“Changing Demographics and Brief Thoughts on the Election” Sydney Williams
No “red wave” appeared on election day. While my immediate response was one of dismay, on reflection I think it may have been a “blessing in disguise.” Our nation has been divided – and still is – but it has not been the division that has been harmful, but the lack of respect for differing opinions. Mr. Trump, repudiated in this election, has been one cause. His ego-centric self-promotion engulfed what good his administration had accomplished. And he has become more disagreeable in his post-presidency. But also responsible for the division are the “goody two-shoes” who hypocritically call for diversity, equity, and inclusion. They see differences only in race and gender. Their calls have never considered diversity of opinions, inclusion of those who do not think as do they, or that both liberals and conservatives should be treated equitably.
As well, the election highlighted changing demographics of our two political parties. On October 20, at a campaign event for John Fetterman, President Biden spoke a truth: “This is not your father’s Republican Party.” He spoke correctly; it is not, but neither is the Democrat Party the same one Mr. Biden joined almost sixty years ago. Mr. Biden’s words were intended as a slap at “MAGA” Republicans, who he claims are a “threat to democracy.” But is that fair? Our democracy is protected by our Constitution: separation of powers, an independent judiciary, states’ rights, due process, personal freedom, and rule of law. When those principles are threatened, democracy is threatened. When government is seen as the answer to all problems, democracy is at risk. When citizens are complacent, democracy is in danger. Agencies in Washington, when manned by men and women who forget they are servants to the people, become threats to democracy.
Demographics and time have changed the two parties. I have lived in Connecticut for fifty-seven years. I have witnessed this state – the sixth wealthiest in the nation, but 36th in terms of freedom as measured by the Cato Institute – migrate from red to purple to blue. Fifty years ago, members of my country club were mostly Republican. Today, the majority are Democrats. According to Ballotpedia, in Presidential races between 1900 and 2000, Connecticut voted Democratic 48.4% of the time and Republican 51.6% of the time – a balanced approach. However, since 2000, the state has voted for the Democratic candidate for president 100% of the time.
For seventy years following the Civil War, the Democratic party was composed of two distinct groups: working class union members, small business owners, immigrants – the “have nots” – and wealthy, southern Democrats. Republicans were the party of the “haves” – the landed gentry, college educated, bankers, and industrialists. Because of the long coattails of Abraham Lincoln, they also included African Americans. With Franklin Roosevelt’s election in 1932, northern Blacks began to vote for Democrats. Around 1948, Dixiecrats – white, southern, segregationist Democrats – began to switch to the Republican party, culminating in Richard Nixon’s 1968/72 “southern strategy.”
Today, the tables continue to change. Democrats have become the party of the “haves,” while Republicans are more the party of the “have nots.” Republicans were once the party of “big money,” but that mantle is now worn by Democrats. According to OpenSecrets, which follows money in politics, in 2020 Democrats received $514 million in “Dark Money” (political donations from non-profit organizations that do not have to report their donors) compared to $200 million that went to Republicans. Including campaign funds for House and Senate, as well as President, a total of $14.1 billion was spent on political campaigns in 2020, $8.4 billion by Democrats and $5.7 billion by Republicans. If one subtracts the $1.3 billion in personal funds spent by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, Democrats still out spent Republicans by almost 20%.
The consequence is a barbell approach. One end consists of the college educated, suburbanites and moneyed elites, from tech company CEOs and union leaders to Wall Street honchos, from college professors and administrators who thrive on government grants, to media company bigshots, and Hollywood and sports stars. On the opposite end are those dependent on government handouts, a group which includes the truly needy, along with those who take advantage of government largesse, whether because of a lack of work ethic or the natural desire to have college debt forgiven.
One can trace Democrats’ losing their traditional base – “blue collar” workers, the middle class, Hispanics, Blacks, and others with traditional family values; those concerned with inflation, crime, education, illegal immigration, and who aspire to the American dream – to their pursuit of radical goals: defunding the police; open borders; injecting fear about man-made climate change; disallowing school choice and promoting transgenderism. Republicans are beginning to gather in these disillusioned voters.
Ironically, with all these tech CEOs in their fold, Democrats have ignored the changing workplace where more and more people have assumed responsibility for their own success. An example of the kind of individual Democrats have abandoned: A few years ago, my wife and I were picked up by an Uber driver at the Buffalo airport. He was a pleasant young African American from Buffalo, with a wife and young children. He was enterprising, anxious to improve his situation. The “gig economy” served him well. He had a job as a flight attendant, which paid his health insurance, flying from JFK to Los Angeles and back. As an Uber driver, he worked hours he could. He also was an Uber driver in Queens when there was too little time between flights to get home to Buffalo. In Los Angeles, he was a free-lance driver for Amazon. If Democrats succeed in getting Uber and like companies to unionize, they will eliminate the need for contract workers and opportunities will disappear for self-starter individuals.
Much has been written (and even more will be written) about this election. In my mind, it was clearly a repudiation of Donald Trump – not a rejection of conservativism. A grandson, a rational conservative spending the semester in England, texted me yesterday morning: “Fundamentally, I am delighted at the outcome.” I replied that his words were stronger than I might have used, but that I was not unhappy. Both political parties have been captured by extremists. The right wing of the Republican Party, now under the spotlight, has been called out. Will moderate Democrats call out extremists in their Party? Most Americans are nearer the center, leaning left or right to varying degrees. It is not personalities we should debate but issues. Perhaps election day saw a “purple wave?” Reading election results, Churchill’s words in the rubric came to me – maybe I am Panglossian – when I thought of possible positive effects of the election. An op-ed in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal by Princeton’s Allen C. Guelzo reminded readers of the importance of the three words near the end of Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg, of our government being “of,” “by,” and “for” the people – words that assure us, no matter our philosophical differences, that as long as we understand them, our nation will remain free. Now, will those elected on November 8 listen?
Comments are closed.
