Why the Democratic Party’s Future Depends on Finding a Moral Argument

Whether Barack Obama should run a populist campaign or not hinges on two questions. The first is fairly obvious: Can he win that way? But there’s a more important question that should decide Obama’s rhetorical approach, one that looks beyond just November: What kind of party do the Democrats want to be?

There are both potential risks and rewards if the president decides to spend the next six months portraying Mitt Romney as a wealthy, job-destroying investment banker who has never had to worry about paying for tuition, finding a job, or whether he can afford to buy his wife another Cadillac or vacation home. On the one hand, this strategy would probably motivate the blacks, Latinos, union members, and young voters of all races who turned out in huge numbers four years ago. Frustrated by the sluggish economy and disappointed by the gap between what Obama promised and was able to deliver, they need a reason to get excited, again.

On the other hand, the 10 to 15 percent of independent voters—nearly all of whom are white and middle class—who will determine whether he stays in office may well bridle if the president comes off as harsh and divisive. As Bill Galston pointed out this week, polls show these independents care more about economic growth and equal opportunity than they do about bashing Wall Street or closing the income gap. So the surge Obama would gain from his base, he might give right back if he alienates the almighty swing voters. I will leave it to brilliant statisticians like Nate Silver to figure out which group is larger—and in which purple states more of them reside.

Post Continues on www.tnr.com

Posted in 2012 Election, Economics, Ethics, Liberal Hypocrisy, Politics Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
29 comments on “Why the Democratic Party’s Future Depends on Finding a Moral Argument
  1. jong says:

    First of all Obama has the problem of not believing in the source of all moral and ethical thought The Holy Bible.   He was raised and trained a muslim and was trained the opposite of what God wishes.  For example he has trampled the Constitution a document that is based on The Bible.  His only compass is Marx and his hubris.   And you can tell this article has a left leaning as the amount of people that consider themselves Independent is 40% not 10-15% and most of those lean to the right.

  2. Ted R. Weiland says:

    Anything less than Yahweh, the God of the Bible’s, morality is immorality for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists alike.

    “The legislation agreed upon by the framers and authorized by the
    Constitution is frequently inconsonant with and antagonistic to Yahweh’s

    ‘Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.’ (Isaiah 10:1)

    “If we believe all morality originates with Yahweh, then we must
    conclude any law that adds to or subtracts from His law represents
    lawlessness, unrighteousness, and immorality. Because Yahweh is the sole
    legislator [Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12], only His legislation is law. Any attempt to make laws
    contrary or in addition to His laws is ultimately futile, as
    demonstrated by the fickle propensity of constitutional ‘legislators’: 

    ‘Two people could have walked down any U.S. street in
    1930 – one with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of
    gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a
    criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered
    a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U. S.
    city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen
    and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal.’ (W.W. Turner, The Amazing Story of the British Sovereign (Nashville, TN: 1970) p. 4)….”Excerpted from Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” on our online Book Page at www . mission to israel . org (no commas).

    out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh’s
    moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution
    Survey in the right-hand column
    and receive a free copy of the “Primer” (an 85 page book, normally $7
    plus shipping) of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The
    Christian Perspective.”

    • Samtman says:

      The most immoral book ever conjured up is the the bible. Before the Isralites entered the stolen promised land, Yaweh their war god had them kill off thousands of people who lived there before thleykl took over the land. Not much different than the European Christlians killing off natives in the new world for the gold and land. and to top it off, the ones who were left alive, they forced christianity on them. The European Kings used the excuse to look for gold and free land, to make christians out of the native pagans who had their own  made up gods  and  moral codes. 

    • Mike McLendon says:

      I agree with you views that America has extracted God of the Bible from society.  Samtman and others frequently only read parts of the Bible to arrive at their conclusions of a bloodthirsty God of the Bible.  What they don’t understand is that the people mentioned in the Old Testament sacrificed the first born on alters made for wooden gods.  The vileness of their culture was so great that naturally the God of the Bible abhorred their sin and took notice.  People forget that God forgave Nineveh even though Jonah protested that very compassion and forgiveness.

      You reap what you sow.  That is a universal law which is unavoidable.  I for one have reaped what I’ve sowed in the career and still struggle.  America will pay the price of the radical 1960′s where every form of morality was thrown away by society.  We are reaping the legacy of that decade through the misguided Great Society programs and the decline of our economy and society.

  3. Bobseeks says:

    We should be working to assure that the democrat party has no future; it is evil and must be destroyed. GOD is neither republican not democrat, but satan is certainly a democrat.

  4. Samtman says:

    There is no moral argument for a better life for the middle class than better wages, affordable health care, educating their children for the future. If they want to go Church, Mosque or Temple on their day off, thats their business, not the govenments or anybody elses to tell them who and how to pray, the constitution gives them that freedom.

  5. Dodie1990 says:

    The Democrat future is with the Hispanics and blacks and the 47% who pay no tax. Morality and religion have nothng to do with it. Most people given the opportunity, will take the free ride from the Democrats anytime.

    • Bobseeks says:

      True – the democrat party is a conglomeration of selfish perverts, parasites, moochers, drones, and criminals and, unfortunately, it is a reflection of what America is becoming.

  6. sean murry. says:

    The moral is they are commuists.

    • Mike McLendon says:

      Maybe they should be honest in the naming of their party.  I note very little in their platform that is “democratic”.

  7. Guest says:

    Today’s Democratic Party… Moral Ground? Lol!
    Well I suppose If They Dumped the,
    ACORN & “Rigg”… Oppps… I mean “True” the Vote Thuggs
    Occupy Supporters
    La Raza (Racists)
    Reverse Racists (Like Al Sharpton)
    Neo Nazi Racists (yesterdays KKK)
    Union Thuggs and the other Welfare State Money Sponges,,,
    (All of which are motivated by GREED, the very thing they accuse and point the finger at the rest of us for)
    I suppose they might just have a chance at Morality,,, but that would only leave them with about 30% (Generously speaking) of the party leftover so there goes their neighborhood! Lol!

  8. chuckie2u says:

    Interesting. Everyone has 24 hours a day do use as they so desire and in America no one stops them. It is apparent there are those who foolishly use theirs in self destruction while others plan their time to enhance their material well being. As I see it since LBJ started his “WAW on Povty” There is no excuse for anyone to not achieve their goals.
    As I see it I owe nothing to those who squandered their time and resources and want the rest of us to support them. Obama appeals to the worthless lower classes of the social order and panders to their desire to get something for doing nothing.
    I agree with Marx” Those who do not WORK do not EAT.” Lenin would have shot all of them.


    Morals and the Democratic party being in the same sentence makes no sense. their all unmoral from Obama down to the Mayor of a tiny town.

  10. AmericaFirst says:

    What a bunch of BS!!  Democrats are not moral people; they are a bunch of knaving lying scumbags.

    • Steven says:

      Correction: POLITICIANS that run the Democrat party fit your description.  Most VOTERS in the party are simply illinformed.

  11. J Carney says:

    Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.
    Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.
    During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.  ITS ON UTUBE     WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED —  Quite Enlightening

  12. nanblan says:

    I wonder who the blacks, Latinos, Union members and youngish voters cast their ballots for in the 2004 presidential election?  Let’s see, we had John Kerry and John Edwards running as a team, and between the two of these extremely wealthy guys (or 1%ers), their net combined worth was easily 100′s of millions of dollars.  I can also bet who Obama and all his “social justice” buddies voted for . . . it’s not hard to figure out.  They’re all now casting Romney as being too wealthy to be “in touch” with average citizens, and shaming him for having had a Swiss bank account (and that’s just a start.)  How dare someone wealthy run for President?  The hypocrisy gets even thicker when we look at the ways each of these men became millionaires.  John Kerry married into great wealth (his wife inherited the Heinz brand of consumer products.)  John Edwards is your typical trial lawyer who ripped off his many clients by charging outrageous percentages of their legal proceeds (and, I’m sure, sought vigorously to find reasons for clients to sue that they wouldn’t have thought about otherwise.)  Although Mitt Romney WAS born with a silver spoon, his father passed none of his wealth onto his offspring.  Romney basically started from scratch at the beginning of his career, and became extremely successful helping failing corporations/organizations downsize in order to keep them from going under.

    I would say that Romney’s looking pretty good compared to the other guys in terms of how he earned his wealth (by working hard.)  So, Obama and all you liberals out there pedaling the class warfare vendetta, could you please explain your rationale for voting for a couple multi-millionaires in the 2004 race?  If you really believe someone that is wealthy shouldn’t run for president, then how exactly do you explain the hypocrisy?

    By the way, I wonder if Kerry, Edwards, Obama and Democrats in Congress and the Senate have, or have had Swiss bank accounts? I think we’d find the answer to be quite interesting indeed.

  13. nanblan says:

    Well, let’s take a look at your assumptions:

    Regarding Kerry, his military service has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. In case you’ve conveniently forgotten, the topic at hand was about the hypocrisy of the liberal claim that Romney is out of touch with citizens because of his wealth. However, if you insist on going there – what kind of military experience does Obama have? Absolutely none.
    Regarding Caymans/Swiss bank accounts, perhaps Romney would share more than what he has so far (all that’s required,) if Obama would open the numerous records he’s hiding from his employer (us.) These include, but aren’t limited to, complete birth records; hospital records; high school, college, and law school records, transcripts and writings; passport info; Illinois bar records; Illinois state Senate records; Illinois state Senate schedule; law practice client list; financial aids records.
    Phew! That list is so exhaustive that it leaves us questioning exactly what about his past he’s trying so hard to hide.
    Regarding Bain Capital, if it was a company with such bad practices, then why did Obama recently hire a past employee to be his Director of the Office of Management and Budget? Jeffrey Zients worked for Bain Capital from August 1988 to June 1990, and Obama has characterized him as “having superb judgment and providing sound advice on a whole host of issues.” Again, the hypocrisy of the left is so blatant that I would think you’d be totally embarrassed. Perhaps you’ll think twice about it once the shock of the November election results have hit. I doubt it, however, as hypocrisy has been a major characteristic of the left from the very beginning of its existence.

    • novowel4me says:

      When your party presents as Holier and more patriotic than thou, ones approach to service is relevant as is their character. I suspect you are not particularly wealthy yourself nor are old enough to have been around when Vietnam was happening, I was. I mentioned Kerry, because he and Al Gore for that matter were both wealthy and patriots, both volunteered to go to Vietnam when it was clear you could wind up dead or worse, 50,000 died in Vietnam, five times that many were wounded. Romney chose to go to France, that’s all. What Mitt would have experienced aside from pride of service in Vietnam is, he would have been thrown together because of the draft, americans from all socio economic circumstances and geographic areas. When a party presents itself as both Holier and More Patriotic than Thou as the GOP does there are greater expectations in those regards. The other concern, given the revelations of Colin Powell in his book about another GOP president with a suspect military record, the pressure to prove he is a man or tough will be extreme should Mitt actually be elected. Bush’s ill-considered, emotional decision to invade Iraq cost 5,000 american lives and three times that many wounded and more than a trillion dollars. Romney has shown himself to be someone with really no secure guiding principles to risk him in charge of a war. Obama has shown his approach to conflict with his handling of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the covert war on al Queda that resulted in the death of bin Laden and many senior operatives. Romney is the person running for president and his personal record with Bain is relevant. At Staples, Bain was one of three early investors. With that exception, Bain’s game plan involved taking over distressed companies with leveraged buyouts, cutting costs (firing people) outsourcing, amping up marketing, borrowing on optimistic projections, distributing the proceeds to themselves, selling the assets, and leaving a bankrupt company. Frankly, Romney has reversed himself so many times, you can’t possibly know what he believes in, other than he really wants to be president. Sorry, character does count.

    • novowel4me says:

      Sorry, I was in a hurry and repeated a line here and there. Enjoy!