In a recent Newsday column, one of the publication’s prominent Opinion writers verifies what many of us dismayed Democrats have long recognized: For years, and perhaps decades, the Democratic Party seems to lack the “kind of disciplined, consistent, and ferocious opposition…” that the author corrrectly ascribes to Republicans.
His remarks referred specifically to Nassau County, but the criticism applies at least equally and perhaps more emphatically to national as well as local levels, up and down the ballot; Democratic campaigns seem to be run in keeping with Marquis of Queensbury rules, while the Republicans play by Fight Club standards. If the party’s campaign leadership really wishes to win elections, rather than focusing on appearing nicer and more civil than their opponents, it seems at least possible that they might obtain better results if, as a national party, they were to focus on the persistent Republican position as obstacles to legislative initiatives designed to make people’s lives better, safer, and healthier.
Going back as far as FDR’s New Deal, such programs as Social Security, FDIC bank insurance, Medicare and its subsequent expansion, FDIC bank insurance, SEC anti-fraud regulations, civil rights protection, and many others too numerous to mention that are now taken for granted as essential elements in American economic and financial stability were overwhelmingly, if not solely, initiated by Democrats and enacted into law, often over Republican resistance.
As a prime example in that connection, many readers will recall that Senate Republicans, during the Obama administration, repeatedly submitted proposals to revoke Medicare (as I recall, 57 times); it was the courage of a single Republican, Sen. John McCain, with his “thumbs down” gesture on the floor of the Senate in 2018, that blocked the passage of the final effort by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Democrats seem to assume that what they consider their “better ideas” for national governance will persuade voters and win elections, but they fail at it. They could, though, have more electorally productive material to work with. They could and should make concerted efforts to distinguish the intent and direction of their party’s policies from those of the Republicans. They can point to statistics illustrating clearly that the nation experiences more rapid economic growth, and lower unemployment rates, during Democratic administrations.
They can demonstrate that, although Republicans proclaim their fealty to “conservative budgetary discipline,” Democratic administrations have generally achieved more restrained budgetary results when adjusting for the inescapable lag between policy proposals and actual implementation. And there’s a logical explanation for that: in a more rapidly expanding economy, more employment leads to higher wages, salaries, and corporate profits, hence higher tax revenue from all sources, while the “entitlement” spending for various forms of income maintenance (e.g., unemployment compensation) diminishes.
Despite that, of course, Republicans repeatedly and hypocritically assert their determination to cut “entitlement” spending (such as Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation) as the preferred means of reducing federal budget deficits, while simultaneously advocating tax cuts that always seem to provide the greatest benefits to the highest income levels.) Perhaps the best illustration of that point is evident in data from the Clinton presidency: with eight years of steady economic growth, the budget deficit declined persistently during his period. in office, culminating in a prospective surplus which actually raised some concern among economists that continued surpluses might so diminish the amount of outstanding Treasury debt that the Federal Reserve might face a future problem conducting its monetary policies through its usual open market operations.
These points, and perhaps many more with which I’m less familiar, could provide potent ammunition for a Democratic counterattack against fallacious Republican rhetoric. It’s to be hoped that somewhere, somehow, some Party leaders might recognize the potential merit of a more aggressive portrayal of what Democrats have achieved: that concern for the well-being of all American residents does not conflict with sound governance or responsible fiscal management. Democratic candidates for office should not run away from those accomplishments; rather they should emphasize them as fundamental components of their campaigns and stress the contrast with the policies advocated by their opponents.
Robert Adler
Port Washington
