The Democrat Party Has Died

By Monte Pelerin  /  Economic Noise

The Democrat Party is dead but doesn’t have enough sense to fall over.

The Party is out of ideas, oxygen and heartbeat. Its lunatic fringe, like a chicken beheaded with no idea of its terminal state, flops around trying to overthrow the Devil Incarnate Donald Trump. Because they could never vote for Trump means no one else could either. In their headless world, this proves Trump is guilty of voter fraud.

The Democrat Party is bereft of leadership, policy or strategy. It moves zombie-like through its activities. Like the zombies on TV, they move en masse  against anything that Trump does or proposes. Even prior acceptable positions of the Party, if adopted by Trump, are opposed.

The elders of the party are too old and, in at least one case, incoherent.  “Old Bernie,” a self-described Socialist, who brands himself an Independent rather than a Democrat, is more popular than any Democrat. Nefarious means were employed to ensure his primary defeat against Queen Hillary.

Republicans Are Hardly Better

Arguably the Republican Party silently morphed into the old Democrat Party. Their movement left was an election strategy to compete better with the Democrats. In response, Democrats moved even further left. One party continued to give lip-service to conservative principles but effectively ignored them when governing. The other party gave lip service to socialism and implemented as much of it as they could get away with.

The position shifts were massive. To put them into perspective, one merely has to look at the policies of John F. Kennedy, a Democrat hero. He could not be a Democrat today. Indeed, his policies became inconsistent with his Party’s within two decades of his tragic demise.  Today Mr. Kennedy would be considered too conservative for the current Republican Party. In short, the Republicans are to the left of Democrats twenty years ago. Republicans today would be considered crazed radicals compared to the Democrat Party of fifty years ago.

This movement to the left has implications for Republicans in addition to Democrats.

The Predictability Of All This

The movement to the left by the Democrats was obvious. The implications were also. The Party’s demise was mapped by the strategy and tactics adopted years ago.

In November of 2010, with Obama riding high (at least in his own mind), I wrote Why the Democratic Party Cannot Survive. The 2008 presidential election and the 2010 mid-terms were explained:

The Republicans [2008] were tossed out because they did not govern according to their principles. The Democrats [2010] were tossed out because they did govern according to their principles.

One party lost because it misbehaved; the other because it revealed itself.

Obama’s election was erroneously interpreted as a mandate for radical change by left-wing loonies. In spite of his uniqueness, Obama’s election was more a vote against Republican spending, hypocrisy, and general misbehavior than a vote for Democrats. Socialist Obama unwisely tried to impose his vision on the country.

His overreach scared many and unleashed the coerciveness that George Washington warned about: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Obama was perceived as a “savior.” If he was, it was for the hapless Republicans, not the Democrats. Obama did not destroy the Democrat Party but he hastened its decline. Its fate was determined by strategies adopted long before Mr. Obama appeared on the national scene.

Two issues are critical to understanding what happened to Democrats:

• The Liberal Mindset
• Democrat Strategy

The Liberal Mindset

Democrat politicians are prisoners of the liberal mindset. Underlying any proposal is the elitist notion that government is smarter than its people (at least when Democrats are in control). The modern day liberal believes the following:

• People are too stupid to run their own lives (and need strong “leaders”).
• Liberals know how to fix injustice and societal ills (whether real  or imagined).
• Liberals can improve the lives of people (whether wanted or not).
• Force in pursuit of “good”goals is justified. (Omelettes require the breaking of some eggs.)
• Progress is only possible with enlightened Liberal leadership.

The Liberal Mindset colors the Democrat approach to governance. Two aspects are worth mentioning:

1. Interpreting The Past

Milton Friedman once said (my paraphrasing): “Liberals and Conservatives generally agree on the goals of a good society, but disagree on the means to achieve them.” I doubt Mr. Friedman would feel  that way today. The antipathy between the two parties has reached the point where anything agreed upon by one is automatically disagreed to by the other. This disagreement now even extends to goals.

Both parties have fundamentally different visions of what kind of country we should be. The easiest way to see that is how the past is interpreted.  Liberals view American history as a continuum of suppression and exploitation. Non-liberals view this history as a unique and noble experiment in liberty that changed the nation and the world for the better. One side sees America as Evil. The other as imperfect but, on balance, Good.

These conflicting interpretations cannot be bridged by politics. It reflects two entirely different visions of what works and doesn’t. It also reflects a difference in the very goals that Society should pursue.

For liberals, capitalism (freedom) is to blame. Non-liberals believe that freedom and capitalism made life easier, fairer and richer for America and the entire world.

2. Feelings vs. Outcomes

Liberals see and need the past to be evil. That is their raison  d’etre. Hence, compassion and caring are crucial for Liberals. Good intentions override good results. Feel-good terms are necessary for liberal programs.  Caring is paramount.

Non-liberals are pragmatic. Programs are good if they deliver the results intended. Intentions by program supporters. The program either works as intended or it doesn’t.

Liberals see the political battle as one between Good and Evil. Politics is an existential fight where the means can be justified by the ends. Harry Reid’s disgraceful lie about Mitt Romney not paying taxes is an example. When confronted with the lie, Reid justified his action with (my paraphrasing): “Well, he didn’t win did he?” Vince Lombardi’s famous “winning is the only thing” has been stretched beyond anything Lombardi would recognize or condone.

Both parties seek power. Both sides use marketing to make their political positions attractive to voters. Compassion and more generosity with other people’s money is the Liberal strategy. Non-liberals, seeing the marketing success of fake compassion, incorporate similar “frosting” on the cakes they promise. Their increasing effectiveness in doing so complicated matters for Democrats.

Democrat Strategy

Liberals believe power is necessary to improve people. Non-liberals believe that people improve themselves when given the opportunity. One party believes people need to be forced to behave properly; the other that people will naturally do so if provided the opportunity.

Three characteristics of the Democrat strategy derive from this Liberal mindset:

1. Socialism
2. Vote-Pandering
3. Economics

1. Socialism

Modern-day liberalism is always on a path to Socialism. Socialism is not a workable economic system as Friedrich Hayek and others argued. It is always the “Road to Serfdom.” Socialism always and everywhere eventually fails. It doesn’t matter the time or the place — the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock — Socialism always ends in poverty and serfdom.

Socialist leadership always does well. It is powerful and wealthy compared to its citizens. Socialism is a political con-man’s dream. It is an easy way to power and wealth. When  people see that living standards are decreasing and taxes are increasing, they eventually vote against the Party responsible. For Socialism to continue, honest elections, at some point, must be ended.

2, Vote-Pandering

Vote-pandering is a strategy that identifies sub-groups by color, sexual preference,  place of origin, economic interest or any other unique distinguishing feature. These groups are promised special treatment to make up for real or imagined past disadvantage or “injustice.”  “Victimization” or “identity politics” can be effective to “buy” votes short-term. However, as a long-term strategy, it is destructive.

Vote-pandering has been effective for the Democrat Party, keeping them competitive in recent elections. It has provided short-term benefits.

Long-term such an approach is disastrous for the following reasons:

• It is political prostitution, although it is difficult to decide who is the real John and who the prostitute.
• The scam is unusually cruel.  It is sold as “care and compassion,” but its purpose is purely political. The scheme creates and demands dependency.
• Intractable problems arise when the Party becomes unmanageable due to conflicts among the  identity groups.
• Disaster happens when the base of the party realizes they have been taken advantage of in order to benefit the new, fractured groups.

Growing use of “identity politics” eventually creates too many groups to be manage effectively. These interest groups have limited common interest other than to improvet heir own condition at the expense of other supporters. The problem is compounded by a shrinking pool of resources.

Eventually the tactic destroys the political party by alienating its core. Long-term supporters eventually rebel. Preferential treatment to newcomers who are not like them (in appearance, wants and/or needs) eventually cause the Party’s core to investigate other options.

The last election suggests this breakup is beginning. The working class, including labor unions, have been the invincible base of the Democrat Party. They have lived through wage stagnation and declining living standards as Dems have increasingly pushed “newcomers”to the head of the line. Defectors showed unusual support for Donald Trump. He was able to break the “invincible” Blue Wall in some of the mid-western states.

Trump did not win these states because of his looks or personality. He won because the base of the Democrat Party was fed up with being ignored and stagnant or declining living standards.

This behavior may indicate that the Party is already in a death spiral. Since the election Trump has continued to make inroads in the Democrat core. Black support for Trump also shows signs of rising.

Predicting accurately the speed of death spirals is nearly impossible. If and when they occur they are sudden and devastating.

3. Economics

Economic policy is a subject foreign to most Liberals. Socialism is not a viable economic system and inviolate Socialist goals are inconsistent with effective economic policy which explains why

1. Socialism always ultimately fails,
2. Economic plans pursuing Socialism are necessarily contradictory and ineffective

An economic plan is necessarily a big part of a political platform. These elements characterize and complicate Democrat Economic Plans:

• Compassion and care dominate. Neither is a substitute for effective economics.
• Interest group politics always plays a large role.
• Economic improvement is promised but how or why it can be achieved is rarely explained.
• Economic progress is always initiated and managed by government . Keynesian economics (failed demand side management driven by bigger government) dominates the plan.

The highlights of Hillary Clinton’s economic plan ( An Economy That Works for Everyone ) are illustrative :

1. A 100-days jobs plan: Break through Washington gridlock to make the boldest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II.
2. Make debt free college available to all Americans.
3. Rewrite the rules so that more companies share profits with employees—and fewer ship profits and jobs overseas
4. Make certain that corporations, the wealthy, and Wall Street pay their fair share.
5. Enact policies that meet the challenges families face in the 21st-century economy.

These placebos are served up every four years. They are intended to attract votes via “compassion” or the belief in a “free lunch”.

Some brief comments by point may be useful:

1. Another “jobs plan?” No job created by government is worth creating from an economic perspective. If it were it would have already been created. Only private sector jobs contribute to national well-being.
2. Debt-free college for all. Hasn’t government screwed up education enough? More taxpayer dollars wasted to support overpaid liberal professors who turn kids into Socialists (Democrats) who are unable to think while teaching 4 to six hours per week is ridiculous. It might be more beneficial to pay kids not to go to college.
3. What the hell does this mean and how would it be accomplished (poorly and via coercion, no doubt).
4. Oh my God, isn’t this a breakthrough idea.
5. Again, what does this mean and how many of the challenges families face were obstacles put into place by prior Liberal policies?

The only thing missing was the ubiquitous $15.00 minimum wage. Experience with this absurd policy has proved so embarrassing that this core sham can no longer be demagogued and may finally have been put into the dustbin of stupid economics. {Although one should never count out Bernie’s ability to avoid reality.)

Donald Trump, like him or not, used common-sense and economics to successfully address 1 and 3 above. He did it without government interference or direction. Trump’s roll-back of regulations (5) will do more for families than adding new policies and restrictions.

Item (4) is a bankrupt and dishonest item. Politicians should be fined, jailed or even hung for using the word “fair.”

We are beyond the 2016 election. Have Liberals learned anything? Apparently not based on  an update on Democrat thinking provided by Newsweek magazine.  Peter Skurkiss describes the report:

Its cover story is “Bernie Sanders: Why Democrats can’t win midterm 2018 without him.”  This may well be true, for what else do the Democrats have?  They have come out against the strong economy and in support of MS-13 animals, and they have no policy ideas.  They have repeatedly shown more concern for illegal aliens than they do for middle-class Americans.  Nancy Pelosi is their face nationally, and they are relying on their hatred of Donald Trump to carry the day.

This shows the fix the Democrats are in.  That they can’t win without Crazy Bernie does not mean they can win with him, either.

To believe that Bernie’s full-frontal Socialism can win anything is idiocy. It reflects the bankruptcy of Newsweek and the loony far-left.

The Democrat Party is dead but has not yet fallen down. Some Democrats may understand this condition, which could explain the desperate and stupid attempts to de-legitimize Trump’s election. True Socialism cannot tolerate honest elections. (Apparently neither can the Democrats when choosing their own candidate.) Perhaps we are witnessing the inception of a Democrat movement toward changing how leadership is chosen in this country. That has special irony for a party with Democrat in its name.

Some believe movement  in this direction will lead to a new civil war (or that we are already in one). Those who want/need it most are those who cannot get elected via Constitutional means. It would be less painful for everyone if Liberals reviewed why they are increasingly irrelevant. That might offer them a chance to survive. They have no chance should widespread violence break out. Snowflakes are no match for the NRA?

People Power and The Future

People power ultimately rules. Even dictatorships are unable to completely ignore the people. Totalitarianism ruined several generations in the USSR, but it ultimately succumbed and collapsed as a result of people power.

People power rules even in a failing Democracy. The Republican Party began its search for a presidential candidate with seventeen people. The GOP had favorites, but sixteen were acceptable. Only Donald Trump was not. All the resources thrown into the primary could not stop Trump. People power overcame political power.

Then came the presidential election. Pundits foresaw the most lopsided contest in history. Clinton was a sure thing. The establishment (media,  Democrats and even Republicans) ridiculed Trump’s chances. They did their best (including many Republicans) to ensure a massive defeat for this outsider. People power again triumphed. This time it defeated the entire Washington establishment.

Donald Trump may have been in the right place at the right time. Could he have won earlier? Could  he have defeated a better Democrat opponent? My guess to these unknowable answers is “yes.” After all, he defeated (or the people rejected) the strongest group of Republican candidates in my lifetime.

People power obliterated political power in the primaries and then in the general election. A  man despised by both political parties was elected president. People power had had enough with political power and the professionals of both parties. It was the first time that many  voters decided not to stay home or not to write in “None of the Above.” What was the risk of electing a man who was willing to take a pay cut and lower his standard of living in order to help the country?

Donald Trump was the first candidate who provided people the opportunity to vote against the Establishment.  There will be more Donald Trumps (Washington outsiders) to follow.

How Does This End?

My guess is that the Democrat Party ceases to exist. Many will join the Republican Party which already is more liberal than Democrats when I became eligible vote.  Conservatives will abandon the Republican Party and form a new party (call it the Freedom Party or something like that). They will compete against the Republicans who will now house the liberals.

http://www.economicnoise.com/2018/06/11/the-democrat-party-is-dead/

More great articles here: http://www.economicnoise.com