board to pursue its joint goals of minimizing inflation and unemployment.
7. Limit the federal workforce to no more than 1% of the US population.
8. Require Congress to pass a budget each year that reduces any prior year budget deficit by one-third whenever the unemployment rate is 5% or lower.
9. Require the Treasury to pay any legally incurred debts of the government in a timely manner (no government shutdown crisis risk).
10. Limit federal government net spending to no more than 25% of prior year GDP, which restriction may be waived by the President with concurrence of at least 50% of the Senate in times of war or national emergency.
11. No limit on charitable deductions for donations to governments as an offset to earned income for federal taxation purposes.
12. Maximum corporate income tax rate of 30%.
13. Corporations are not considered persons. They do not have “free speech” rights with respect to political contributions.
14. State and federal election campaign communications shall be funded solely by the government and the active period of campaigning and voting shall be limited to 6 months or less.
15. If citizens do not agree with 100% government funding of political campaign communications, then individual or corporate contributions to any political organization shall be publicly reported each quarter.

Summary

Wealthy individuals and families have great wealth to protect. As a nation and society, we have an obligation to eliminate this concern from being a primary role in our political decisions. We can set reasonable limits on the maximum contributions required from prosperous individuals in our society. Many left-leaning individuals are focused on increasing the share of taxes paid by wealthy individuals on an equity basis. I argue that the nation would be best served by setting maximum taxation limits. Wealthy individuals might prefer lower tax rates, but they will be able to relax knowing that there is a limit on what political groups might choose to extract. Fewer would be highly motivated to invest extraordinary amounts in our political system if their greatest risks were already protected.

https://www.amazon.com/Richistan-Robert-Frank-audiobook/dp/B000R34YSO/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2INNKRMI0TEU4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.aNOJUvLmezOotxvfWAdjOSlnHoeDXJociA4EYgQw2QR8qCUVsHZyNI25skO4Ed_1Czu_GmgYywgTjf71cJZ6Xg.2n2b0Qd8W-ce0pBz_ro3kvrZAHXtdHawuV8bpITzwa0&dib_tag=se&keywords=richistan&qid=1731895103&s=books&sprefix=richistan%2Cstripbooks%2C106&sr=1-1

I encourage national Democratic Party leaders to quickly acknowledge that the American people have chosen to support candidate Trump’s policy proposals. They need to find areas of agreement and work quickly with the new president and his party to support and implement policies where agreements can be found. Democrats ought to fight against other proposals that they cannot support.

Support proposals that help the working class and middle class.

1. Eliminate taxes on tips income.
2. Eliminate taxes on social security income.
3. Increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $5,000.
4. Eliminate taxes on overtime pay premiums.
5. Cap credit card interest rates at 10% – 15%.

Fix an earlier attack on states’ rights.

6. Eliminate the $10,000 federal tax limit of state and local income tax (SALT) deduction.

Take reasonable steps to pursue American foreign policy goals.

7. Negotiate a settlement to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

8. Negotiate a settlement to Israel’s response to being attacked. Leverage world opinion to impose a settlement that creates a Palestinian state that is better for everyone.

9. Negotiate a trade deal with China that promotes “fair trade”, environmental equity, labor equity, and protects American intellectual property.

10. Pressure NATO allies to commit to 3% of GDP commitment to national defense spending by 2030.

Protect American borders.

11. Pass the compromise border security bill negotiated in 2024.

Control government spending.

12. Appoint a “blue ribbon commission” to identify systematic ways to reduce federal government spending. Include Democratic members.

13. Support a “balanced budget” constitutional amendment. Find language that forces Congress to reduce spending or increase taxes when material % of GDP budget deficits exist in a “full employment” economy. For example, “When Federal Budget deficit exceeds 2% of GDP and unemployment is less than 5%, Congress shall reduce the deficit by at least 33% in the next year”.

Address the Social Security funding situation.

14. Appoint a “blue ribbon commission” to recommend a combination of tax increases, benefits limits, inflation measures and age qualifying rates that ensures promised social security benefits will be paid for the next 50 years.

Address Health Care Costs

15. Appoint a “blue ribbon commission” to recommend methods to systematically reduce total health care costs as a percentage of GDP by 5% by 2035.

Summary

Democrats and Republicans need to look out for the interests of all Americans. There are big issues where compromise solutions must be found. Democrats should step forward and provide a list of areas where they are willing to work with the new president to serve the American people.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/04/politics/trump-campaign-promises-dg/

https://cattcenter.iastate.edu/home/about-us/carrie-chapman-catt

In an increasingly partisan world, I look for people, processes, incentives and institutions that can build trust, respect, constructive conversation and an emphasis on our shared interests. For most of the twentieth century, the League of Women voters served this role. In the last 20 years, the league has adopted positions that take sides in “the culture wars” so has lost its treasured status as a neutral collector and sharer of political candidates’ views. This is a true loss for our society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters

https://www.lwv.org/

https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/celina-stewart-named-next-ceo-league-women-voters-united-states

https://www.propublica.org/article/league-of-women-voters-gop-trump

https://capitalresearch.org/article/lwv/

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/06/indiana-statehouse-building-history/7496187001/