Charles Dickens: Oliver Twist asks for more:
Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. . . .
"Please, sir, I want some more."
"What!" said the master at length, in a faint voice.
'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, "I want some more."
Democrats should change from a redistribution and safety net message to a message of abundance.
Most Americans want more.
I heard from Oregon's Democratic candidate for governor, Tina Kotek. She urged I watch her TV ad. Her voice narrates: "Early on, I worked at Oregon Food Bank, and I still volunteer at my church's food pantry. I've seen people struggle for all kinds of reasons." She goes on about the misery of homelessness and programs to address it.
 |
| Click Here |
Dickens' 19th century readers sympathized with poor Oliver, especially since his request was made to the workhouse master, a "fat, healthy man." Oliver needed wealth redistribution. Today's Oregonians recognize that homeless people are miserable. The ad display's Kotek's compassion and her support for programs of redistribution.
I question whether it was a useful ad. It reaffirmed the current message of Democrats: Support for a better safety-net. Better food banks. More and longer unemployment insurance benefits. More addiction services. More tiny houses for temporary shelters. More latitude and support for immigrants. Student loan forgiveness.
What's my concern?
The problem is that most voters consider Band-Aids for poverty both hopeless and a financial sacrifice. It may be necessary and compassionate, but it means less for them. Voters--particularly the working class voters who are now voting Republican--would prefer a message of more. A bigger, stronger economy means a bigger pot, and if the pot is bigger it means aid to the very poor is less of a burden. Better yet, there is still more for themselves. Kotek's ad is not an aspirational message. It is a repair-strategy message.
Democratic message strategist Ruy Teixeira advised Democrats to quit talking about the Green New Deal and instead refocus on creating abundance and talking about that. In his The Liberal Patriot post he said that talk of climatereflects the priorities of Democratic elites who are primarily interested in redistribution and action on climate change. But voters, especially working class voters, are interested in abundance: more stuff, more growth, more opportunity, cheaper prices, nicer, more comfortable lives.
Growth, particularly productivity growth, is what drives rising living standards over time and Democrats presumably stand for the fastest possible rise in living standards. Faster growth also makes easier the achievement of Democrats’ other goals.I get disagreement from some politically active friends when I suggest that Democrats should openly and proudly advocate for abundance. "Less is more," they tell me. "We need to walk softly on the land," they say. They tell me we should walk to the grocery store. Bicycle more. Drive smaller cars. Have smaller houses. Eat food from one's own garden. Recycle, or better yet, don't use things that create recyclable waste. A friend plans to turn off the natural gas at his home and wear sweaters in the winter.
There is a reason merchants advertise sale prices. People want more for less. That is so simple and obvious Democrats can overlook this reality, even people who watch for items to go on sale. Democrats would do better to work with human nature. Democrats are more likely to get the votes they need to implement a green climate agenda if they stop talking about Band-Aids on poverty, and start talking about good jobs in world-class industries done in America by Americans.
We will deal with climate better if voters understand that Democrats think it is morning in America and there is a bright and prosperous future to protect.
[Note: To get this blog delivered daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
12 comments:
Your assessment of Kotek's ad may be sound, but the bulk of today's post makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that an expanding economy benefits everyone. It may be true of the stock market that a rising tide floats all boats, but not in the workplace. There is more than sufficient evidence that, in the last four decades, the top 1% have benefited hugely from economic expansion and the mass of workers have made little headway. Why will the future be different if there is no intervention? To put it succinctly, the market by itself will not create just economic conditions. I think you overestimate human acquisitiveness and underestimate the importance of fairness. There are many studies that show the critical role that a sense of fairness plays in harmonious human relationships and content. I'll end with a wonderful exemplary tale for which I can take no credit. A CEO, a white worker and a black man are sitting together at a table. A plate with 10 cookies is put before them. The CEO takes nine and says to the white worker, "Watch out. That black man is going to take your cookie." Under such circumstances, Peter, does it matter how many cookies are on the plate?
The ad needs a stick portion to go along with the carrots of taking care of the homeless. Make it illegal for trespassing on private and public lands with tents and makeshift buildings. Arrest the homeless if they don’t comply with provided housing and services. Too often the homeless are choosing the destructive lifestyle. I had mentally I’ll inmates choose to go to homeless camps rather than supportive housing that was arranged for them.
Peter said:
Democrats would do better to work with human nature.
It seems to me that progressives are fundamentally hostile to the idea of “human nature.“ They seem to believe that humans are infinitely malleable and can be molded into whatever is required to support what they think of as a just society. Tell a progressive that there are biological/evolutionary realities built into us, and the response is often a spew of denunciations about sexism, racism, etc.
Idealism like this, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to things like Mao’s Cultural Revolution and what happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot. The current plague of wokeness in this country hasn’t gone that far yet, but it’s just a matter of degree; it’s the same kind of thing.
I totally agree with Peter, but I doubt that progressives are capable of getting the message.
I know a number of people who live in affluent neighborhoods on the east side of Portland. They are all liberal/progressive, and they are all literally beside themselves with the crime and chaos that homelessness and lack of effective policing is causing in their neighborhoods.
I fully expect Portland is on the verge of electing a conservative government that will do what Mayor Giuliani did to control crime and chaos in New York City in the 1990s. The other possibility is that the middle class will abandon Portland and Portland will become Detroit.
There's that old adage "survival of the fittest" which was inspired by Charles Darwin, but not created by him.
Many succeed because they work hard and want more or a better life.
Some will need assistance along the way, but that assistance doesn't always work. More assistance isn't the entire solution.
For example Universal Basic Income is sometimes promoted as a solution. It doesn't work if everyone gets it, and things get more expensive. Human nature isn't always sympathetic to the plight of others.
Human nature assures that there will always be inequalities.
Dinosaur, eating: "What was that?"
Continues eating...
Human nature is what humans, who presumably have evolved, assuming one accepts the fact of evolution, decide what it is. What Regressives characterize as human nature is a convenient excuse for greed, materialism, and status. The planet will continue whether we survive or not.
Humans have come this far by adapting, right? Best to keep it up.
Nailed it, Herb.
M2inFLA is very statuesque. 😀
Responding to Herb,
When you give away the white working class guy’s place at Harvard to a less-qualified minority because “diversity,” you are not only stealing his cookie, but also destroying any chance of the interracial solidarity that could lead to a better allocation of cookies.
There does seem to be a correlation between conspicuous, even puritanical displays of abstemiousness, and the comparative luxury to engage in such displays.
Mahatma Gandhi said, “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”
Between pollution, climate change and the national debt, greed has gotten us into a world of hurt. It’s in our own best interest to make do with less. Then we’d also have more to give others. Helping the less fortunate may not rid the world of poverty, but it will make us better people and the world will be better for it.
In Viviers, France stands a statue of a proud-looking woman, head held high. “That’s our Marianne,” says our guide. “Those statues went up all over France after the Revolution with the woman usually wearing the Phrygian cap of antiquity that was worn by emancipated Roman slaves. It symbolizes the Revolution and how women will fair better in the new France. This is a later statue: Marianne is now wearing a wreath of wheat to show greater wisdom.” Our guide coughs, grins mischievously and says, “The greater wisdom of women.”
Post a Comment