Mr. Romney, for his part, apparently believes this narrative as well. In a conference call to major donors, he speculated that President Obama won because he was "very generous" to blacks, Hispanics, and young college voters, and that "the president's campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift - so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars." In a recent post-election interview, he told Chris Wallace of Fox News, that "we did very well with the majority population, but not with minority populations, and that was a failing, that was a real mistake,” and that “I think the 'Obamacare' attractiveness and feature was something we underestimated, particularly among lower incomes.”
There's a few problems with this mindset. For one, breaking down the 125 million or so Americans who voted last year into simplistic categories, such as "makers" or "takers," is an ill-suited approach to understanding the deeper reasons of why and who they vote for.
It's problematic for the Republicans because the prevalence of this narrative only perpetuates the problems they have with minority demographics in the first place. If Republicans are going to openly and cynically speculate that blacks, Hispanics, women, and young people are shiftless freeloaders who's only motivation for voting is to receive handouts from their elected officials, then those same voters will happy oblige them by continuing to vote for the party that doesn't insult them.
Finally, it's problematic because it's all bullshit.
Truth is, there's nothing particularly wrong with voting for the party or candidate you genuinely feel is going to better your lot in life. "Are you any better off now than you were 4 years ago?" Ronald Reagan asked voters on the eve of his election. It's a legitimate question. As such, voting for the candidate that is going to make health care more accessible, college more affordable, and public infrastructure stronger in your community is a legitimate choice.
But even if we accept the Republicans' simplistic "makers" and "takers" premise, it's still empirically false. This is because Democratic voters aren't the "takers."
As I wrote in a previous post, the 3 big ticket federal items are Social Security, Medicare, and military expenditures.
Who receives Social Security benefits and Medicare? Senior citizens.
Who votes for Republicans? Senior citizens:
Thus, the recipients of the largest entitlements our government has to offer are more likely to vote for the Republicans.
Seemingly aware of this, the Romney campaign pushed an attack add in which they claimed the Obama Administration "robbed" Medicare of $716 billion and transferred it to 'Obamacare,' and promised to "stop the raid on Medicare," thus peddling some 'freebies' of their own to likely constituents.
Some senior citizens bristle at the notion that their Social Security and Medicare benefits are entitlements, given that they typically "pay into" such programs their entire working lives. But it's also true that an average retiree is likely to get even more back in benefits than what they paid in, in taxes, over their careers. As such, it's entirely appropriate to compare these programs to other areas of government spending that benefit specific demographics. Social Security and Medicare are not unique.
Furthermore, the Romney campaign promised an additional $2 trillion in military spending. Undoubtedly, defense contractors were excited to vote for the candidate that promised this particular 'freebie.'
The truth is, Republicans aren't thinking of Social Security, Medicare, and military spending when they claim that the Obama Administration "focused on giving targeted groups a big gift." They're typically referring to means-tested welfare programs and welfare recipients, which they prefer to think consists entirely of Democratic voters.
But SNAP and TANF combined, as I previously wrote, consumes a mere 2-3% of the federal budget. Furthermore, hinging your electoral strategy on lower income voters is a bad strategy indeed, given that, by and large, poor people don't vote. This was just as true in 2012 as it was in previous elections - only some 20% of voters claimed to earn $30,000 a year or less:
If you want to win an election, you're better off casting a wider net and promising 'freebies' to the middle class and the affluent.
The latter, it seems, would explain Mitt Romney's strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment