Feehery: Why Democrats are now historically unpopular
By: John Feehery (TheHill)
The so-called conservative politics of the Obama era, led by neoliberals and libertarians, has become passé. The promises are empty, the polemics are pointless, and the political message has become blindly delusional. Neoliberalism and libertarianism are both on their death bed in the Republican Party. Live with it or die with it. That's the choice Republicans face. Republicans either reclaim their pragmatic progressive heritage - or - Republicans become Democrats.
The Democratic Party has steadfastly refused to change course from the neoliberal technocratic politics of Bill Clinton. The Democratic Party has grown old and has become dysfunctional in protecting Clinton's third way politics. The Democratic Party is suffering from neoliberal senility more than anything else.
The Democratic Party has abandoned the notions of equality and fairness. Today's Democratic Party are champions of equity and justice. Equity and justice allows preferential application of neoliberal theories for targeted special interests. And the success of that technocratic governance is unencumbered by any consequences or harm caused to the country. The proclaimed purpose is to address specific inequalities, not national problems, and success is determined by the favored special interest. Multilateral diversity requires unequal treatment.
Democrats have become historically unpopular because the politics of equity and preferential treatment has divided the country into many more special interests. Democrats haven't just created hyphenated Americans. We are now divided into hyphenated hyphenated hyphenated Americans. Suburban-blue collar-female Blacks are a special interest distinct from urban-college educated-professional-female Blacks. And each distinct special interest demands its own equity and justice.
Democrats have created their own neoliberal Gordian knot that they can't untangle. The Democratic Party is collapsing under the weight of its own neoliberal multilateral diversity. Republicans can try to revive their own divisive neoliberal and libertarian faux conservatism but then Republicans become nothing more than Democrats in an elephant suit.
Believe it or not, 'progressive conservative' is not an oxymoron. So-called neoliberal and libertarian conservatives will lie to us, divide us, and claim we are separate special interests, each needing preferential treatment. That just ain't so. We're really unhyphenated Americans. And we're going to need progressive conservatives to defend and preserve the ideas of equality and fairness. Equality and fairness is the foundation of our American style of democracy.
Republicans have a choice. Republicans can reclaim their progressive heritage - or - Republicans can become Democrats. Live with it or die with it, that's the choice.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Both Joe Biden and Democrats are unpopular by historic margins. Progressive activists and pundits wonder why, considering the low unemployment rate, brisk economic growth and some legislative success.
Here are six reasons:
1) Democrats are anachronistic: Biden is old and frail. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is 81. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is relatively spry at 71, but he seems like he has been around forever. Beyond their advanced ages, these Democrats have old ideas and are fighting old battles that no longer reflect our current realities as a nation. Biden wants to hearken back to the good old days of the Senate, when he, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy used to pal around. But those days are gone forever, and they aren't coming back. These Democrats seem to believe that if they just pass one more huge government program, they will somehow become more popular with the voters. But most Americans don't want more handouts from the government. They want to get on with their lives and take care of their families.
2) Democrats keep the pandemic panic going but the American people don't buy it anymore: On the House floor and at every Democratic press event, masks are mandatory. But outside the Beltway, in suburban Virginia and suburban Maryland, almost nobody wears a mask. The overreaction from the Biden administration to the new South African variant is another example. The president immediately stopped flights from eight African countries, despite little evidence that such a travel ban will have any impact on slowing down a variant that most experts don't believe will be particularly problematic. Democrats don't want this to end because it gives them more power over the people. But voters have had enough and want to move on.
3) Democrats divide us to unite us: According to one analysis, voters think that the Democrats are too focused on equality and fairness and not enough on people like them. This is obviously true. If you aren't the right person of color who identifies with the right gender or sexual preference, you probably are not going to be part of the new Democratic coalition. Asian voters, who used to think they qualified as people of color, now are classified as white-adjacent and are thus disqualified from preferential treatment. There are two problems with the new approach taken by the progressive Democrats. First, it is un-American and likely unconstitutional. Second, it alienates a whole bunch of voters who make up the vast bulk of the American people.
4) Democrat policies are meant to make things more difficult for the average American: Skyrocketing energy prices are a feature, not a bug, in Biden world. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg himself said that high gas prices will make more Americans buy more electric vehicles. Jen Psaki hinted that higher prices on all products will make American consumers consume less. Biden's chief of staff retweeted affirmatively an assertion that inflation was a high-class problem. Democrats used to look out for working-class voters. Now, they despise them. That contempt has not gone unnoticed.
5) Democrats don't care about fighting crime: Murders are up in almost every major city. Looting is common-place in both high-end boutiques and low-brow Home Depots. Shoplifting is no longer a criminal offense in many big cities. The Democrats, stuck between the defund-the-police crowd and the American people, have largely ignored the issue. When they talk about it at all, most on the left blame the 2nd Amendment for the uptick in homicides and talk about white privilege as the underlying cause of the uptick in petty crime. Some leading lights of the left even cheer on crime as striking a blow against the white patriarchy.
6) Democrats have become the party of the self-dealing elite: Not to begrudge Hunter Biden and his successful art career but come on, man. This is just a further example of how the corrupt elite take care of their own. It happens on both sides, obviously, but these days, it happens more spectacularly on the left, such as San Francisco Mayor London Breed's maskless partying. The collusion of high and mighty social media barons and the Democratic political class only breeds more contempt by the rest of us.
Feehery is a partner at EFB Advocacy and blogs at www.thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).
Tags
Who is online
80 visitors
'Progressive conservative' is not an oxymoron. Equality and fairness is the foundation of American style democracy. And we're going to need progressive conservatives to defend and preserve equality and fairness in our politics. Real, true progressive governance (conservative and liberal) will remove the hyphens that divide us.
The Republican Party was established as a progressive party. The Republican Party was established as a conservative party. Now is the time for Republicans to reclaim their progressive conservative heritage.
Energy, inflation, taxes, abortion, regulations, illegal immigration, plenty of reasons why the democrat party is unpopular.
Our times have moved beyond Democrats and their lost cause. Republicans must reclaim their progressive conservative heritage or the fall of our republic is inevitable.
I'm kicking Republican asses as hard as Democrat jackasses.
wearing loose sheets around operating political machinery isn't well advised.
Did you learn that from the Southern Democrats?
do you mean the gutless coward traitors that couldn't stomach calling themselves republicans for 100 years after they lost the war of white supremacy and until the republican party saw things their way? the keepers of a cultural heritage whose sole lasting benefit to america was/is to become compost?
Gee, what exact part of "Southern Democrats" did you not understand?
You must have heard of them before, surely.
They were largely the ones responsible for Jim Crow laws and were loved by Northern Democrats for giving them control of Congress and the White House for so long! You know---Democrats!
my apologies. I keep forgetting that american history is taught differently south of the mason dixon line. that the southern strategy to them means surrender first, discriminate later, while wearing bedsheets.
None needed. Never mind helping educate.
So says the voice of division. Progressive conservatives will not condemn the unable but do not condone the unwilling.
After Northern Democrats supported the civil rights act and voting rights act the relationship with Southern Democrats was irreparably damaged.
" From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act . The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans . That's where the votes are." - Nixon's Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970
The truth straight from the horses mouth. Trying to deny that Republicans employed what has become known as the 'Southern Strategy' to build their own majority in the South, of which they were clearly successful, is beyond stupid, it is nothing but an exercise in futility. Trying to continually blame modern Democrats for the confederate flag loving, confederate monument loving conservative Christian white supremacist's who today continue to love their confederate flags and confederate monuments and march in lock step with right wing Republicans is just stupid.
Nearly all white supremacists consider themselves conservative Christians who love and voted for Trump and Republicans, the KKK consider themselves conservative Christians who love and voted for Trump and Republicans, the neo-Nazi's in America consider themselves conservative Christians who love and voted for Trump and Republicans.
"Results suggest political orientation and Christian fundamental beliefs are significantly related to agreement with the values of the United White Knights: as levels of conservatism and Christian orthodoxy increase, the more likely a person is to be in agreement with the group's values/beliefs. These findings support the notion that some Klan organizations, such as the United White Knights, are taking steps to rebrand their image into a more mainstream organization with an ideology similar to white, religious and political conservatives. "
"a research sociologist who specializes in extremism at the research institute RTI International in Raleigh, North Carolina, said there are clearly Christians who believe their religion justifies racism, and today's displays are an "intense redeployment of old tactics."
For centuries in the United States, many Christian pastors preached a "natural order" in which whites were justified in enslaving Black men, women and children, citing everything from the writings of Paul the Apostle in the New Testament to the Curse of Ham in the Old Testament."
Right wing Christian conservatives have always shared their ideals and faith with white supremacists, Southern conservative Democrats, fascist Nazi's and the KKK. They are one in the same, though after the 1960's two thirds of them try desperately to hide their shared affiliation, but they're not fooling anyone but themselves.
Northern Democrats only protected their style of divisive racism. Housing projects to segregate the population didn't come from Dixiecrats. Redlining didn't come from Dixiecrats. Tokenism didn't come from Dixiecrats. Broken window policing didn't come from Dixiecrats.
Liberals believe the Black population is beholden to them for adopting a kinder, gentler divisive racism.
Richard Nixon was a Californian; a west coast neoliberal. Nixon only voiced the snobbish elitism of west coast liberals. It wasn't Dixiecrats who solidified the Black vote for benefit of the white majority of liberals.
What a crock! LOL.
I am always amazed how many people fall for that shit and post here.
No, they were far more open and up front about it. They were literally in-your-face racists. I'm not absolving much of the rest of white America that continued to harbor deep seated prejudices and established the silent systemic racism we're still seeing the effects of today, but to try and claim the openly racist Southern conservatives were somehow less racist is just moronic.
Some did, most don't. Most liberals and progressives are truly trying to support diversity and equality for all because it's the right thing to do, not because by doing so it will garner them votes.
" Nixon's inclinations were conservative , but he assumed the presidency at the end of the 1960s, liberalism's postwar peak. He could not achieve his overarching goal of creating a governing coalition of the right without first dismantling Franklin Roosevelt's coalition of the left.
Nixon was only as conservative as he could be and only as liberal as he had to be. He took credit for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency while privately noting that if he had not taken this liberal step, the Democratic Congress would have forced more liberal environmental legislation on him.
Southern conservative Democrats and 'Dixiecrats' weren't trying to solidify the black vote, they were trying to solidify the white conservative Christian vote and Nixon and other Republicans appealed to them and promised them just that, more white Christian conservative candidates and white Christian conservative representatives.
It's clear where the white conservative Republicans stood as exampled by the men they voted for.
" The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said . “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “ To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh."
And white conservative Republicans of today still worship the ground on which Reagan walked, and would worship Nixon too if he hadn't been so thoroughly exposed. We saw how racist white conservative Republicans acted during the 16 years we had a black President. They attacked him, made caricatures of he and his wife as monkeys, proclaimed he wasn't American or Christian, some even claimed he was gay all to vilify and malign the first black President who dared to challenge their long held deeply ingrained prejudice and hold a position of power that previously had only ever been held by white Christian males.
That's why we saw the explosive growth of right wing conservative white nationalist militia groups after he was elected, the bitter racist hate embraced by millions of right wing conservatives rose to the surface and bled into the heart of the Republican party which is what created the toxic corrosive environment allowing a racist populist demagogue like Trump to rise to the surface and become the new wannabe-fascist leader of right wing conservatism.
What a persuasive argument you present. What's next? Are you going to try the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense? Or perhaps the "Nuh Uh! [Deleted..]
Thanks!
16 years? There are some who believe that Clinton was our first black President, but you aren't one of them are you?
Having said that, there were definitely some racist remarks and attitudes directed at President Obama by some on the far right, but the vast majority of the elected Republican officials simply disagreed with his policies (as would have been the case even if he were white). To be fair, such disagreement was/is quite often painted as "racist" by some on the far left.
But I understand your point and agree that we need to discourage extremism, violence and hate groups of any form, and certainly make sure it has no place among our leadership.
Sorry, typo. Perhaps it was just wishful thinking or the two extra beers I had this evening
There were MANY elected Republican's who refused to accept he was born in the US because they knew that played well with their constituents.
I think there were some who did simply have issues with his policies or the way they were implemented, but I think the general distaste and distrust was because they did harbor prejudices that they hid behind complaints of him supposedly destroying America or being a 'secret' Muslim that threatened what they saw as their white Christian way of life.
Yeah, it was all disagreement with his policies . . . .
Then how the hell did Dwight Eisenhower become President? Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President. Nixon had already been in the White House for two terms when he ran for President.
Lyndon Johnson was a southern Democrat from Texas. Johnson pushed through the '64 Civil Rights Act as a southern Democrat. The southern Black population had been solidly Republican (the reason for Democrat's Jim Crow) until FDR. And the southern Black population was drifting back toward Republicans because Eisenhower had broken through the Democrats' solid south.
Don't ignore the the civil rights efforts of Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower integrated southern schools. Eisenhower was pushing for voting rights. And Eisenhower was threatening Democrats' solid south by bringing the Black population back to the Republican Party.
Ronald Reagan is another Californian; a west coast neoliberal. Reagan was a Democrat. Reagan switched parties because the Democratic Party had adopted the European liberalism of a global multilateral world order.
Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton were all southern Democrats who engaged in traditional southern politics. Why do you think the issue of race has remained a big deal in the Democratic Party? Do you really believe the Democratic Party has given up southern politics?
Addendum: Reagan was a neoliberal globalist which is subtly different than an European liberal globalist. Reagan supported financial globalism and a financial services economy based on middleman services (which was dedicated to selling out the productive US economy). The Europe liberals were intent on developing the second and third world as a Cold War strategy for political influence. European liberals were attempting to create their own sphere of influence as a buffer against the Soviet sphere of influence.
Neoliberals wanted to suck all the resources out of the undeveloped world. European liberals wanted the undeveloped world to be the battle ground for conflict with the Soviet Union. Neoliberals and European liberals are synergistic parasites.
Well certainly not all. Surely you recall McCain setting some folks straight on their conspiracy theories about Obama during the 2008 campaign . He did that more than once. Those sorts of constituents are/were embarrassing to many Republican politicians like McCain and Rubio (and other Republican constituents, like me at the time), and it would be nice if more of them had the balls like McCain did to shut that shit down. It would also have been nice if those who doubted Trump early would have spoken up and squashed his nomination in 2016, and I agree that too many of them later jumped on the Trump bandwagon instead. That turn of events prompted my parting ways with the Republican party in 2016 to become a GDI (Goddamn Independent).
I agree with the first part of that sentence, but not so much the last. I think that the policies and implementation were the first and primary issues most had with Obama, just like constituents of both parties have with the opposing candidate in any election. And in an attempt to keep those policies and implementation out of office, the gloves will come off and almost anything goes in an attempt to make sure the opponent loses the election. The spin machines from the extremes of both parties go into overdrive and the most partisan among us will lap it up and believe it as long as it hurts the other guy. Some don't even believe it (like Trump who eventually admitted as much about his earlier birtherism), they just repeat it because they want their party calling the shots and they don't want that "other guy" in the oval office. It is part and parcel of the two party ultra-partisan system that we have let dominate our politics for decades now. I'm done with the "parties"... because these kinds of parties aren't fun anymore and they're tearing this country apart.
Birtherism was racist. One would have to be deaf dumb and blind, or maybe a dedicated "independent" , to not clearly see that.
Not only was Barack Obama the first black president, his ascension was symbolic of America's shift away from being a "white" nation, AND at the same time sociologists were predicting the looming change of the majority racial status in the US from white to non white . THIS is what fueled birtherism, not objection to Obama's "policies".
Really? Then what was it when it was aimed at Ted Cruz, George Romney, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Charles Hughes, Chester Arthur and George McGovern? Birtherism is a tool to disparage or instill doubt about a political opponent and it has been used many times in the past by both parties. One would have to be blind or ignorant of history not to see that. The fact that some immediately go to racism on something like this says more about them than it does the purveyors of such political tactics. A counter-tactic perhaps?
Well to me it only serves to historically point the finger right back at themselves, historically it is a democrat political tactic.... And pretty much a racist tactic... I think a lot of what's going on in this nation today is democrats going back to their base tactics.... Race hate is a huge part of their history...
No, it's the alleged conservatives and republicans/gop/gqp who are tearing this country apart.
Yes, really. It has not been used by anyone except trumpturd and those who support him.
This had nothing to do with "policies" , it was a blatant racial dogwhistle. By this time in 2012 Obama had been president for over three years. Never, ever, had a sitting US presidents origin of birth been questioned for three solid years.
as for " Ted Cruz, George Romney, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Charles Hughes, Chester Arthur and George McGovern", you could fit the people who cared about their birthplace into the back of a pickup truck. I exaggerate only slightly. To this day polls will show decent numbers of conservatives and Republicans who say Obama was born in Africa. I promise you 95% of them have racist tendencies.
Birtherism was a political game. Salacious tabloid politics is nothing new. Just ask James Carville or Karl Rove. Salacious allegations of ties to white supremacy isn't any different than birtherism.
There can only be one 'first'. The second Black President won't be noteworthy. The 'first' becomes a token of a fulfilled promise that doesn't need further effort. 'Been there, done that' doesn't justify renewed effort. The motivation is to switch effort to the next 'first'.
Oh well then I'll just take your clearly unbiased and unsupported word for it, and ignore what the Constitution Center clearly laid out as a tactic used before in presidential primaries and elections and beyond. You did read the link provided right? SMH
Trump certainly was involved in using the tactic more recently, but it most certainly had been used before by both parties. Fact.
Whatever!
I did look at the link. Nothing on there describes situations remotely like what happened to Obama .
And what was he doing in 2012? Running for re-election. The tactic was used a second time, and you will note, for the second time it failed to work.
Perhaps that is because previous to that the tactic was at least partially successful/responsible for keeping those other candidates out of office altogether, and they never had a first term or the chance to run for a second? Just thinking it through logically....
I don't doubt that you can find several examples like that bonehead Meadows, and I won't even suggest that perhaps in some of those cases there were racial overtones. But even with those people it was more important to them to try and see to it that Obama and other Democrats down-ticket did not get re-elected, and the primary reasons were to undo some of the first term policies (like the 2010 PPACA that they felt was harmful to the country). I should say that I felt the same way at the time, as I saw my families' health insurance/care costs go through the roof over the next several years, on a much faster pace than they were rising before. By 2013 and 2014 monthly health insurance premiums for my family had well exceeded the cost of our mortgage. But I digress...
There may have been some candidates, and certainly some constituents, who made the birther tactic racially charged, but I still think that the primary focus/motivation for the majority was to try and avoid the election or re-election of those who's policies they found unpalatable.
Democrats are the party of the KKK…
Yes it was Brother, Long past time to take back what is the central concept of this nation...
Ummm, aren't those two a bit contradictory?
Depends on how you define conservatism, WE are not the European conservative liberals love to hate...
A bit?
[delete]
Wasn't Dwight Eisenhower a progressive conservative?
Yes he was!!!
[delete]
I agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed here but one...
Claiming that Libertarian's belong on the democrat side of the spectrum.....
That means two things,
First; he is an establishment republican NOT a progressive conservative ala William Buckley, which means he is also not a supporter of the founders brand of progressivism...
Second; He is not very well educated....
Another of those lying assed republican never trumpers ...
Maybe not the Democrat side of the spectrum, but certainly the side of classical liberalism. Which is rooted in individualism, freedom from oppression (political or economic), and commonly defined as:
In that regard Libertarians have much in common with those who call themselves "conservative" or "Republican" and who share the classical liberal mindset of many of the founders and early admirer's of this country. They have less in common with those who wish to grow the central government and its burden on the taxpayers and the economy, shut down speech not in line with their political ideology, restrict economic freedom, or use government to corrupt or bend free markets, whether those folks happen to be Republicans or Democrats.
Amen Brother!, AND it is why the liberals hate us so much, even more than the republicans, especially the european styled liberals.....