by Richardt Stormsgaard
We keep hearing that Democrats are absolutely committed to finding a candidate that can beat Trump. So far it does not look that way although it is still very early.
Three out of the five major candidates are advocating policies that are so far out of the American midstream that a Trump victory is very possible. Even if the presidency miraculously was won by a leftist Democrat due to a total Trump collapse, it will likely lead to the loss of most of our 40 wins in 2018 in red districts in the House of Representatives or more. The Senate will end up with an even stronger conservative majority. We had 360 wins in the 2018 mid-term elections in state legislatures that will be in instant jeopardy and like lead to another decade of huge built-in conservative advantage due to the new redistricting that will occur after the 2020 census.
A half year ago I hoped Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar would emerge as very promising candidates in that order. The idea that a female candidate would continue the wave of women politicians asserting themselves during the very promising 2018 mid-term elections seemed very exciting. Democrats had won 400 seats in deep red districts by appealing to moderates and independents across the country in a strong rebuke to the deep racism and sexism of the right wing, the outright attacks on the social safety net, and civil and voting rights.
The previous major Democratic victories were in 2008 when Democrats gained a legislative majority. In just two years the ACA was established, a $60 billion investment in environmental programs and businesses as part of the Stimulus Package (adjusted for inflation costing as much as the entire New Deal legislation), an almost 10% tax raise on higher income Americans, the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, net neutrality, workplace safety regulations and enforcement improvement, and better regulations on for-profit colleges and private college loans, and more. Unfortunately, only two years later the Tea Party swept into power and put a stop to the progressive Obama agenda.
The far left then and now claim if only Democrats had been steering sharply to the left, this conservative backlash could have been averted. The is a preposterous claim because if anything, it was “proletarian” voters, historically and universally the most amenable to the socialist vision, that fueled the conservative backlash in 2010, as they have been during previous decades supporting an increasingly right-wing Republican Party.
Another preposterous claim by socialists in that American progressive legislation by liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans was inspired by socialism and that advanced Northern European countries are socialistic when these countries are, in fact, proof of the basic fallacy of socialism; that free enterprise needs to be dismantled for well-functioning and wealthy countries to develop.
Gillibrand has pulled out. Klobuchar is an ignored voice of reason, and Harris and particularly Warren have largely adopted socialist mythology of leftist Democrats of vastly expanded public control of society. By embracing far left ideas they are making themselves unelectable in a national election where not just the presidency, but a number of red states are absolutely needed to be won to gain control of this country.
To woo a good third of Democratic voters on the left, while ignoring moderates and independents that are by far the largest voting bloc, is paving the way for disaster in 2020.
At the very most 40% of Democrats support a Bernie Sanders type leftist. Democrats comprise 31% of all voters, Republicans 24% and Independents 42%. Apparently 11-13% of Democratic leftists believe they can convince close to half of the 80% of remaining Americans, politically to their far right, to join them and win not just the presidency, but a number of red states in a national election by embracing plans of massive governmental take-over of important societal functions, with myriads of regulations, and just tax increases.
For decades many of the 80% of Americans have voted against alleged “socialism” in all its forms; they have voted for tax cuts and regulating programs and services that benefit them; they have wanted government off their backs; and they are the ones that voted to dismantle the affordable higher education and health care Americans had half a century ago when the American middle class was the envy of the rest of the world.
Fifty-five percent of Democrats want to expand the ACA like Obama had intended so it would be available for all, and only 19% of Americans nationwide want to eliminate private insurance.
According to Gallup polling last year, 82% of Democrats said the quality of health care they received was either good or excellent. In Denmark (second-best in Europe), it was only 56%. In Switzerland, best in Europe, with universal health insurance run by private insurance companies, the satisfaction rate was a bit higher than Denmark. The Netherlands also has a high-quality universal system run through properly regulated private health insurance companies.
Why adopt socialist dogma from the far left and dismantle the very high-quality health care system (in many ways the best in the world) we have when its two main problems are correctable by winning a Democratic political majority just like Obama has envisioned? These problems are: (1) its lack of availability to low-income Americans; and (2) an under-regulated wild west system inviting abuse. The Swiss and the Dutch have had a properly regulated private health insurance system available to even their poorest citizens for decades.
Americans have also had auto and home insurance run by private insurance companies without wide-spread abuse, so correcting the existing problem is a lot easier and more prudent than dismantling the entire system, and will not lead to moderates and independents rejecting the socialist agenda of leftist Democrats.