Should the Democrats move to the left on economic policy?

[Phx_Dem]

Abstract

Could John Kerry have gained votes in the recent Presidential election by more
clearly distinguishing himself from George Bush on economic policy? At first thought,
the logic of political preferences would suggest not: the Republicans are to the right
of most Americans on economic policy, and so in a one-dimensional space with party
positions measured with no error, the optimal strategy for the Democrats would be to
stand infinitesimally to the left of the Republicans. The median voter theorem suggests
that each party should keep its policy positions just barely distinguishable from the
opposition.

In a multidimensional setting, however, or when voters vary in their perceptions of
the parties’ positions, a party can benefit from putting some daylight between itself
and the other party on an issue where it has a public-opinion advantage (such as eco-
nomic policy for the Democrats). We set up a plausible theoretical model in which the
Democrats could achieve a net gain in votes by moving to the left on economic policy,
given the parties’ positions on a range of issue dimensions. We then evaluate this model
based on survey data on voters’ perceptions of their own positions and those of the
candidates in 2004.

Under our model, it turns out to be optimal for the Democrats to move slightly to
the right but staying clearly to the left of the Republicans’ current position on economic
issues.

A little esoteric but interesting.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/shift.pdf

[DURHAM D]

1. Ok - I quickly look through this document . . .

If they indicated exactly what a "move to the left" in economic policy would actually be - I missed it.

What do you think a party or candidate could articulate that the voters would actually catch on to?

[Phx_Dem]

4. fair trade?

protecting american workers?

[papau]

5. It is buzzword measurement - not policy evaluation Find a word that an

issue group likes and, if you can attach it to socialism , you get socialism after the election - and that works for both the GOP and Dems and indeed for the same position on socialism. In other words - if the happy talk buzzword gets attached to a GOP policy that on analysis is socialism, the "conservative" voters will vote in socialism along with the GOP - if they can.

Few think about policy positions when they cast their vote - beyond some simple concept/buzzword that tested well in the issue group polling.

[whistle]

2. No they should focus on ending Iraq war, exposing 9/11 as an inside job

...and nail BushCo/republicans and voting machine/counting companies for fraud. Th eeconomy will imploid just fine on its own.

[Oversea Visitor]

3. What a lefy right economy

Gee always think is was up or down :rofl:

[ProudDad]

6. The article seems to assume

a party with no principles other than "winning"...

Haven't the Dems been trying that for a couple of decades now...

Repuke light is STILL repuke light. This article is ignoring the fact that most people vote with their emotions, NOT their brains.

The Dems will have to learn to voice a clear option vs. the repukes if they want to win (and deserve to win).

on edit:

MY GOD, this article is such amoral DRIVEL.

[theanarch]

7. all i know is, FDR campaigned on the slogan of...

"...Vote Yourself a Job" and won...four times. Since 2000, Democrats have campaigned on "Give the Middle Class a Tax Credit"...and lost...twice. Go figure...

[ProudDad]

8. That's because the Middle Class

is getting hammered and they would "like a job" too!!!

You don't get no f*ckin' tax credits if you get laid off!

The class divide should be hammered into the minds of the American people. There are two classes, those who've inherited enough to never have to worry about money -- who live off the interest on the assets they've inherited and the REST OF US -- THE WORKING CLASS.

There IS a class war and folks, we've been losing. The working class INCLUDES all of those people who consider themselves "middle class", they've just been brainwashed into believing that they have nothing in common with the "lower" classes, whom they've been taught to fear.

When all of us who are living paycheck to paycheck (or without paychecks) realize where our interests lie the two right-wings of the business party will continue to win...

[theophilus]

15. "Vote yourself a GOOD job and save the planet" might work in this

day and age. The Democrats need to never let the people forget that our planet is dying. If we continue with fossil fuel burning we are "cooked". FDR style government programs are needed to build and install solar panels and windmills, etc. literally everywhere. Hard choices must be made but if Democrats appear to have a plan, eventually, the poor drought stricken or hurricane battered masses will come around......if they want to survive. Change WILL happen.

[boolean]

9. Moderate capitalistic socialism is the best economic policy

That's how I see "the left" in terms of economic policy. Communism doesn't work, but socialism does in many areas.

I believe in capitalism as the best economic system there is, but only when there exists a government to check and balance it. Obviously, with corporations running the current government, you end up with the unfair advantage of rich vs. poor in the current capitalistic environment.

The government should NOT stick its nose in:
1) Perfectly competitive products and services
2) Commodities
3) Trade

The government SHOULD regulate and monitor:
1) Essential services such as electricity, water, etc.
2) POLLUTION CONTROLS
3) Monopolies

The government should CONTROL and RUN:
1) Health care
2) Education
3) Infrastructure

A capitalistic, yet socialist system has a proven track record. See Canada, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, France, Spain, Germany, the UK, hell, pretty much all of Europe. And to all the DLC and freeper trolls here: DO NOT fall for the propaganda that Europe is a third world shit hole where everybody is poor and hungry because of their economic system. They are doing FAR BETTER than the west. Just go visit and see.

[alvarezadams]

13. You might be interested in...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/alvarezadams/3

And FWIW, I live in Europe and am noting the influence of rw thinktanks and neolib economics. The AEI's, Heritage's and Cato's have their mirrors over here and they share resources - and the entire social system is being questioned ... and eroded... by the European rw.

[johnaries]

17. I couldn't agree more. You are exactly right.

We need a BALANCED economic policy, and you laid it out perfectly. Of course, the term "socialism" has such a negative connotation in our society it would be best to avoid it. How about a return to caveat vendor"let the seller beware" as opposed to caveat emptor"let the buyer beware".

Those who support laissez-faire economic policy have forgotten history. They should go back and read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Or just study Teddy Roosevelt's administration.

Laissez-faire is supposed to encourage "individualism". However, individuals do not have the resources that corporations have. Yes, individuals can sue corporations, but can't afford the team of expert lawyers that corporations have and are at a huge disadvantge. We need government to "balance the playing field".

How about this: a policy of Economic Civil Rights? How's that for a "buzzword"?

edit: This gives me an idea. I'm going to post a thread in GD, because I think more DU'ers need to talk about this and many GD posters seldom visit GDP. boolean, mind if I quote you? Along with a link to your post, of course.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. My God, that is my personal policy statement EXACTLY!

I wouldn't change one word. It's the only thing that makes sense. The single word - "socialism" dooms this construct for many people. They seem to think that if this model took hold that somehow they would be forced to wear thick brown clogs and eat herring and cabbage.

It's all in the marketing - moderate capitalistic socialism (while an accurate description) is not gonna cut it. I'm gonna mull this over and get back to you.

[LittleClarkie]

10. The only problem I have with talk like this is it seems so calculating

Like we're not standing where we think we are right, but rather where we think we will get the most votes.

[Phx_Dem]

14. I know what you mean

I guess the thinking is that a good strategy can get you elected. Check out the scatterplots in figure 2, that's the problem. The dems are so close to the cons in economic policy that it moves us away from where the voters are.

[Nitty-Gritty]

11. Their hands are tied because their source of funds is mainly corporations

That makes it very very difficult to advocate progessive economic policies, but it CAN be done. After all, what is good for the most of us is also good for ALL of us, and that includes corporations.

[Phx_Dem]

16. very true. nt

[meow2u3]

12. Hell, yeah!

If we want to get back the working class on our side, we have to emphasize liberal economic policies, including strengthening unions and social programs which prevent social problems, even if it means we have to put the usual wedge social issues (God, guns, and gays) on the back burner--in fact, bickering over bedroom issues has no place in reasoned debate and are only useful for purposes of demagoguery.