As the 2014 election draws closer and as we look forward to 2016, the Democrats are facing an uphill climb. While the punditry concedes this for the 2014 election, many of them treat this as a function of Obama’s low approval numbers and the fact that the election is largely being fought in red states; on territory normally unfriendly for Democrats. However, many pundits view 2016 as a likely, if not guaranteed, Democrat win. This is especially considered to be true if Hillary runs.
However, this conclusion I think ignores some fundamental weaknesses with the Democrats. While people rightly point to the Republican brand problem and conclude that the Democrats will win in 2016, this is not the same thing as saying that the Democrats are strong. The Democrats have some real weaknesses that can and will eventually weigh them down.
The first problem is that (in many ways like the Republicans), they don’t really seem to have real answers to the problems facing the country. While certain individuals such as Paul Ryan has put forward serious plans to deal with the fiscal situation facing the country, the Democrats don’t really offer a serious alternative (unless President Obama’s comment that Ryan’s plan was a “meanwhich” can be considered a serious alternative). While Republicans over the last decade or so can rightly be criticized that their economic programs have consisted of tax cuts and not much else, the Democrats answer to everything has been more government spending. Bringing the American fiscal house in order will require reform and the real reduction of spending at some level. The Democrats proposals for more government spending run counter to this reality.
The second problem is that the Democrats have in many ways evolved into a political party that represents government and those that collect their paychecks directly (government workers, welfare recipients, etc) or indirectly (my privately held employer exists to fill government contracts) from government, and not one that really concerns itself economic growth. This focus on generating more regulations and micromanaging the economy wouldn’t be a problem if the result was more growth and more jobs, but it doesn’t. For an existing economy with no government (think Somalia), putting in some government with stable rules, the power to impartially enforce contracts, and the funding of infrastructure can lead to increased economic growth. However, the United States is far past that point, and the continually increasing of regulations and the power to micro-manage the private sector is inhibiting entrepreneurialism and “animal spirits” that create a dynamic and growing economy. The result is lower job growth and a lower standard of living more broadly. The fact that roughly half of the country still thinks that the country is in a recession (it has been officially over for 5 years) means that the economy is not generating enough jobs to create a broad sense that living standards are rising, regardless of what the employment rate says.
The 3rd problem that is likely to have a negative long term effect on Democrats is that the experience that Americans have with government is becoming increasingly divorced from the experience that they have in other aspects of their lives. While the customer service experience with government has always generally been worse than the one experienced in the private sector, this experience gap is becoming increasingly wide. In many ways, the auto industry in America in the 1960’s and 1970’s was similar to American government at the same time: bloated, inefficient, poor quality product, and a poor customer service experience. However, today things are much improved in the auto sector with higher quality products and a broadly better customer service experience. On the other hand, the DMV experience of the 1970’s is still similar to the DMV experience today. Simply put, you cannot have a world in which the citizen has the power to view any movie they want, any time they want (for a cheap price), a choice of almost any food you want, a choice of dozens of high quality cars, the ability to handle all your financial transactions from your couch, and at the same time have a Soviet-style experience when it comes to government services. It simply isn’t politically sustainable.
Going forward, the Democrats are likely to find that their perceived strength is more the result of Republican weakness. The more people have to deal with government, the more ridiculous will seem the notion that government is a solution. Continuing to pile on regulations, opposing fracking and energy exploration (which would create good, middle class jobs) in areas that will are barely inhabited, and generally showing little concern with private sector job growth, is not likely to improve the perception that the Democrats lack solutions to the problems facing the U.S. Unless the Democrats start to concern themselves with broad economic growth, and not just growing government, the day will come when it is the Democrats, rather than Republicans, who have a brand problem.