THE DEMOPUBLICAN PARTY

by Howard S. Katz
10-27-08

In a previous blog, I pointed out that, if we study American Presidents from Lyndon Johnson to George Bush, Jr. from the point of view of the promises they (or their party) made in their election campaigns, we find that the President does a better job of fulfilling the campaign promises of his opponents than his own. I am here talking about those issues on which the parties disagree, which played the biggest role in the election campaign and am viewing the promises in the way they were viewed by the electorate of the day.

Lyndon Johnson (1964) fulfilled (what he viewed as) Barry Goldwater’s promise to stand up to the Communists in Vietnam, not his own promise to give us peace in that region. In his first term (1968), Richard Nixon promised a balanced budget and a free economy, specifically no price and wage controls. He was understood to be the anti-communist candidate, which at the time implied intense hostility toward Communist China. He violated all of these promises. In his second term (1972), there was one major issue. George McGovern ran on the platform of unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam, meaning the withdrawal of U.S. troops within 90 days of the new President taking office (in Jan. 1973) provided that we got our POWs back. Nixon opposed unilateral withdrawal with a program he called peace with honor. By this he meant that there should be no withdrawal from Vietnam unless the existence of an independent, non-communist South Vietnam was guaranteed. Nixon won by a large majority. He immediately (within 90 days) withdrew U.S. troops. The independent non-communist South Vietnam was destroyed shortly thereafter and has not existed to this day.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran as a conservative, meaning that he opposed FDR’s New Deal. He promised to follow Milton Friedman’s monetary rule, meaning that the money supply would not grow by more than 2%-6% in any one year. And he promised never to negotiate with terrorists. He immediately adopted FDR’s Keynesian program (budget deficits financed by the printing of money). His 8 years as President averaged 8% growth in the money supply with peak years of 12% in 1985 and 17% in 1986. Not only did he negotiate with terrorists ((Iran-Contra) he gave in to them and sold them the arms they desired.

George Bush, Sr. turned the 1988 election into a one-issue campaign. He claimed that the Democrats would come to him asking for higher taxes, and he would turn them down. He said this at every opportunity and used a phrase which became famous. “READ MY LIPS; NO NEW TAXES.” Lo and behold, the Democratic leadership did come to him demanding a tax increase in the exact scenario he had described. He capitulated without a fight and enacted the tax increase.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a typical New Deal Democrat implying a steady growth in the size of the government, a continual budget deficit and a defense of the existing system of welfare. He particularly described himself as “the woman’s candidate” meaning that he would support feminist issues. Upon election he said, “The era of big government is over.” He reduced the size of the government (whether measured by government spending as a percent of GDP or by non-military government employees and he balanced the budget (as normally understood). He ended “welfare as we know it” sharply reducing the existing welfare program. At the same time, he treated women as mere sex objects and was involved in a number of disgraceful episodes with women which resulted in his impeachment by the House of Representatives.

In 2000, George Bush, Jr. ran as a “compassionate conservative” with “compassionate” suggesting big government and “conservative” suggesting small government. This was generally understood to mean that he would be a conservative but not a radical one. He has introduced socialism into the American economy (a government ownership stake in the banks) and is currently engaged in a massive printing of money.

This record strongly suggests that the rational voter in a modern American election would have done better to vote for the candidate with whom he disagreed than with the candidate whose platform he supported. In the 18th and 19th centuries, American Presidents fulfilled their promises. George Washington “could not tell a lie.” Thomas Jefferson (with the help of his successor Madison) destroyed the First Bank of the United States. Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second Bank of the United States. Abraham Lincoln put an end to Negro slavery. Grover Cleveland protected and William McKinley reaffirmed the gold standard. But in the 20th century, the record is exactly the opposite.

This is important because many people are urging us to vote for a candidate based on platforms and issues. For example, right now conservatives urge us to vote against Obama saying he would bring socialism. And while they are saying this, the current conservative administration is bringing socialism.

Am I actually saying that one should vote for a candidate with whose program one disagrees? No. One’s vote is important in two ways. First, if one’s candidate is honest (a rare quality in modern times), voting for him will advance one’s program. Second, whether one’s candidate is honest or not, all the political experts will mentally tally the votes as indications of public support for his stated position. If you vote for the enemy candidate on the assumption that he is a liar, your vote will be understood as indicating more public support for the positions you oppose.

This presents a problem. If you oppose big government and vote for McCain, you will get big government. If you oppose big government and vote for Obama, your vote will be construed as indicating support for big government, and many politicians will vote for big government on the assumption that it will attract your vote. (It was precisely such a miscalculation which led to the move for socialized medicine in 1993.) Is a puzzlement.

No, what I am suggesting is far simpler. I am suggesting that you vote for the candidate in whom you believe, the candidate you trust and whose positions agree with yours. The people who argue with this simple idea are guilty of two errors. First, they mistakenly think that their candidate is going to keep his promises. Second, they completely fail to understand that a position can win even though its candidate loses. McGovern’s position (unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam) won although he lost. Ross Perot’s position (balanced budget) won although he lost. Suppose 40% of the country is libertarian (implying victory in a 3 way race) but 35% vote for the Demopublican candidate so as not to “waste their vote.” They have wasted their vote.

Most voters are very ignorant of politics. They vote on superficialities. They voted for Reagan because of his acting talent, which allowed him to portray himself in an attractive manner. They voted for Ike because he was a victorious general and a nice guy (“I like Ike.”). It is precisely because all savvy politicians who rise to national prominence understand this that they know how shaky their base is and how easily their majority could evaporate. But the small number who vote on ideology cannot be swayed by superficialities. Their votes can only be gained by issues.

Once a President is elected, he is immediately facing reelection. To lose on his second term is a disgrace. He will go down in the history books as a “one-term President.” He is desperate for votes. At the same time, there is a large minority who hate him. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton understood that most of one’s supporters are so focused on the personality of the man, as opposed to the merit of the issue, that if one betrays one’s supporters, they will overlook it. One can therefore mollify one’s opponents without driving away most of one’s supporters. Two outstanding examples are Nixon’s opening to China and Clinton’s cutback of welfare.

The conservatives of the 1950s and ‘60s were often called the China Lobby. This meant that they hated Communist China and loved Nationalist China (Formosa/Taiwan). To extend diplomatic recognition to Communist China was anathema to them. Nixon was their hero. His campaign for the Senate in 1950 had established him as a dedicated anti-communist. He was included on Eisenhower’s ticket in 1952 precisely to win conservatives support (money and energy). He would never, ever cozy up to the hated Chinese Communists. And then when he did just that, the conservatives played mental tricks. “This is a brilliant strategic move to split the Communist world. It is not what it appears on the surface.” Had a Democrat done the same thing, they would have fought him tooth and nail.

Clinton was the exact type of Southern aristocrat who had oppressed and enslaved black people in the early days. But they voted for him in overwhelming numbers. He returned the favor by sharply cutting back the welfare roles (to win conservative support), kicking many blacks off welfare. He was “punished” by being called “the nation’s first black President.”

How can it be that you can spit in someone’s face like this and get away with it? The answer is that politics for these people constitutes an emotional attachment. It is the exact emotion which allows you to root intensely for your high school football team; of course had you gone to the across-town school you would be rooting just as intensely for the opposite team.

Right now we are seeing an astounding example of political irrationality. The Republicans have declared that, after 8 years of a Republican Administration, the nation’s economy is in crisis. The simplest and least sophisticated voter can put two and two together and draw the obvious conclusion. The Republicans have failed, and it is time to give the other side a chance. No sooner had this been declared (by the Republican President) than the Republican candidate started to fall in the polls, and with election day one week away the Republican chances look very dim. Can people this stupid really have a claim on our attention when they say that it would be wasting our vote to vote our convictions?

If you study those people who tell you that you are wasting your vote to cast it for a 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning, then the most obvious thing about them is the intensity of their emotion. “A vote for _____ (the 3rd party candidate) is a vote for _________ (the hated second party candidate), they loudly declare. Leaving aside the obvious over-statement what comes through is an intensity of emotion which is simply not appropriate to the discussion you are having with them.

The explanation is that these people are back in the Middle Ages. To them the “liberals” are the medieval left, and the conservatives are the medieval right. And each hates the other with the intensity reserved for that age.

As I have discussed, the medieval division between left and right was a version of the moral vs. practical dichotomy, which governed that era. Everything had to be divided into a moral side versus a practical (this worldly) side. Property was divided into communism (the moral side) vs. feudalism (the practical side). The opposite sex was divided, for men, into the virgin (moral) and the prostitute (this worldly), for women, into the monk (moral) and the rapacious aristocrat (this worldly). This entire way of looking at things was based on the pagan myth of Dionysus and the Titans with Dionysus representing the spiritual (moral) world and the Titans representing this world.

In the long conflict between left and right in medieval politics and between the moral and the practical in medieval life, neither side could win a final victory. The battle went back and forth, and there were many short term victories on both sides. But after almost 2000 years, there was no change in the balance of power. Every time the left would win a victory, the great majority would think, “Oh, my goodness. Does this mean that we are going to have to be ethical?” And they would shift their support toward the right. And every time the right would win a victory, the great majority would think, “What monsters. It is time for a little more ethics in world affairs.” And they would shift their support toward the left.

In fact, one cannot fashion a rational argument as to why one should prefer a moral but impractical solution to an immoral but practical one. Hence the battle between left and right will go on forever with no resolution.

So when our hypothetical friend demands that you make a choice between the two major parties, he is back in the Middle Ages fighting the old battle between left and right.

I am sure you have heard the story of Julius Caesar, at least as much as Shakespeare and Hollywood feel that it is important for you to know. But I have a few facts to add which might be relevant to your vote in this election. In Rome in the first century B.C,. there were two parties: the Populares (the People’s Party) and the Optimates (the Party of the Better Class). They corresponded very closely to the “liberals” and conservatives of today. Caesar was a member of the People’s Party. After his death, 3 of his supporters joined together (the Second Triumvirate), defeated the Liberatores (Libertarians) and then fell to quarrelling among themselves.

What did the members of the People’s Party want in the 1st century B.C.? Were they filled with love for the people? Not exactly. They wanted power. That is why, after they had defeated the Liberatores, conflict between them was inevitable. There could only be one Emperor in Rome.

The successors of Caesar, i.e., the political left, won power in ancient Rome. But we also know that the right-wing monarchs against whom the people revolted in the 19th and early 20th centuries were also Caesars: the German Kaiser and the Russian Czar are both names for Caesar. So when did the Caesars change? When did they switch from left to right? And you know, the change was so subtle that no one can tell. Indeed when the modern Russian Communists said that they were on the side of the people (i.e., on the left), the Russian Czar answered them that he had always been on the side of the people. That is, the left won the battle and then became the right. And the shift was so subtle that no one today knows when it happened.

So these people do not interest me. I don’t care whether the left wins or the right wins. In this election, both Obama and McCain have one platform: a) spend more money, b) cut taxes and c) balance the budget. That is the Demopublican promise, and I am against it. Both candidates voted, on Oct. 1, to rob from the poor and give to the rich. To the extent that they have slight differences on other issues, the Republican is more likely to fulfill the Democratic promises, and the Democrat is more likely to fulfill the Republican promises.

I would like to vote for Ron Paul because he is the finest man to lead the country in this time of crisis, but he is not on the ballot. So I will vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. He is a good man and opposed the bailout bill, and this is the best way I can make my vote count – really count.

# # #

Howard S. Katz can be visited at http://www.thegoldbug.net.