5 Long-Term Trends Working Against The Democratic Party

5 Long-Term Trends Working Against The Democratic Party

John Hawkins
Townhall.com
Oct. 4, 2011

There tends to be a rough parity between parties in the American political system. That's because both parties shift in response to changing conditions. They go after new groups of constituents, positions on the issues change, and the only rule at the end of the day tends to be that he who can deliver the votes, makes the rules. For example, black Republicans used to vote heavily for the Republican Party and it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who used to be the biggest advocates of tax cuts.

The biggest change in the political landscape over the next few decades is likely to be America's shift to a majority minority population by 2050. This is a change that appears to benefit the Democratic Party since black Americans currently vote for them by a 9-to-1 clip and Hispanic Americans vote for them 2-to-1. The Republican Party will, of course, adjust to the situation and find ways to bring in more minority voters because it will have no other choice. However, there are other coming trends that don't bode as well for the Democratic Party.

1) The fragmentation of the national media: At one point, the Left had an almost total lock on the media. People watched one of the big 3 liberal networks, they read a liberal newspaper, and they had few other options to find out what was going on in the world. That has changed dramatically in the last few decades. The big three networks?

They've lost 55.5% of their audience since 1980. Liberal newspapers? They're dinosaurs that are slowly but surely sliding towards extinction in their current form. Staffs are being laid off across the country and The New York Times, which is the most prestigious paper in America, is 1.1 billion dollars in debt and fading. The further the liberal press falls, the more room there is for the web and talk radio to move into the gap and provide Americans with an alternate viewpoint that's friendlier to conservatism, capitalism, and Christianity.

2) They're aborting themselves into oblivion: Controversially, the book Freakonomics tied abortion to the reduced crime rate we've seen over the last few decades. James Taranto has also pointed out that abortion may be playing a bigger role in politics than we realize.

"It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.

The Roe effect, however, refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion. It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party--that is, Republican--than they otherwise would have."

This shouldn't change anyone's mind about being pro-life. After all, right is right and wrong is wrong. But, is there some validity to this theory? It sure seems like it.

3) America goes broke: The Democratic Party's core message is, "Vote for us and we'll give you somebody else's money." That's how they weld together all the disparate pieces of their base. But as Margaret Thatcher once famously said, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Unfortunately for the Democrats, we're at that point. America has lost its AAA credit rating. We have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, a 14 trillion dollar debt, and 100 trillion dollars in unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities. Even Barack Obama, who's the most wasteful spender in human history, admits that this level of spending is "unsustainable." What this means is that there is going to be much less taxpayer money for the Democrats to dole out to their constituencies in the coming years. If the Democrats can't continue to buy those votes with your money, their base will start to splinter.

4) Population shifts caused by liberal policies: The more liberal an area gets, the more non-functional it becomes, and the more people and businesses eventually flee. It's a long, slow process, but it's very real. You can see it in cities like Detroit, which lost 25% of its population in the last decade. You can also see it state-wide in the electoral college where states carried by Obama will lose 6 electoral votes because of the latest census numbers.

5) The fall of unions: Unions are in deep decline. In 1981, 25 percent of all workers belonged to a union. That's down to 12.4% today. Those numbers are likely to continue to decrease because unions make businesses that use them much less competitive in the global market place. Because of America's debt at all levels of government, there will also be tremendous downward pressure on public sector unions, which drive up the cost of government. This is a problem for Democrats because unions are their most important backers. They supply them with tremendous amounts of manpower and almost unbelievable amounts of money.

In 2010, for example, unions poured 170 million dollars into Democratic re-election efforts. It's almost inevitable that unions will continue to decline and when the unions get sick, it's the Democratic Party that sneezes.

The demise of liberalism can't happen fast enough for me.

I say let them abort and spend themselves into oblivion.

dblboggie wrote:The demise of liberalism can't happen fast enough for me.

I say let them abort and spend themselves into oblivion.

What would you want in a rejuvenated Democrat Party?

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The demise of liberalism can't happen fast enough for me.

I say let them abort and spend themselves into oblivion.

What would you want in a rejuvenated Democrat Party

Fewer Democrats.

Har har. Seriously, what would you want?

TexasBlue wrote:Har har. Seriously, what would you want

Actually, I am serious. I find nothing in the Democratic Party platform that I can support. The entire platform is based on a idealistic fantasy that we can achieve an equality of outcomes that can only be achieved by abandoning everything that made America great in the first place.

Why would I want to rejuvinate that?

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Har har. Seriously, what would you want

Actually, I am serious. I find nothing in the Democratic Party platform that I can support. The entire platform is based on a idealistic fantasy that we can achieve an equality of outcomes that can only be achieved by abandoning everything that made America great in the first place.

Why would I want to rejuvinate that?

What about the old Dem Party.... which was, in my opinion, fairly respectful?

I understand what you're saying, but I think you are confusing the values of the old blue-collar working Democrats of yore with the hidden agendas of the Democratic Party going as far back as the turn of the 20th century with Democrats like Wilson and later with FDR and LBJ and Carter.

The Democratic Party's platform has been the same for the last 100 years... a "progressive" one that seeks to transform America into something it has never been and was never intended to be.

The next time you think otherwise I recommend you Google up FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights and read it. THAT'S what the Democrats want and that is NOT the America I want.

Until that changes, I will always wish for fewer Democrats.

I've read FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights and it's nauseating.

TexasBlue wrote:I've read FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights and it's nauseating.

I rest my case.

Here;

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Marx could not have put it any better. Let's face the facts, Democrats want to realize Marx's dream; a dream that human nature can never allow to be realized. There can NEVER be an equality of outcomes, EVER! Human nature will always triumph. Only students of history will know this. Thankfully I am a very serious student of history.

It's like legislating hate. Gov't can suppress it but not eradicate it. The Balkans and Iraq are prime examples.

Even more to the point, attempting to achieve each one of those objectives that FDR set forth in his 2nd bill of rights would require completely scrapping our constitution and all state constitutions and handing over to the government total control overour businesses and our lives!

Only a dedicated Marxist could even propose such a foolish proposition! And I'm quite sure you know what a fan FDR was of Stalin and the USSR.

The Democratic Party is still pursuing FDR's dream, and that is all anyone needs to know in order to wish for fewer Democrats.

dblboggie wrote:overour

I'd like to see people have what FDR wanted but I prefer those people work to get it. There's alot of stuff I'd like but I can't get it because of one reason or another.... and I accept it as it is.

Ya gotta thing on typos don't ya?

dblboggie wrote:Ya gotta thing on typos don't ya?

Yeah, I think it's funny with you having to post with your phone.

TexasBlue wrote:I'd like to see people have what FDR wanted but I prefer those people work to get it. There's alot of stuff I'd like but I can't get it because of one reason or another.... and I accept it as it is.

Anyone with a heart wants those things for all people, but redistribution of wealth at the point of a gun has NEVER, EVER worked as a means of achieving it.

There is only one system that has proven to be successful at even coming close, and that is constitutional republicanism, rule of law (not of man) and free market capitalism.

I can tell you... if someone said I can sit on my ass and draw a paycheck, I'd do it. And so would millions of others. The thing is, I can't do it.

TexasBlue wrote:I can tell you... if someone said I can sit on my ass and draw a paycheck, I'd do it. And so would millions of others. The thing is, I can't do it.

Exactly! Look at what the welfare state hath wrought in Greece and the UK - mobs state dependents rioting in the streets like animals because they might lose some their precious welfare and have to actually work for a living. The pernecious effects of the welfare state on civil character is disgusting.