I
n January of 2021, Democrats
rode into Washington and
took control of the White
House
and
both
houses
of
Congress. President Joe Biden’s
approval rating stood at over 53%,
and the nation looked hopefully
to a leader who promised to
restore order and sensibility to
American politics. As Biden took
the Oath of Office, stocks soared
to record highs, investors bullish
on a president they believed
would bring stability to markets
in a post-COVID-19 era. The
Republican Party appeared a
disgraced
organization,
and
with the events of January 6 top
of mind, many contended the
Republicans were facing a lost
election cycle, as they did in the
aftermath of Nixon’s resignation.
Almost
two
years
later,
America faces a very different
political landscape. As stocks
remain below where they were
at
Biden’s
inauguration
and
economists
see
a
recession
as
an
increasingly
likely
scenario, economic sentiment
has tanked. Biden’s approval
rating has dropped more than
10% since taking office and
the Democrats face only a 19%
chance of retaining both houses
of Congress. All of this raises the
question: what happened?
Perhaps the primary cause of
the Democrats’ fall from grace
has been the economy. While
external factors, like the war
in Ukraine, certainly impacted
inflation,
continued
stimulus
spending by Biden after the
economy had already begun to
recover
further
exacerbated
it. While it’s impossible to pin
the blame on any individual,
Democrats soured their public
image
by
denying
federal
spending’s
role
in
boosting
inflation, continuing to propose
large spending packages even as
CPI climbed rapidly.
When
Democrats
finally
decided to act on the impending
economic crisis, they passed the
Inflation Reduction Act, which
despite its name has dubious
impacts on short-term inflation.
Though the core components
of the bill, such as prescription
drug cost reductions and tax
credits,
are
useful
tools
in
fighting
inflation,
the
$369
billion in climate spending and
$79 billion in funding for the
IRS raised many eyebrows. The
Congressional
Budget
Office
(CBO) has projected that the
Inflation Reduction Act will have
a “negligible effect” on inflation
in the coming months and
years, calling into question its
effectiveness as a policy measure.
Though the Federal Reserve is
the entity primarily responsible
for controlling inflation, the
other
parts
of
the
federal
government
also
have
an
obligation to take actions that aid
the Fed’s objectives. Other than
the flawed Inflation Reduction
Act, however, the Democrats
have continued to take reckless
actions that compromise the
fight against inflation. Most
recently,
the
White
House
unveiled its plan for student loan
relief, which the Congressional
Budget Office assessed at a cost
of $400 billion.
While high student debt is
certainly an issue, canceling
$400 billion of debt in the
midst of high inflation seems
imprudent, as it would likely
increase
consumer
spending,
further
worsening
inflation.
Moreover, doing so has been
shown to be a regressive tax
by
income,
education
and
wealth, meaning that the plan
will
further
contribute
to
disparities in household wealth
between
college
graduates,
who
typically
earn
higher
salaries, and Americans without
college degrees — enigmatic of
Democrats’ priorities shifting
from their blue collar roots to the
more genteel interests of urban
elites.
While there are many reasons
for the Democratic Party’s fall
in popularity, a large share of
their troubles are rooted in their
detachment from Main Street,
pocketbook, kitchen table issues.
Though the Democrats of the
mid-to-late 20th century were
perceived as a blue-collar party
in support of working class
voters, modern Democrats have
struggled to escape their image
as an elitist institution.
While it may be easy to
dismiss Trump voters as racist
or uninformed, the populist
movement
he
created
was
incredibly powerful. In flipping
Blue Wall states like Michigan,
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in
2016, he swayed traditionally
Democratic
voters
who
felt
neglected by a party that had left
them behind. Though Biden’s
uniting message as a traditional
blue-collar Democrat helped the
party win back many states in
2020, his rampant spending and
perceived pandering to the left
wing of his party has reverted
the Democrats to the same elitist
image he’d hoped to avoid.
In order to regain the image of
competency and moderation that
Biden embodied upon entering
the White House, Democrats
need
to
immediately
pivot
their strategies behind policy
and messaging. The first step
they must take is being honest
about the state of our economic
problems. By first presenting
inflation as “transitory” then
pinning it on Russian President
Vladimir Putin and corporate
greed, and now claiming inflation
will worsen if Republicans take
control of Congress, Biden has lost
the trust of the American people
and sabotaged opportunities for
future bipartisan collaboration.
As we likely head into a recession,
Americans must be able to look
to their president for support
in bringing our nation back to
a healthy economic state. By
refusing to acknowledge his
own party’s role in furthering
inflation, however, Biden risks
continued Democratic runaway
spending stalling his ability to
curtail inflation.
In addition, Biden needs to
exert his authority within the
party to rein in the left wing
and unite leadership around
core policies. As opposed to the
GOP, which during the Trump
administration voted famously
monolithically, Democrats have
struggled to keep their agenda
reasonable due to the high levels
of disagreement between the left
and centrist sects of the party.
While the Infrastructure Bill
was a bipartisan victory, policies
like student loan forgiveness
have angered many middle-class
voters and left the Democrats
seeming out of touch.
I
f you see me walking around
campus with my earbuds in,
chances are I am listening
to a podcast about politics. Post
Reports, The Weeds, Political
Gabfest, POLITICO Playbook
Daily Briefing — you name it, I
probably listen to it. Last month,
I became a fan of the New York
Times’s latest production, The
Run-Up with Astead Herndon.
Every
Thursday
morning,
Herndon takes us through big
moments in political history in
an attempt to unpack the fate
of our country and our growing
frustrations
with
America’s
political parties. In one of my
favorite episodes of the season
so far, Herndon explores “what
Democrats and Republicans got
wrong about voters” and their
“flawed assumptions.”
After a losing political battle
in 2012, when President Barack
Obama successfully skirted into
his second term, Republicans
gathered for a wake-up call,
otherwise known as the GOP
Autopsy. This was an assessment
that
determined
that
the
Republican
Party’s
platform
and key values weren’t landing
with the American people —
mainly
minority
voters
and
young people. The report had a
simple message: the GOP will
have to make changes or else
the party will face an existential
threat. It highlighted key ways
to build coalitions with Latino
voters, namely by being more
inclusive
and
comprehensive
about immigration reform and
fighting hard to regain the trust
of voters of Color who have felt
isolated from the party.
The GOP had a solid reason
to be so somber about its own
future. When Obama landed
in office, for the first and
second time, his presidency
was lauded as a transformative
moment for the nation. That a
bi-racial man born in Hawaii
and raised as a global citizen
could become president became
a signal that America was also
becoming more racially and
culturally
tolerant.
Everyone
from President Clinton to the
New York Times Editorial Board
said so. And, by the early 2000s
the future of the country was
already set in stone: in as early
as 2005 it was projected that by
the year 2050, people of Color
would become the majority
racial demographic in America.
In other words, with this set
of factors, as Herndon discusses
in the podcast, the GOP was
operating
under
two
main
assumptions.
The
first
was
that under a majority-minority
country, the Republican Party
would be left with a smaller
white base which could mean
shrinking
electoral
power.
The second assumption was
that voters of Color would
overwhelmingly
support
Democrats. After the election
and reelection of President
Obama, Democrats held their
own assumptions about their
confidence with minority voters
through a popular “demography
is
destiny”
doctrine:
that
as
the
country
shifted
in
demographics,
Democrats
would be able to maintain their
political dominance long-term.
In hindsight, it’s possible
to see why Democrats were
viewed as the more successful
party with minority voters. In
a 2012 Gallup poll, Republicans
were
overwhelmingly
non-
Hispanic
white,
with
only
2% of Black voters and 6% of
Hispanic
voters
identifying
as such. The point being, both
political parties have spent
decades making assumptions
about dependable voters and
winnable candidates. But then,
Trump became president in
2016. Not only did he gain
traction among minority voters,
he
openly
campaigned
on
harmful racial rhetoric that
sounded exclusive, instead of
the inclusivity recommended by
the GOP Autopsy. This political
irony continued in 2020, where
minority voter support for the
GOP increased.
Simply
put,
the
autopsy
was wrong. In his podcast,
Herndon speaks to Kellyanne
Conway, former senior adviser
to
President
Trump
and
the first woman to manage
a
successful
presidential
campaign.
Whatever
your
opinion of her, she contends
that Trump was successful
because he actively pushed
away from the assumptions that
the Republican Party was on
the decline, saying “we don’t
tell voters what’s important to
them, they tell us.” So, as we look
ahead to the upcoming midterm
elections, what can both parties
learn when reaching out to
voters, and how can they create
more dynamic campaigns?
Gerald Hills has had a wide-
ranging career in politics at
the state and federal level,
with leadership roles at the
governor’s office, the attorney
general’s
office
and
the
Michigan Republican Party. He
notes that something politicians
tend to forget is that “politics is
dynamic — not static. California
was the bedrock for Republican
candidates at one point and now
the state is reliably Democrat.
Voters act the same way.”
Over the past few weeks,
we’ve been hit with an onslaught
of
stories
detailing
how
Latino voters are increasingly
switching to the Republican
Party, not just to vote but to run
as candidates. And while many
on the Left see this as cause to
sound the alarm, Hills isn’t too
surprised. “We should never
lose sight of the fact that people
look at politics in terms of how it
impacts them and their families
individually.
For
example,
people
are
paying
more
attention to the fact that they
are paying more at the pump or
at the grocery store, and they
will bring that frustration with
them at the ballot box.”
Because there are so many
issues people care about, it’s
difficult to pigeonhole voters.
It sounds incredibly simple, and
yet politicians continue to miss
this. It is common for candidates
to run on different messages
depending on which voting
group they are talking to. The
problem is that concepts such as
the “Latino Vote” or the “Black
Vote” never tell the full story
and are full of misconceptions.
For
example,
despite
the
assumption
that
Latino
voters are largely Democrats,
Republicans have had a deep
history among this fast-growing
electorate. Although the Black
electorate
overwhelmingly
votes Democratic in elections,
70% of Black voters identify as
moderate or conservative.
Former
Michigan
gubernatorial candidate Abdul
El-Sayed told me that this is
especially
where
Democrats
tend to fail: “We have a large
coalition, but Democrats tend to
campaign a different segment
of their playbook to different
groups of people instead of
building
a
strong
cohesive
vision where everyone can see
themselves.”
So how can a candidate be
successful when reaching out
to voters? Again, keep it simple:
According to Hills, “Strength is
a powerful motivator for a lot
of people. This is why Trump
stood out to so many people,
especially those who didn’t vote
before. It was Clinton who said
‘strong and wrong beats weak
and right.’” He also pointed to
how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
is an example of a candidate
who is framing her campaign
around strength. She leans into
her
accomplishments,
being
in motion and getting things
done. Hills also emphasized
how important the tool of
persuasion
is:
“In
politics,
perception is reality.” Building
a coalition is messy work, but
if you can convince a voter that
you care about their interests,
that you’ll go to D.C. and fight
for them and that you’ll keep
the promises you make, you end
up being much more successful.
It’s important for politicians
to realize that they have to
work for every voter they want.
Blindly assuming that a certain
block of voters has an allegiance
to you is not only dangerous,
but insulting. The upcoming
midterm elections will be the
ultimate test for how both of
America’s
political
parties
decide to campaign and craft
their messaging in the future.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
12 — Wednesday, November 2, 2022
Kellyanne Conway is right about your vote
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
ELINA MORRISON
Opinion Columnist
Is the Democratic Party out of
touch with Americans?
NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist
Political debates are going out of
style. That’s bad for voters.
C
ampaign
season
in
battleground Arizona is in
full swing. The midterms
are
in
less
than
a
month.
Statewide races are polling within
the margin of error, attack ads
are plastered across the airwaves
and millions of dollars are being
thrown at campaigns. The horse
race is on and everything seems
to be chugging along as usual —
except for one traditional factor.
In the Arizona governor race, one
of the most watched and critical
races in the country, there have
been zero debates between the
two major party candidates, and
none are planned for the future.
The reason for this anomaly?
Democrat Katie Hobbs is simply
refusing to debate. The Hobbs
campaign
claims
that
the
refusal to debate is based on
prior, and expected, hijinks and
conspiratorial nonsense from her
challenger, Republican Kari Lake.
Lake, a fringe right-wing figure
associated closely with disgraced
former President Donald Trump,
did refuse to answer questions
in her primary debate earlier
this year, and given her track
record of acting off the walls,
a respectful debate on her end
seems hard to imagine. There
are a few problems with Hobbs’
line of reasoning, however. First,
who cares? That Lake is scared to
answer tough questions should
be a perfect attack line for Hobbs
during the debate. The stage
would also give an opportunity
for Hobbs to rightly call out Lake’s
conspiracy theories in a way that
can’t directly be done elsewhere.
Secondly, and of concern, is
that Hobbs’ explanation seems
improbable.
What seems more likely is that
the Hobbs campaign sees a debate
as a chance for Lake to succeed,
given
her
extensive
media
experience and the fact that she
is known to grab media attention.
Though both explanations are not
comforting, it is this possibility
that is especially worrisome.
The purpose of debates, at their
heart, is not to be a platform for a
candidate to gain or lose ground
in an election. They are an avenue
for the voters to watch candidates
converse on issues, be given tough
questions they otherwise could
more easily avoid and inform
voters about the issues that matter
to them.
Expanding on this, though
we are not in the 1960s, when
political debates might be one
of the few times one could
see a candidate on television,
debates feature timeless benefits.
First is the importance of the
moderator. Moderators can ask
tough questions, without the
possibility of the candidate simply
walking away, as they could with
a reporter. If they dodge, their
opponent is right there to jump on
them for it.
The second key benefit is that
debates are one of the only, if not
the only, time when candidates
have a chance to directly debate
each other on the issues. Thirdly,
debates are an easy way for voters
to get a general grasp of how a
candidate behaves, what issues
they are seeking to highlight
and where they stand on various
matters. While the advent of
sites like Politico may serve to
give those inside the beltway
seemingly infinite material on
candidates, many voters don’t
have the interest nor the time
to consume it. Most voters don’t
tune into campaigns until late
in the campaign anyway, so the
timing works out great.
And, while some may argue
that the importance of debates
has decreased, voter interest in
them clearly has not. The Mike
Pence-Kamala
Harris
debate
was the second most watched
vice presidential debate in the
history of the country. Three of
the four most-watched debates in
American history have occurred
in the last two elections. Debates
are for the voters. If voters are
finding them as compelling to
watch as ever, it is an especially
awful time for debates to decrease
in frequency.
Political
debates
have
historically been an American
campaign season staple. They
are a showcase of democracy,
free speech and the exchanging
of ideas, and candidates have
traditionally had enough respect
for voters and norms that they
would participate.
DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist
Design by Tye Kalinovic
Read more at MichiganDaily.com