Democrats and the problem with the economy, by gimleteye

One of Florida's best editorial writers, Kenric Ward, writes in a small Scripps newspaper, The Treasure Coast Palm: "For all the crowd-swooning ecstasy of Obama-rama, for all the partisan primaries on the Treasure Coast, for all the young people registering to vote, the two-party system is losing its grip."

Bob Herbert in The New York Times yesterday makes a companion observation: "Can Obama run the offense?" In both instances, the question is not just Obama: it is the fact that Democrats have not yet provided a good response to the current economic turmoil afflicting the nation.

According to Herbert, "A recent survey found that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the social contract of the 20th century — in which the government, employers and the society as a whole pulled together to see that those who worked hard and played by the rules were afforded the basic necessities of daily life and a shot at the American dream — “appears to be unraveling.” Nearly 80 percent of those who responded to the survey, conducted for the Rockefeller Foundation and Time magazine, said they are facing greater financial risks now than in the past. This anxiety is pervasive, and it was clearly evident a little more than two weeks ago when Phil Gramm, then John McCain’s key economic adviser, callously remarked that we were suffering from a “mental recession” and that the U.S. had become “a nation of whiners.”

Herbert writes and I agree: Obama should long since have pounced on this issue.

There is a problem with Democrats and the housing crash. They were in the rear seats as Republicans mixed the toxic ingredients of anti-regulation, financial derivatives, and catalyzed developers, lobbyists and Wall Street financiers (and in Florida, more than 10,000 felons who worked as loan originators).

The Bush White House apparatus called it the "Ownership Society", with a not-so-transparent dig at the Democrat version "The Great Society" programs of the 1960's. Whatever it was called, it was an unmitigated disaster unless you are or were a senior executive paid inflated compensation in vastly debased dollars. Most, if not all, are or were Republican.

Obama's problem is how to deliver the bad news. Americans have not proven willing, at the polls, to vote in the reality-based community: that may change this election cycle.

What Democrats need to communicate is that Republicans, the party of fiscal discipline, trusted their future to ideologues like Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and so-called conservative foundations and think tanks whose bottom line was that big government could not be tamed until and unless creative destruction hacked it down to size. Not only did the Republicans fail to do what they promised, the results they delivered have been nothing short of catastrophic.

But the breaking of the social contract has co-dependents everywhere. The problem with the housing bailout, supported by the Democratic majority in Congress, is that it is far from a comprehensive fix and could lead to a whole host of further problems as more financial institutions require bailouts.

The Bush White House has nationalized the nation's banking industry because the alternative was worse.

"Americans are losing jobs, losing the equity in their homes, losing their retirement nest eggs, and tragically, in increasing numbers, actually losing the family home itself," Herbert writes. If Democrats want to win the White House, they will have to start explaining and providing better answers than they have, so far. And remember, this is not a blameless exercise though that is exactly how Republicans are portraying our economic disaster: a kind of economic creationism.


More voters declare their independence

By Kenric Ward

Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Independent parties and non-partisan affiliation.

As the accompanying chart shows, non-partisan and "other" parties are by far the fastest-growing segment of the local electorate. Since 2000, independents grew at five times the rate of Republicans in Indian River County. They quadrupled the percentage of Democratic gains in St. Lucie County. Their registration gains in Martin County nearly matched those of the two major parties combined.

Of course, these robust increases don't mean independents are poised to topple two-party hegemony. That would be tantamount to betting Ralph Nader will be our next president. The institutional inertia of America's political duopoly is so strong that it's a de facto monopoly.

Just as Republican and Democratic leaders (buttressed by a bipolar media) quash competition by framing the presidential debates as two-party affairs, Florida's closed primaries slam the door on independents.

To which more people are saying, "So what?"

Though ensuring their virtual banishment from primary elections, an 

ever-growing number of Floridians is opting out of the two-party game. Today, roughly one in five Treasure Coast voters is registered with a minor party or no party at all. Here are their totals, and how they stand in relation to the second-place party in each county:

• 19.7 percent in Indian River (16,683 voters; 11 percentage points behind the Democrats).

• 21.1 percent in Martin (20,746 voters; 7 percentage points behind the Democrats).

• 22.5 percent in St. Lucie (32,791 voters; 12 percentage points behind the Republicans). 

To its credit, Florida is relatively open to minor political parties. The state currently recognizes 27 of them — ranging eclectically from the Florida Whig Party to the Prohibition Party to the Ecology Party (whose ballot line Nader may run on this year).

The diversity of Florida's minor party roster has boosted third-party registration by 118 percent since 2000.

Democratic and Republican bigwigs may mock such nascent declarations of independence. But as their registration edge continues to erode, the joke is on them. With the national parties' messages blurring into insipidity, more voters are viewing Republicans and Democrats as a bland choice between Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. 

 As party ties loosen, Florida's GOP could have the most to lose this year. Being the dominant statewide organization, its office holders are particularly vulnerable to rising anti-incumbent, anti-establishment fever.

The St. Petersburg Times reported this month that state Sens. J.D. Alexander, R-Winter Haven, and Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach, aren't even using the word "re-elect" on their fliers or signs.

Meantime, more candidates are running "NPA" (no party affiliation) and minor parties are filling out longer slates.

To those who say independents are "throwing their votes away," a swelling chorus responds that continually settling for the "lesser of evils" merely perpetuates an unresponsive two-party regime. Besides, a vote on principle should never be considered a wasted vote. The real waste is in rewarding bad behavior and expecting better results.

"The only thing you have is your vote," says Cara Campbell, chairman of the Fort Lauderdale-based Ecology Party. "If you just give it away to the least worst, you give the big parties no incentive to change." Campbell means fundamental change, not the fakery peddled by Barack Obama, who's collected more corporate contributions than John McCain.

A recent Wall Street Journal headline declared: "The State of the Union? Furious." Is the party over for the Republicans and Democrats? Not anytime soon. But for voters jaded by petty partisanship, let down by unfulfilled promises and tired of mindless red and blue punditry, it's just not as much fun anymore, and they're starting to leave. 

ken.ward@scripps.com

PARTY 'POPPERS'

Increases in third-party and non-partisan voter registration 2000-2008:

• Indian River: + 75.4%

• Martin: + 51.3%

• St. Lucie: + 26.6%

 Sources: Supervisors of elections, state Division of Elections 