…and even they have to buy gasoline at the President’s preferred pumped up prices
The Liberal Case against the re-election of President Barack Obama
Reality started mugging this future former liberal Democrat early in my adult political life. It occurred after months of exhilarating 1980 campaign work with Young Democrats for Carter when the President’s Republican opponent asked a simple question in his closing statement of the only debate between the two:
“Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
The blow that 21-year old sustained to his youthful Utopian visions was greater than the QB-sack blow sustained to his shoulder from an Irmo High School defensive end four years earlier, that ended varsity stardom visions. After all, Reagan was a mere actor, co-star to a chimp no less. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer. And everyone knew that Democrats care about the poor and the working man while Republicans were for the rich, right?
Looking back, I should have been better prepared for the impending re-election defeat of my fellow Southerner based upon the apathy of my Southern Railway, Carmen’s union member father and most of the gray-haired ladies in the second row of my Southern Baptist church’s choir. Yes, I was better off as a spoiled college student sowing his wild oats, but my Dad and many of the husbands of those choir members had experienced recent lay-offs and most all Americans were suffering from double-digit inflation and high interest rates.
Then, under President Carter, as now, under President Obama, the vast majority of Americans were then, and are now, worse off after four years of liberal Democratic Party policies. It was as obvious then, even to the stubborn idealistic young whippersnapper’ despite his public protestations, as it is now to the conservative convert he grew into.
Unless you are a banker or GM/UAW member that got bailed out by the Obama-voted for and partially implemented by TARP, CEOs or New Black Panthers not prosecuted by Obama’s Justice Department, government bureaucrats hired to bankrupt the coal industry, or illegal immigrants granted amnesty via a lawless executive order; you are probably much worse off today than you were the day the former community organizer was inaugurated.
But what about the interest groups that comprise the Democratic Party, surely they are better off? Nope.
Private sector union membership is down. Black unemployment is the highest ever recorded, including the years of the Great Depression. Hispanic unemployment is in double digits. Female unemployment is up. Environmentalists still tilt at windmills, rather than have their blenders powered by them, a world with oceans that still threaten Malibu Beach. Half of all young people are unemployed or under-employed.
But what about the poor in Food Stamp nation? We live under the same food stamp eligibility laws that prevailed under President Bush and that Mitt Romney would retain. More people are poor enough to get food stamps, but they aren’t better off than when they could buy food with their own earnings.
Admittedly, there are limitations to Carville’s “economy stupid test” that Reagan crystallized years earlier against Carter, but isn’t that question the basic common sense inquiry all make when assessing rehires? Yes, the choice of the challenger could be unacceptably risky, but rarely in American history have voters rewarded presidential failure with re-election. Arguably, a minority did so for Woodrow Wilson, but only because of a certain Bull Moose third party effort.
Democrats, do you gain so much spiritual self worth from the TV show starring a fellow party member in the White House, that you are willing to sacrifice economic prosperity due to proven-failed policies? After the 1977-1980 re-education in this regard, there emerged the voting block dubbed “Reagan Democrats”. I suspect many who hear these words will soon be dubbed “Romney Democrats” after considering the empty space that used to be their wallets.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson