How Did Democrats Become So Out of Touch With the American People? | Opinion
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
OpinionDemocratsDemocratic PartyEnergyClimate Change
The president of the United States, equal parts senescent and feckless, garners record-shattering low approval ratings seemingly each week. This week, a new Quinnipiac University survey found that a paltry 31% of Americans approve of the way Joe Biden is handling his job. Among political independents, that number is, somehow, considerably lower: 23% approval, compared with 67% disapproval. Overall, nearly three-quarters of Americans hope that Biden does not seek a second term in office.
It is not difficult to figure out why. The republic is not in good shape. Unforced foreign policy blunders, such as the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, embarrass America on the world stage. Our homeland territorial integrity has never been more undermined, as a wide-open southern border permits an unprecedented flow of smugglers, traffickers, and other miscreants. Homicide and other violent crime, which skyrocketed in the 2020 "summer of love" riots, continue to spike; the New York City subway is unsafe, and Chicago is a veritable war zone. Mobocracy runs amok; a sitting Supreme Court justice just faced a near-assassination attempt. Inflation, now over 9% and smacking those lower on the economic ladder, is at a four-decade high; the national average for gasoline is well over $4 per gallon.
Yet, amidst these remarkable challenges confronting the American people, the Biden administration and Democratic Party elites would rather focus on the overarching imperatives of climate change hysteria, abortion up until birth, and a faraway war in Eastern Europe that has become utterly disconnected from the American national interest. This raises the obvious, but nonetheless crucial, question: How, exactly, did modern Democrats become this out of touch with the American people?
Energy policy is perhaps the best example. Most lower- and middle-income Americans drive cars or trucks as part of their daily commutes; they cannot resort to urban rail, let alone the "work from home" that has become a post-COVID hallmark of the professional-managerial laptop class. Bank account-busting gasoline prices directly cut into stagnant wages, affecting blue-collar families' very ability to put food on the table.
But Biden, as recently as this month, still continues to deny new drilling permits in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. He failed on his recent Middle East trip to secure a durable commitment from Saudi Arabia, or OPEC more generally, to boost production. Worse, he openly flirts with declaring a "national emergency" on climate change, the ultimate upper-income "limousine liberal" hobbyhorse, notwithstanding the fact the U.S. only contributes about 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the obvious reality that draconian unilateral reductions to fossil fuel extraction and usage would destroy already-battered consumers. In a bit of loose-lipped candor, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, testifying this week before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, let slip his belief that "the more pain" Americans feel at the pump, "the more benefit" there is for electric vehicle owners.
Such astounding disdain and haughtiness from a Cabinet official, if it were to come under a Republican administration, would make headline-grabbing fodder for weeks. It would dominate the late-night shows, as Jimmy Kimmel poked fun at those nasty, "Gordon Gekko"-esque robber baron Republicans.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks on climate change and clean energy at Brayton Point Power Station on July 20, 2022 in Somerset, Massachusetts.Scott Eisen/Getty Images
Democrats fail to appreciate that America is truly blessed to sit atop such an abundant wellspring of hydrocarbons. To not only ignore and fail to take advantage of that blessing, but to actively thwart it and instead celebrate "pain" by focusing on the alleged virtue of electric vehicle ownership, is downright evil. (Incidentally, the average electric car costs 82% of the median American household income.)
But energy policy, though a particularly acute example, is in this respect hardly unique. Current Democratic priorities have never been so far removed from the sensibilities of the median American citizen.
As the contentious issue of abortion returns to the states following the landmarkDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organizationdecision, congressional Democrats rush to statutorily codify national abortion access right up until birth. George Soros-funded "progressive prosecutors," such as George Gascon in Los Angeles and Alvin Bragg in Manhattan, continue to fan the flames of unrest and anarchy, undeterred by last month's stunning recall of like-minded San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. The fight for Ukraine, a deeply corrupt country whose security establishment just endured Stalin-esque "treason purges," is held up as the defining struggle for Western liberal democracy. Rewriting Title IX to encompass transgenderism—by executive fiat, no less—may imperil women's locker rooms and destroy women's sports, but is foisted upon us by the neoliberal establishment as "progress," tout court.
The priorities of the modern Democratic Party are comically out of touch with those of the American people, who simply want safe communities, stable prices, secure borders, and to be left alone by the COVID-era biomedical security state. Democrats don't talk about any of that, at best—and they outright impede those prerogatives, at worst. The transformation of the Democratic Party from a one-time working man's labor party into today's identity politics-driven woke monstrosity did not transpire overnight, but that transformation is now complete. And the result is unseemly.
The dog that is the Democratic Party is manipulated by a multifaceted tail that is a grotesque fusion of criminal adulation, Gaia worship, Malthusian radicalism, eugenicist lust, and a gender ideology downstream of the worst excesses of American academia. Maybe that will play well for certain Upper West Side and West Hollywood voting precincts this November, but it won't play very well in real America.
Josh Hammer is Newsweek opinion editor, host of "The Josh Hammer Show," a syndicated columnist and a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation. Twitter: @josh_hammer.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM
Tags
Who is online
98 visitors
I am sure the Democratic autopsy of the midterm elections will point this out in a glaring way.
I mean, who could have ever imagined that inflation would be more important to voters than transgenderism, abortion, and a green agenda?
Indeed.
This is unabashed hysteria. It plays to the mindset of ignorant MAGAS who dont mind having the most unethical leader of all time.
The country is in trouble, but not because of inflation or "summer of love" riots.
Damn, JR, this isn't about fucking Trump.
Give it a fucking break FOR ONCE.
The majority of the country thinks we are heading in the wrong direction, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS.
No one is hysterical except for those so inflicted with a hatred of Trump that consumes all their time and energy.
You probably cant understand this, but Democrats think the country is going in the wrong direction for an entirely different reason than Republicans do.
Heading in the wrong way because of taking away women's control of their own bodies, states abilities to make their own laws and regulations, and making it more and more difficult for certain sections of the population to vote.
Yeah in these cases I'd also agree.
Yes, in those cases I'd also agree 100%.
You MIGHT have had a valid point except for the fact that the country thought we were headed wrongly BEFORE the SCOTUS decision.
Whoops.
Please give up that weak-ass shit about 'voter suppression'.
That dog don't hunt.
FUCK OFF.
So, you're advocating a return to slavery. Got it.
As has been the case since the beginning, state laws can not violate the US Constitution.
Which states have made it harder to vote? How much lower was their voter in the last election as compared to previous?
Ahh, the Democrats gave him that line of bull, he swallowed it and is now running with it.
“Which states have made it harder to vote?”
georgia for one. All those new voting laws made it so difficult to vote they had record turnout in the primaries.
All your points are valid.
Everybody knew where SCOTUS was going as soon as McConnell stopped doing his job during the Obama administration and blocked Obama from putting in a justice. Then disobeying his own rule to rush in another justice during the 2020 election.
Making it more difficult for certain voters has been an ongoing republican policy for many years.
No, but since SCOTUS is rolling back American's rights, is that so far away?
BTW, you have trolled me this week on 2 other comment threads, I will not be responding again for your further trolling.
New York was not preventing anyone from carrying or buying guns. The law was about carrying them while concealed.
and yet, more people voted last election than ever before.
and has been decided. Learn to deal with it.
Exactly.
Now, that's a classic.
Right around the corner. I hope the moon doesn't fall, too.
I wish for once someone claiming that crap would produce some evidence of it.
Did your state outlaw your opportunity to obtain an abortion? IS THAT what you are so upset about?
You COULD call it January 7.
Except when it is used as campaign fodder no one gives a shit about this. America would have been embarrassed no matter how we pulled out.
That is false, of course.
Joe bungled it like he has bungled most things.
#45 did and continues to embarrass America on the 'world stage'.
It and his enablers/supporters continue to embarrass America on the 'world stage'.
Never before in history have humans used so much energy to accomplish so little. And liberals are leading that effort.
Oil, natural gas, and coal are not causing climate change. These fossil fuels have existed for millions of years. They are natural resources because they occur naturally.
The problem is caused by human use of fossil fuels. How and why fossil fuels are used by humans really is the central issue. And ignoring the human activities that require energy deliberately avoid addressing the central issue. It's not the fault of natural resources that humans are so very stupid.
Liberals have adopted a political belief that by switching sources of energy humans can continue to use energy stupidly. Humans are accomplishing very little of importance with energy now. Switching to alternative sources won't change that. Humans will only continue to accomplish little of importance with alternative energy. Liberals are demanding that we invest enormous amounts of public resources (including natural resources) to accomplish little of importance. And liberals are pursuing that objective because they want to deliberately avoid looking at the central issue of how and why humans are using energy.
Sounds like the 'ol "guns are inanimate objects" excuse.
Speaking of 'so very stupid humans'.
But guns are inanimate objects. That's cold hard reality. Why do liberals deliberately ignore that cold hard reality?
How much of the energy consumed by humans is being used to house, feed, and clothe humans? But we're being expected to put necessary needs for energy at risk to protect unessential uses of energy. Why is that 'smart'?
There really is sufficient fossil fuels available to sustain the human population for many, many centuries. But that's not how and why humans are consuming fossil fuels.
The political climate advocacy by the Biden administration really is about protecting and encouraging human stupidity. The Biden administration has adopted a policy that dollars are more important than the environment. Dollars are so very important that it's acceptable to place our ability to sustain the human population at risk.
"There really is sufficient fossil fuels available to sustain the human population for many, many centuries. But that's not how and why humans are consuming fossil fuels.
The political climate advocacy by the Biden administration really is about protecting and encouraging human stupidity. The Biden administration has adopted a policy that dollars are more important than the environment. Dollars are so very important that it's acceptable to place our ability to sustain the human population at risk."
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT
No, nothing you say is true or smart.
Again, speaking of 'so very stupid humans'
Bullshit, that's all you have, BULLSHIT
PROJECTION AND DENIAL - THAT WOULD BE THE gop/gqp/republicans/alleged conservatives.
Have you considered that your hot air may be a contributor to global warming? And what does that hot air accomplish?
Have you ever considered Tessy is spot on about everything?
You have just GOT to be kidding!
dammit that made me spew coffee on the screen ....
Please, you are too smart to believe that. It nice of you to try protect her since her typical bombast is indefensible.
"Have you ever considered Tessy is spot on about everything?"
They will never admit that. Most of them have a crush on me. They would never admit that either.
I'm much smarter than them also, which they would never admit.
I've considered it. But that would require breaking the rational laws of physics.
Like you making sense?
I also see certain posters doing the old reach-around by responding when they're not supposed to!
They know who they are.
Oh, I realize my sense is too common to fit into groupthink political theories. Living in reality does tend to force sense into being more common.
No, you never make sense, not a lick.
I don't know where you reside, but it's certainly not in reality.
I'll confess to having three crushes, 2Amy's and a Tessylo. Amy Poehler, Amy Schumer and you are hilarious, each are funny in their own, unique way.
So prove him wrong.
Your bullshit has gotten old, to the point where the far leftists on here don't give a shit about what you say.
OH, yea...
Stop PNing me. I already told you three times NO!!
That's fucking hilarious.
She has been spot WRONG about everything.
Note to all posters:
Stay on topic or leave.
And since some of you NEED reminding, Trump isn't the topic here.
Future off-topic comments will be flagged.
We've been running out of oil for a century:
"We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"— March 9, 1937 Testimony Senate Naval Affairs Committee
"Faced with the threat that our nation's petroleum reserves may last only thirteen years , geologists are striving to tap the almost limitless supply of oil located beneath the seas off our coastline. The first attempt to get oil from the depths of the Atlantic Ocean was begun this month near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes revealed that the scientists are making progress in their efforts to reach the underwater oil."— December 10, 1945 Times Recorder
"M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 year s and after that would gradually decline."— March 9, 1957 Corpus Christi Times
"At any rate, U.S. oil supplies will last only 20 years. Foreign supplies will last 40 or 50 years, but are increasingly dependent upon world politics."— May 1972 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
"As a nation, Americans have been reluctant to accept the prospect of physical shortages. We must recognize that world oil production will likely peak in the early 1990's, and from that point on will be on a declining curve. By the early part of the 21st century, we must face the prospect of running out of oil and natural gas."— 1977 US Department of Energy Organization Act
"Stressing the need for conservation, [physicist Dr. Hans] Bethe said the world will reach its peak oil production before the year 2000. Production of oil worldwide will then drop to zero over about 20 years , he said. Rigorous conservation could stretch the world's oil supply to the year 2050, he said.— October 17, 1980 Syracuse Post Standard
"Global supplies of crude oil will peak as early as 2010 and then start to decline, ushering in an era of soaring energy prices and economic upheaval — or so said an international group of petroleum specialists meeting Friday."— May 25, 2002 Index Journal
Thanks for the FACTS!
I don't know why those folks who know I'm not responding to them, continue to troll me.
Apparently, they care more about you than you care about them or maybe they mistakenly think that they can entice you into replying.
The sources are limited, but we are no where near that limit.
Which is the point.
yes they are finite , but most are not aware of where they are located and who controls them for the most part.
saudi has roughly 269 billion bbl in their reserves in the ground .
people would be actually surprised , if not angered if they did some research as to how much is located in the continental US , under US control.
I recently read an article that stated that the oil fields in west texas would last if used at the current pace another 200 years .
And that one is small in how much is there .
there IS another one in the country , that makes the Saudi oilfields look like a midget , problem is the cost to extract and how to extract.
I am speaking of the oil shales in the green river formation , estimated to be roughly 3 Trillion bbl ( yes thats trillion with a T) with some saying half that is extractable with current methods .
Green River Formation - Wikipedia
"there IS another one in the country , that makes the Saudi oilfields look like a midget , problem is the cost to extract and how to extract.
I am speaking of the oil shales in the green river formation , estimated to be roughly 3 Trillion bbl ( yes thats trillion with a T) with some saying half that is extractable with current methods ."
Yeah, just rape and spoil and pillage and loot every resource to get to that oil.
Real smart!
Moronic, greedy, short sighted, stupid.
[Deleted]
As i stated the problems are cost to extract, which includes enviromental and ecological concerns , those can be mitigated if not eliminated even with current practices and methods .
the other problem is HOW to extract taking the above mentioned things into account .
what i consider , greedy , shortsighted and stupid is not using the all of the above method of procuring energy while at the same time fostering advancements in ways to use alternatives as well as existing sources more wisely .
But im sure you have sold your vehicle , so you dont use petrolium products , shut off your natural gas for heating /cooling and cooking , and also had your electricity turned off if it is not produced in a manner you desire .
but keep your blinders on and focus on what you want , be happy .
with that im done .
ahhhh , liberal progressive tears just sweeten my beer , and i do like a good bitter british beer .....
What tears?
How moronic.
Typical.
Stay out of my PM , [Deleted]
Just as I suspected. I knew I was right. Or correct I should say.
that would be a first .
[Deleted]
Josh Hammer is Newsweek opinion editor, host of "The Josh Hammer Show," a syndicated columnist and a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation.
Why, yes, yes he is!