Right Diagnosis, Wrong Treatment

The Democratic Strategist, in the persons of Anne Kim, Adam Solomon and Jim Kessler, looks at the puzzling (to them) Democratic loss of middle class voters.  Their first clue to the answer, which we'll come back to later, shows up in the first paragraph.

$23,700. That is the household income level at which a white person became more likely to vote for a Republican over a Democrat in congressional races in 2004. That's $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four, less than half the median income of the typical voting household of all races, and an emphatic repudiation of all things Democratic among the white middle class. Obtaining a sustainable Democratic majority in either house will be impossible unless there is a significant change in this economic tipping point.

The authors go on to point out that Democrats have not won the middle class vote in over a decade, and then analyze the problem, highlighting five "disconnects" between the Democratic message and the American electorate.

[W]e isolated five areas of disconnect between how Democrats talk about the middle class and view the economy and how the middle class view their own economic situation and that of America.  (topic sentences quoted)

• Disconnect one is optimism versus pessimism. Whether it's the "people versus the powerful" Al Gore's convention speech or John Kerry's "Benedict Arnold companies" where American workers see their factories "unbolted, crated up, and shipped thousands of miles away," the Democratic economic message is pervasively pessimistic.
• Disconnect two is economic decline versus economic strength.  Democrats have become the "falling behind" party.
• Disconnect three is economic security versus individual opportunity. Democrats rarely talk about individual aspirations of greatness or success; they mostly talk about people's economic status or about their economic fears.
• Disconnect four is ideas. Most signature Democratic ideas do not benefit middle class people; they benefit those who aspire to the middle class.
• Disconnect five is an unconvincing economic critique of conservatives. Folks, if bashing rich people, the oil industry, and the drug companies were an effective political strategy, jets would be landing at Michael Dukakis National Airport in Washington.

Simply stated, the authors believe that what Democrats are telling Americans about the economy is not what Americans are seeing in their own economic lives.  So what's their solution?

We do not argue for Democrats to abandon programs to help poor people climb into the middle class or to play them down. We simply argue that Democrats must have a comparable set of signature ideas that benefit the middle class.

[...]

Democrats cannot connect with the middle class until they understand that they are richer, more optimistic, and more firmly in control of their lives than they think.

So what do they propose?

We offer a series of signature Democratic initiatives designed to help middle-class Americans live a better and more prosperous life. They include a generous middle-class college tuition tax break, a new first-time homebuyer tax credit, tax cuts to help sandwich-generation families pay for the care of elderly parents, and a more generous tax break for families with preschool children. They are all designed to help the middle class attain their goals - like purchasing a home, paying for college, and maintaining economic freedom as parents age.

How do we pay for them? Well that gets to our critique: conservatives believe the wealthy are the engine of the economy; we believe the middle class is the engine of the economy. So we would roll back some of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to finance a generous set of middle-class tax breaks designed to create a new era of middle-class economic opportunity.

This, frankly, is tripe.  They've dragged out the same proposals that Democrats always propose and called it "new and improved." This is in complete denial of the analysis that has preceded.  And it shows absolutely no understanding why the "tax cuts for the wealthy!" accusation carries far less weight with American voters, particularly the middle class, than it should given the much larger numbers of those voters compared to "the rich."

The authors admit that the middle class is, to use their words, "richer, more optimistic, and more firmly in control of their lives than [Democrats] think."  If they are all of these things, particularly optimistic and in control of their lives, what makes these strategists think that giveaways will buy their votes?  Why wouldn't these same voters, being more optimistic and more in control, rather have a lower tax rate and spend and invest the money themselves?  And what makes them think that these middle class voters, who aspire to success in the American economy, would like to have those richer than them pay more taxes?  They hope to be in that richer group in the future.

This is the same old Democratic mantra of "take from the rich, give to the poor," and now the middle class.  It's stealth socialism, and it doesn't sell to anyone who is optimistic about their future, and in control of their lives.

Do Democrats really want to court the middle class?  Then show them that if they are more successful in the future they won't be penalized for it.  How about a flat tax with a $40,000 exemption?  Let's guess at a rate of 20%, for the sake of simplicity.  Those truly at incomes less than twice the poverty level would pay nothing in income tax.  Zip.  None at all.  Those who make $80,000 would pay $8000 (effective rate 10%)  Those who make $240,000 would pay $40,000 (effective rate 16%).  And those who make $440,000 would pay $80,000 (effective rate approaching 20%).  Not "progressive" enough for you?  That's precisely why Democrats have this problem. 

Ah, I hear you say, what about social security taxes?  That particular flat tax can be laid at the feet of FDR, and Democrats have adamantly opposed reforming the system.  Those Social Security "contributions" get a horrid rate of return.  You think maybe these middle class voters might like to see if they can do better?  They could do better if they simply bought Treasury bonds.  President Bush has a proposal where these same middle class people, optimistic and in control, would get to control that as well.

Those "disconnects" listed above are important, for they outline quite well exactly why the Democrats have difficulty convincing the middle class.  Unfortunately, after correctly diagnosing the illness, the authors have proposed more of the same - class warfare and income transfers.  Recent history tells the tale: it won't work.

9/1/06 0630: Mr. Right stopped by to advise that DJ Drummond, writing at Wizbang Politics, picked on the same article.  He did so from a slightly different angle, pointing out that the article accuses the President of being in the pocket of the wealthy, big oil and pharmaceutical companies to the detriment of the economy, while in the same breath admitting that the economy is, indeed, robust, and that those accusations haven't worked.  Schizophrenic much?

Comments

[Mr. Right]

Great post, T.M.! DJ Drummond tackles this same article, as well as another even dumber one over at Wizbang Politics. You might want to check it out if you get a chance.