Democrats must avoid old solutions in run up to 2016 election

Democrats need to be aware that voters will not support more government spending, taxes, or regulation

14
2044

NEW CASTLE, Pa., April 19, 2015 — A growing number of Republicans are entering the race for the 2016 presidential election, yet Hillary Clinton is the candidate defining the issues of for both Democrats and Republicans.

The iconic figure has so much influence and such standing in her party that her decision to run on economic issues has already forced Democrats and Republicans alike to either adopt or discredit her positions.  Whether or not Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 Democratic nomination, her stands on issues are setting the debate for the general election.


Read Also:  Hill-arious: Over 2 million fake Hillary followers on Twitter


In many respects, the economy is the hardest topic for the political world to face. The U.S. economy has been struggling since the 2008-2009 Great Recession started. Voters are focused on issues such as job creation and decreasing income inequality. As few policy solutions on the table seem to be working, debating economic policies, which largely depend on tried and untrue deals, force to light the weaknesses of solutions candidates embrace while leaving politicians open to scrutiny that they cannot easily defend against.


The highly polarized nature of our political system will pressure Democrats to over-rely on nontraditional economic mainstays: increased spending on social programs, increased regulation and social welfare. Unfortunately, it appears Democrats are already on track to do just that when it come to raising taxes, the minimum wage and education funding.

As the growing national debt, sluggish economy and government dysfunction/intrusiveness weigh heavily on the minds of voters, Democrats need to stay in the middle and promote balanced, comprehensive solutions to America’s economic problems.

Voters will not support more government spending, taxes or regulation unless they know it will produce results.

Education, for example, is important, but job seekers are not job creators, even if they are educated. It is important to recognize that many Americans, including educated Americans, continue to struggle to find work and increase their earnings.

Although education gives the individual the best chance at a better life, it is not a guarantee.  Americans are growing disenchanted with the education solution.

It will also be a temptation for Democrats to over focus on income inequality for women and minorities. Hillary and her Democratic brethren are already trying to frame themselves as the champions of the 99 percenters. While this may appeal to segments of the population, it ignores the much broader issues that come with income equality, thereby aliening non-minority voters who suffer under the extreme economic disparity that exists in this country today.

Whether making minimum wage or earning a middle-class income, it is difficult for non-minority men to take criticism from someone like Hillary Clinton is a multi-millionaire.


Read Also:  Hillary Clinton: champion of ‘the little guy’


Income inequality is not about gender or race for the bulk of Americans. It is about attaining a comfortable lifestyle instead of struggling to pay the bills. It is about improved access to greater economic opportunities for all.

Democrats need to demonstrate how they can build a strong, stable economy stable that provide jobs security for the middle class and better jobs for the poor.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

Previous articleLet’s kill the estate tax
Next articleD.C. United settle for 1-1 tie with Houston; unbeaten in four games
My name is Matthew Justin Geiger; I currently hold a BS in physics and psychology based politics from Allegheny College of Meadville, Pennsylvania. I am the creator/manager/editor of ​The Washington Outsider. I am a freelance writer, political analyst, commentator, and scientist presenting my views through news sites like The Washington Outsider, Communities Digital News (CDN) and Examiner.com. I also host the shows "The Washington Outsider" and "FocusNC" on local news station startup NCTV45 in New Castle, PA. In addition, I have written a short story collection, “​Dreaming of​ Other Realities,” two novellas “​Alien Assimilation” and “​The Survivor,” and a poetry collection, “​A Candle Shrouded in Darkness” available on ​Amazon. My goals are to offer my opinions and skills to those who are in need of an honest, professional consultant or freelance writer.
  • Simplythefactsmam

    Better working with old ideas than none. What new ideas has the GOP had in the last 50 years that didn’t simply boil down to more corporate power and more money to the upper crust?

    • I tend to agree that the GOP has had fewer novel ideas than the Democrats, though they have become more libertarian in recent years. I’d like to see more attention on addressing ways the tax code distorts the economy in favor of the wealthy and to the detriment of innovation, restructuring of current free trade policies, smarter regulations, reforms to labor laws to give worker more leverage, and an actual willingness to streamline the budget. I know focusing these broad policy areas isn’t novel, but how we address them needs to be. Democrats, who are obsessed with education and gender/racial inequality, and Republicans need to get into the specific as soon as possible, so we can actual have solutions instead of sound bites.

      • Simplythefactsmam

        The libertarians have no hope of ever winning the presidency as long as they believe a man can strike his wife because she can leave if she doesn’t like it, abuse his workers because they can leave if they don’t like it, and pollute because people can shun him if they want to.

        Most Americans want civilization.

        • In the general election, I would tend to agree, but the primaries are a different story and the GOP is increasingly libertarian in nature. That said, a lot of people vote, or don’t vote, to avoid supporting one candidate. Irrational things happen in elections. If the Democrats nominate someone too repulsive or the Republicans trash the candidate enough, a libertarian on the Republican ticket could win.

          • Simplythefactsmam

            Most people like having a civilization. Libertarians like having property owners make all their own rules to the detriment of everyone else. Having said that, I do like that the libertarian wing of the GOP soaks up the cash.

          • Well, politicians like to follow the cash, so you want to be careful. When a Republican is in charge, you don’t want him to be an extremist; same with the Democrats. It’s funny though, people complain what government then miss it when its gone.

          • Simplythefactsmam

            In the case of the libertarians, every person with enough wealth becomes the creator of all the rules you must live under. Idiocy.

          • yes, yes, very true.

          • Simplythefactsmam

            Here’s my ideas to start to make the election process better.

            All campaign activities are to be publicly funded.

            All major media are to give free time and print EQUALLY to the candidates. They are supposed to provide the public with relevant programming, in theory, let’s make them do it.

            Let any candidate that gets 1% or more of the voters legally petitioning to let them run, gets in.

            They all get EQUAL time on the airwaves to demonstrate the variety of views voters have of our next election.

            The campaign is limited to the last 6 months before elections.

            Once a month they travel around the country on Amtrak, free, and talk to the people.

            They get free lodging and food at various inexpensive motels. Motel 6, with guards, maybe.

            All of their speeches are public and broadcasted. Any candidate caught taking as much as a cup of coffee for a private conversation at any time is jailed until after the election and is disqualified from ever running for office again.

            All speeches must be accompanied by questions, a certain number to be taken from the crowd and picked at random. The questions MUST be answered, even poorly, or they are immediately disqualified.

            All winners are forbidden to work for any company or organization that they voted on a bill that affected them for 10 years after leaving office. This is simply the cost of public service in the spirit of honest public service.

            The simple publication of these guidelines would filter out the worst of the trough feeders. This much would at least start to make the process open and more Democratic.

            It would bring the Green Party, Tea Partiers, Socialists as in FDR, etc. all into the public arena so we may actually have some choice in the way we live.

            I don’t know you, you may be too busy, but I would like some feedback on my ideas.

          • “Any candidate caught taking as much as a cup of coffee for a private conversation at any time is jailed until after the election and is disqualified from ever running for office again.”–I think that would be ruled unconstitutional very quickly.

            “The campaign is limited to the last 6 months before elections.” This would probably help

            “All winners are forbidden to work for any company or organization that they voted on a bill that affected them for 10 years after leaving office. This is simply the cost of public service in the spirit of honest public service.” Something like this would probably be most effective, but it would require narrowly defined provisions and it would have to extend to the military, specifically acquisitions. May not banned, so much as required to report.

            “Let any candidate that gets 1% or more of the voters legally petitioning to let them run, gets in.” Lowering the threshold would initially just draw votes away from main party candidates, but it would eventually force them to offer more ideas in order to draw the attention of voters.

            The rest are probably going to be expensive and not as effective, so it’s probably not worth pursuing them unless there is strong public support. In fact, I think greater transparency and greater punitive actions for violating public trust would be the best course to pursue at this point.

          • Simplythefactsmam

            The media has a legal responsibility to provide a certain amount of public benefit, the cost would be minimal to the taxpayer.

          • That is true, but I’m not sure anyone in the political world would go along with equal time and space at a minimal price. The professional media is struggling and the bidding among politial groups pumps a great deal of money into their business, so there is no powerful groups that will resist. Meanwhile, no politicians wants the other guy to have equal time on the air. That said, this idea might be useful more on the local and State level.

  • acmaurer

    What new ideas? Socialism is more than 150 years old and failed everywhere. All they can do is keep dressing the pig in different clothes. (No, I’m not talking about Hillary here.)

    • Capitalism is pretty old too, but I was thinking more like policies that we haven’t tried and capitalists, socialists, and everyone else can accept.