Charles Dickens: Oliver Twist asks for more:
Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery.
"Please, sir, I want some more."
"What!" said the master at length, in a faint voice.
'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, "I want some more."
Democrats should change from a redistribution and safety net message to a message of abundance.
Most Americans want more.
I heard from Oregon's Democratic candidate for governor, Tina Kotek. She urged I watch her TV ad. Her voice narrates: "Early on, I worked at Oregon Food Bank, and I still volunteer at my church's food pantry. I've seen people struggle for all kinds of reasons." She goes on about the misery of homelessness and programs to address it.
Dickens' 19th century readers sympathized with poor Oliver, especially since his request was made to the workhouse master, a "fat, healthy man." Oliver needed wealth redistribution. Today's Oregonians recognize that homeless people are miserable. The ad display's Kotek's compassion and her support for programs of redistribution.
I question whether it was a useful ad. It reaffirmed the current message of Democrats: Support for a better safety-net. Better food banks. More and longer unemployment insurance benefits. More addiction services. More tiny houses for temporary shelters. More latitude and support for immigrants. Student loan forgiveness.
What's my concern?
The problem is that most voters consider Band-Aids for poverty both hopeless and a financial sacrifice. It may be necessary and compassionate, but it means less for them. Voters--particularly the working class voters who are now voting Republican--would prefer a message of more. A bigger, stronger economy means a bigger pot, and if the pot is bigger it means aid to the very poor is less of a burden. Better yet, there is still more for themselves. Kotek's ad is not an aspirational message. It is a repair-strategy message.
Democratic message strategist Ruy Teixeira advised Democrats to quit talking about the Green New Deal and instead refocus on creating abundance and talking about that. In hisThe LiberalPatriotposthe said that talk of climate
reflects the priorities of Democratic elites who are primarily interested in redistribution and action on climate change. But voters, especially working class voters, are interested in abundance: more stuff, more growth, more opportunity, cheaper prices, nicer, more comfortable lives.
Growth, particularly productivity growth, is what drives rising living standards over time and Democrats presumably stand for the fastest possible rise in living standards. Faster growth also makes easier the achievement of Democrats’ other goals.
I get pushback from some politically active friends when I suggest abundance should be a Democratic Party message, expressed openly and proudly. "Less is more," they tell me. "We need to walk softly on the land," they say. They tell me we should walk more. Bicycle more. Drive smaller cars. Have smaller houses. Eat food from one's own garden. Recycle, or better yet, don't use things that create recyclable waste. A friend plans to turn off the natural gas at his home and wear sweaters in the winter.
I consider these luxury tastes and opinions, advocated mostly by the very comfortable. In the real world that includes the great mass of American voters, people want jobs that pay better. They want better food, better housing, better education, and better health care. They want more, including more stuff. That is why there is a supply-chain problem; people want more stuff. One gets more when the economy is bigger and there is more to have and to share.
There is a reason merchants advertise sale prices. People want more for less. That is so simple and obvious Democrats can overlook this reality, even people who watch for items to go on sale. Democrats would do better to work with human nature. Democrats are more likely to get the votes they need to implement a green climate agenda if they stop talking about Band-Aids on poverty, and start talking about good jobs in world-class industries done in America by Americans.
We will deal with climate better if voters understand that Democrats think it is morning in America and there is a bright and prosperous future to protect.
Yes to Dems talking abundance! A friend trekking in the Andes in 1977 came back with this story. As he and his trekking partner entered villages and homes where locals had never seen a non-local before, the young people all expressed a desire to move to Lima - where they could get a job to buy a radio. The air in Lima was thick with pollution. The Andes were absolutely beautiful with stunning vistas, clean air, and good subsistence farming. There seemed to be plenty of potatoes and Guinea pigs for meals.
What you describe is like a microcosm of our planet as a whole. The poor and emerging nations, who tend to be suffering most from the effects of climate change, would like to experience the abundance and comforts of freely burning fossil fuels. They want what Americans as a whole have been enjoying for years. And the working class in our own country want to enjoy the abundance they see their wealthy neighbors enjoying.