An Issue for Democrats

by | May 23, 2017 | Politics | 7 comments

The struggles of the Democratic Party have been widely discussed. Some blame an anemic pitch on jobs. Others see ideological overreach. Many insist it is because of mass discomfort with social change.  All of these arguments have something to commend them.

But I will suggest a different factor. Far from rejecting the Democratic agenda, many middle-class voters have come to believe they just won’t see its benefits. In the words of Michael Dukakis, “it’s about competence.”

The American people are have long been wary of government, but they are not strict minarchists. According to survey research, voters in both parties support government programs. What they seek is not an unyielding anti-government stance. But their tolerance for spending is contingent on the belief that they’re getting their money’s worth.

So perceptions of incompetence can badly damage a party. This happened on a grand scale during the Bush years. The failures of FEMA and the CPA, the Valerie Plame fiasco and the K Street project, created an image of a wrecking crew that was bungling the people’s business. Democrats capitalized. And it struck Obama-era Dems even harder. Rumors of a pork-laden stimulus, of a ramshackle healthcare law and millions wasted on Solyndra–while mostly specious–convinced many that their money was being wasted. As a result, the party’s middle-class support cratered.

By the same token, a capable image can prove invaluable. Take Mitch Daniels of Indiana. While pursuing a tough program of austerity, Daniels carefully accumulated a record of competence. He reduced personnel costs by over 10% while improving service, raised the quality of public healthcare and education, and reduced DMV waiting times to seven minutes. Daniels won reelection with over 60% of the vote, including a supermajority of Millennials and a quarter of African-Americans. He was one of this century’s most successful governors.

Which brings us to the recent history of NC politics. Years of genuine Democratic mismanagement had left a sour taste in voters’ mouths. The transportation system was a swamp. Mental health reform was a disgraceful nightmare. Everywhere, the image of an incompetent Democratic “machine” pervaded state politics and inspired a longing for reform.

In this environment, it was McCrory’s promise of “Efficiency” that resonated most deeply. People were sick of a flabby, undisciplined state government. Pragmatic-minded voters in the suburbs, as well as conservative rural folk, were attracted to the idea of a Raleigh bureaucracy that did its job as well as they did theirs. This technocratic appeal helped McCrory win a landslide victory.

Then he betrayed his promise. From the very beginning, McCrory’s executive leadership mocked the idea of competence. His team spent four years mired in chaos and scandal. DHHS became an all-you-can-eat buffet for cronies and grifters. His administration acquired an image of rolling, bumbling ineptitude. And voters retaliated.

Governor Cooper now takes the baton. If he can prove to the voters that government works, he can cement long-term Democratic control of the governorship. He began the task by naming a superb cabinet. Now he needs to select a government program and whip it into shape. In my view, our university system is the best candidate. As Professor Michael Beherent explains, America’s universities are weighed down by administrators that drive up costs while providing negligible value. Cooper should face this problem head on.

Democrats are the party of government. To legitimize their approach, they need to publicly do battle on behalf of the people who fund it. It’s what the middle class voters want, and it’s what can bring them back to a party that they once saw as their champion.

7 Comments

  1. willard cottrell

    While I appreciate the ideas presented, I wonder how in the hell Indiana’s voted twice for Pence? Or, for Walker in WI?

  2. Norma Munn

    Interesting, and I suspect quite right. Please, however, do not talk about running the government like it is a business, or how the government needs to balance its budget just like a family. Both are deeply misleading, and the latter is just plain wrong. I swear I may start throwing rotten tomatoes at the first campaign that does so.

    From government we want efficiency, a full day’s work for one’s pay, rational control of travel and conference costs, and competitive bidding on contracts, and so on. Government does not exist to make money. Business does. And the process of legislating is utterly unlike running a business meeting.

    Debt is a normal and necessary part of government, as for example, bonds for building roads, hospitals, schools,water systems, and other capital projects. (At a federal level, add military weapons and research.) Debt for a family is sometimes useful, as for a home or a car, and those are somewhat similar to the capital government expenditures outlined but there are also significant differences.

    I also wish some of our elected officials at all levels would also learn the difference between debt and deficit.

    • A.D. Reed

      Good points, Norma, and always to be re-emphasized. As for your final wish, … “if wishes were dreams …”

    • Walt de Vries, Ph.D.

      Norma is quite right, government cannot be run like a business. As Governor George Romney’s Executive Assistant, I put five budgets together, wrote the budget messages, and try as we did the state government could not be run like the family budget. We tried pay as you go, zero based budgeting and other techniques which were successful but we did not end up running the state like a business.
      The major reason I did not support the last huge bond issue for capital expenditures in North Carolina was that it was sold as not raising taxes and, indeed, would not cost us taxpayers anything. Patently absurd.
      Don’t give up Norma, you might yet win the argument on the differences between debt and deficit.

      • Norma Munn

        Thanks for the kind words, but I won’t be making any bets on what elected Legislators can or will learn.

  3. Walt de Vries, Ph.D.

    Splendid analysis and a common sense approach which the Democratic party should adopt.

  4. A.D. Reed

    Excellent insight.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!