Mid-Term Election

Within the last week, the Republican campaign focus, for the remaining weeks, has become obvious. I see four major areas of emphasis: terrorism, the economy, fear of Democrats, and a circling of the wagons.

Only the latter may hold some promise...i.e. accepting loss of a majority in the House and focusing on holding a Senate majority, by pouring money and effort into "must win" races.

Terrorism and the economy are both up-hill fights for Republicans. Recent polls show them running behind on both issues. In order for them to reverse this they must make "linkages" the public no longer seems to believe are valid.

On terrorism, since Iraq is by most accounts THE issue of the campaign, Republicans must make the now discredited linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If they cannot do this successfully, then "terrorism" becomes a negative issue for them, rather than a positive. It's simple, if Iraq is not the "central front" on the War on Terror, what the hell are we doing there? Once the WMD and Al Qaeda linkages fell apart, the only argument the Republicans had left was the neo-con argument regarding pre-emptive war, stability in the Middle East, stamping out global tyranny, etc.

Facts have overtaken ideology. The Party is now caught between the rock and the hard place since even Republican voters are hesitant to buy in to a commitment supporting an aggressive foreign policy to democratize the world. Common sense tells most American voters that this is the wrong mission morally and/or far beyond our resources. "Staying the course," has become synonymous with the Ostrich with its head in the sand. Daily headlines illustrate that Al Qaeda is fast fadding into the Iraqi background and that sectarian violence, which has little to do with the United States or any radical Muslim vision to take over the world, is coming to the forefront.

I have noted that "Iraq as the center piece" of the War on Terror has taken a backseat in the last few days to fear of Democrats - i.e. how can the people who voted against the Patriot Act and associated legislation be trusted to run the War on Terrorism? This is a phony ploy. Democrats did not vote against these acts as much as they voted against some of the provisions of these acts. It might be worth noting that the underlying assumption of this attack is the Bush political philosophy of "you are either with me or against me" and a Bush tendency to treat Democrats as in the same category as Al Qaeda.

Were I a Democratic candidate, I would be running on the "high ground," - i.e. it is obvious our Iraqi policy has failed, largely because it has been based on assumptions since proven to be false. Secondly, because of this failure, it is time for a change in course and reappraisal and thirdly, it is time this country returned to a domestic bi-partisan foreign policy through an emphasis on a strong military, homeland defense and multilateral diplomacy. 9/11 was, in addition to the murderous goals of a relatively small body of Muslim fanatics, the result of a failure in bureaucratic structure and perception far more than any ideological failure between Democrats and Republicans. If we cannot assume that both Parties have the best interests of the American people at heart, albeit from different viewpoints, then a democratic, two party representative democracy is pretty much dead.

The issue, directly related to the "War on Terror," which neither Party seems to want to address on a national level is that of immigration. To some degree, Democrats are going to need to subordinate the specific interests of the various special interest groups that comprise their coalition in order to start winning elections again. That doesn't mean to abandon them, but to put them within some perspective. As an example, I was called by a voter survey group today, who wanted to know where I stood on gay marriage. I told them that "I have no opinion and, in view of the War on Terror, an attack on our basic civil liberties and an economy, which if any more successful will drive me to bankruptcy, I have temporarily deferred formulating any opinion on the subject." Hopefully, at the national level, Democrats understand that if they are dissuaded by their own interest group's concerns away from the issues currently foremost in the American voter's psyche, they will not win elections. In regard to immigration this means, in my opinion, adopting a position similar to some conservative Republican candidates. Let's secure the borders first, for the sake of national security, and THEN discuss how to be fair to the some 15 million "undocumented" illegal aliens and future visa policies. IOW, national security trumps both a desire to capture future Democratic voters AND the need for a continuing flow of cheap labor. There is a simple proposition at work here that 90% of Americans seem to understand, but has failed to penetrate the Beltway: A Nation-State without Enforcable Borders isn't a Nation-State. And, to forestall comments on the European Union in this regard...the EU is in a transition process toward a European federation...much like the United StateS of America, rather than simply a NAFTA or what was formerly known as the European Economic Community (ECC).

Turning to tax cuts, the Republican election argument hinges on another linkage, similar to the linkage between Iraq and the War on Terror. Regarding taxes, Republicans must make the link that the tax cuts have resulted in a stronger economy and that, in turn, has bettered the economic status of the majority of American voters. [Note: I listened to GW address an audiance last week on how wonderful he's been for the economy. Living in a different part of town than GW, I was at first surprised, until CSPAN clarified that he was addressing Republicans at a $25,000 a plate fund raiser. "Ah OK," I thought, "He's right, just not talking to me."] Democrats have been relatively silent on this issue and may be missing the boat, since polls are running against Republicans on this as well. Again, were I a Democratic candidate, I would be counter attacking with several arguments. The first is that the tax cuts and the link to middle class economic improvement is somewhat like continuing to "stay the course" in Iraq. How long do we wait for victory in Iraq and how long does the middle class wait for the "trickle down" effect of tax cuts? Unless policies, which essentially place more money in the hands of the investor class, are coupled to policies that discourage the outflow of jobs abroad and encourage fair trade over free trade, a "better economy" is meaningless to the vast majority of the American people.

IOW, the main argument is that the Bush tax cuts have only further stratified wealth in the country and run the risk of turning the country into a nation of classes, based on economics.

The second major argument for the Democrats on the economy is that short term economic macro-growth has been purchased on the backs of future generations via budget deficits. We are no closer to resolving the looming disasters of increased energy costs, health costs, and social security than we were six years ago, but we are six years closer to those disasters and record deficits make the solution to these problems more difficult to achieve than easier.

"Democrats Will Raise Your Taxes," is relatively easily countered by: "We hope not, but we may be forced to in order to reduce Republican deficits and restore fiscal sanity. It is insanity to cut taxes in a time of war." This is a relatively simple, but clearly understood response.

Although too late for the November election, Democrats will need a broader approach to economic issues for 2008. A few words on this broader perspective.

In capturing the White House in 1992, Democrats had to go beyond their traditional coalition of labor, minorities and social liberals in three areas: free trade, balanced budgets and efficiency in government. This shift, which to a degree alienated the traditional Democratic base, was based on a very savy analysis of the changing composition of the American middle class. In effect, it was an acknowledgment that the traditional coalition no longer possessed the power to elect a President. Labor had remained entrenched in "featherbedding" and refused to recognize the impact of a new global labor supply and the impact of technology. "Minorities," essentially Black America, failed to go outside its ethnic identity and incorporate the growning Hispanic community (despite Jesse Jackson's attempts at a Rainbow Coalition). Social liberals refused to recognize genuine failures in the social experiments of the Great Society. Returning to my first Post, Democrats, in their own way, succombed to group greed, as opposed to individual greed.

By basically co-opting traditional Republican policies, Clinton forced Republicans to produce new initiatives. The primary source for these initiatives came out of the Republican south and focused around government reform and cultural values. Georgia Representative Newt Gingrich, Texas Representative Dick Amery and others produced, for the mid term elections, "The Contract With America," a brilliant marketing tool, which effectively allowed Republicans to take control of Congress in 1994.

Clinton had won the Presidency with New Left politics, but failed to reform his own Party; most Congressional Democrats remained rooted to the old coalition. [More on all of this in later Posts and how the Democratic Party must "reidentify" itself for the 2008 Presidential election].

Gingrich's "Contract With America," was essentially a "New Right" created to challenge Clinton's "New Left." And, twelve years later, it has largely met the same fate as Clinton's New Left met in 1994 and 2000. Two of its most popular provisions: term limits and balanced budgets have been disgarded by a Republican Congress. Some sort of progress has been achieved in several provisions (welfare reform, largely begun under Ronald Reagan; capital gains cuts, etc.). Several provisions were actually the preogative of state and local government all along and several are still "works in progress".

By and large, however, Democrats should understand that the present stunning 16% favorable rating of the U.S. Congress stems from three basic factors: corruption, fiscal responsibility and an apparent total incompetence regarding solutions for long term national problems.

Aside from these rather obvious needs for Congressional improvement, which the American people rightfully expect to be treated on a bi-partisan basis, there is a common national problem that ties the issues of post 9/11 security together with our economic future, namely the phenomena known as "Globalization."

By and large, both Republicans and Democrats have pursued policies, from slightly different perspectives, that encourage the process of globalization and attempt to ensure our global economic supremacy in the process. Unfortunately, many of these relatively short-term policies and goals have been achieved only through disassociating "national interest," from an essential premise of representative democracy, the ulititarian principle of "the most good for the most people." I would suggest this should be THE issue of the 2008 election campaign. How do we define, both in domestic and foreign policy, the national interest and how is that interest related to the majority of the American people? The Party that answers, or even attempts to answer, that question will, I predict, be the victor in 2008. If, as we have apparently done to date, both parties avoid this question and continue to offer soley parochial solutions based on their respective antiquated ideological bases, the two Party system will have failed.

More on the election and the larger issue of Globalization in future Posts.