In Defense of My Positions

I recently posted comments in regards to E.J. Dionne's article on the future of the conservative movement. I suggested that the future of politics would be won by the party who incorporated the need for a government that protected its citizenry, without suffocating American inginuity and overstepping its boundaries in our lives. I cautioned Democrats in thinking the current problems voters are having with conservatives are a call to return to big government programs to solve the issues facing our nation. This post produced a couple of comments that I feel I must respond in order to clarify my beliefs of what the Democratic Party should advocate in the future.

First, I was asked in one post why I won't join the Republican Party. This question has been posed to me by many political sparring partners because I tend to take a less partisan viewpoint compared to most Democrats. However, I will not join the Republican Party because I disagree with the objectives of the GOP and feel there is a place for government to do good for the American people. I have felt Republicans often work to protect the wealthiest of Americans while turning their backs on the rest of the country.

That being said, the second post dealt with economic populism. There are some valid points to economic populism. I do not disagree with the need for protection of workers, investors, and consumers. We need to do all we can to make sure the nation we live is safe and secure from both domestic and foreign threats to the people of our country. This includes making sure work places are safe, investments are secure, pensions protected, our borders controlled, and those who wish to harm our people are kept in check.

However, to provide Americans with the security/protection advocated by those who want to return the party to an economic populist message, we do not need government redistribution programs that pit class between class. President Clinton's economic policies were successful at lifting more people out of poverty, creating the largest number of millionaires in our countries history, expanding the middle class for minorities, and increasing home ownership. He did this by using tax policy that encouraged growth (growth in which each class of people benefited). At the same time, decreasing the size of the federal government. The Bush Administration, nor any previous Presidential administration prior to Clinton can boast of such accomplishments.

I am tired of Democrats demonizing those who create wealth for themselves. Why is it wrong to study the market and invest in a company, work hard to build a business, or use your brainpower to invent/find a new cure to a disease or technological advancement? Sometimes I feel Democrats are against those who do this and unfortunately the electorate has felt the same. Clinton understood that all Americans aspire to live a good life and used government as a tool to provide opportunity to all Americans. He realized those who have achieved, should not be penalized for success, while advocating for the people working hard, trying to realize the American dream.

If Democrats want to be successful in the future, they must throw away the class warfare message and return to Clintonian rhetoric. Clinton made all people understand the importance of economic mobility for all classes. He was successful at making the wealthy buy into his beliefs of using government as a tool for economic prosperity. The wealthy benefited from Clinton's policies, as did most Americans.

Democrats have the opportunity to be the majority party in the United States. By forging a platform of issues that limits the scope of government while encouraging opportunity and responsibility in our ecomomic lives. Americans are tired of the old liberal ways of big government programs, yet are distrustful of conservative ideology that promises all will benefit from a rising tide. Democrats must find a new way that adapts to the 21st Century and the socio-economic realities of the information aged economy.