Who’s the “Party of the Rich” Now?

The special election for U.S. Senate last week revealed some intriguing demographic trends in Massachusetts that present a unique opportunity for the state Republican Party.

Take a look at this map showing margins of victory by town in last week’s election. Notably, Scott Brown generally performed better in exurban towns and less affluent suburbs such as North Andover, Canton, and Reading than in the wealthiest suburbs west of Boston such as Wellesley, Belmont, and Needham. Brown’s margins in many largely middle-class towns were greater than Mitt Romney’s in 2002, which is the last year there was a truly competitive statewide race in Massachusetts. However, Romney performed better than Brown in the upscale western suburbs. What explains this apparent paradox?

These results reflect a larger shift in the demographic makeup of both major political parties, which has been taking place across the country in recent years, culminating in 2008. The Obama coalition that year was formed of three basic demographic elements. The first element was made up of those with the least money in the country; Obama beat out McCain by 48 points among those earning less than $15,000 a year. The second element was made up of many of the wealthiest Americans.

The first element’s support for Obama is not entirely surprising. However, the Democrats’ gains among affluent Americans are somewhat of a surprise, especially given that Republicans have long held a lock on the wealthy vote. For example, as recently as 2004, President Bush won those Americans earning more than $100,000 a year by 17 points, and won those earning more than $200,000 a year by 28 points. In 2008, Obama beat out McCain by 6 points among those earning more than $100,000 a year, a 23 point turnaround in just four years. And Obama tied for the votes of those earning more than $200,000 a year, a 28 point gain from the previous presidential election.

The third element of the Obama coalition was made up of a large number of Americans in between the income extremes, many of whom likely believed he would fulfill his campaign promise to unite Americans by launching a pragmatic, “postpartisan” political era. Indeed, while Bush tied for the votes of those Americans earning in between $30,000-$50,000 a year in 2004, Obama won this group by 12 points in 2008. And while in 2004 Bush won those earning in between $50,000-$75,000 a year by 13 points, Obama tied for the votes of this group four years later. These middle-class voters make up much of the population of the swing districts/states that were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008, mostly in the middle of the country or in non-coastal sections of coastal states. And they are the same voters who have abandoned Obama in droves over the last year as his campaign promises of bipartisanship have been revealed to be mostly hollow.

One explanation for the migration of wealthy Americans to the Democrats in recent years has its roots in the boom of the technology and financial sectors between 1995-2008, which resulted in the rapid acquisition of great wealth among many Americans. This argument holds that such quick accumulation of wealth has weakened the connection for many affluent Americans between wealth and the policies that encourage success (i.e. low tax rates), which held more salience in the years when wealth was acquired as a result of many years of hard work. Among the new elite, social issues and environmental causes apparently trump economic self-interest. This is especially true among the very wealthy. For them, the impact of the recession has been minimal and the tax consequences of grandiose policy schemes are of little concern.

I would argue that the change is also generational. Newly wealthy members of the younger generations who have never known the days of tax rates as high as 90% in the early 1960s may not be aware of the possible long-term consequences of supporting Democrats. I imagine some of these wealthy Americans may begin to shift their party allegiances as those consequences (i.e. tax increases) become more clear in the coming years.

One definitive consequence of this demographic shift is the change in the power base of the Democratic Party. While still powerful, blue collar constituencies such as unions, already weakened because of declining membership, have lost ground to special interest groups funded by wealthy donors like George Soros, such as Moveon.org. And increasing numbers of Democratic candidates come from the ranks of the very wealthy, with the likes of Jon Corzine, Ned Lamont, and Maria Cantwell, among others, spending millions to fund their own campaigns.

These trends are also evident in Massachusetts, which last week’s election showed is not as ideologically homogenous as some pundits would lead us to believe. Indeed, the state Democratic Party here mirrors the national party in that it is an awkward coalition of conservative and liberal factions. In recent years, the wealthy liberal faction has taken over the leadership of the state Democratic party in Massachusetts, as evidenced by the nomination of Deval Patrick and the ascension of his top supporters into state party leadership. However, these changes have not taken place without some public dissatisfaction from conservative Democrats.

In a wise move, Scott Brown took advantage of this intraparty split by making a specific (and successful) appeal to conservative Democrats tired of the obvious elitism of their party leaders. In doing so, he laid out a political blueprint that may serve other Bay State Republicans well this fall.

Indeed, the intraparty split among Democrats is an important development that could be crucial towards making some serious Republican gains in November. It certainly should be eagerly exploited by state Republican leaders, who should take advantage of this dynamic by recruiting candidates from among the ranks of the middle-class “Brown Majority,” especially conservative Democrats and independents. These candidates could, like Scott Brown, begin to represent a new perception of the Republican brand in this state, and attract conservative Democrats as well as large numbers of middle-class independents who are fed up with the arrogance of state and national Democrats. Let’s hope our state Republican leaders take advantage of this unique opportunity. Their decision to do so could be crucial towards exponentially increasing Republican power from the local level on up this fall.

What Soros’ Pot Committee Didn’t Want You To Know

The pro-marijuana group, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, is upset that the Boston Herald revealed that George Soros provides their funding and for suggesting their initiative has ulterior motives.

Backers of a ballot question to decriminalize some pot possession fired back at charges that their initiative is a gateway for weaker drug laws – and took aim at the Herald for uncovering who’s funding the movement.

“(The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy) does not support marijuana ‘legalization’ or endorse or condone marijuana use, as the Herald is well aware” wrote campaign manager Whitney Taylor in an e-mail.

Taylor, who would not be interviewed, also wrote: “The Herald’s effort to confuse Bay Staters into thinking Question 2 is about marijuana legalization is a disservice to voters.”

The Herald reported yesterday that the ballot committee received 30 percent of its money from the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C., group that promotes legal, over-the-counter sales of marijuana.

Overall, $400,000 – 63 percent – of the $635,000 it raised came from George Soros, a billionaire philanthropist. He is on the board of the Drug Policy Alliance Network, a New York group that backs legalization of marijuana.

What wrong with letting the public whose minds you’re trying to influence who is the financial backer of your group? Are they ashamed of George Soros or his money? Why are they so upset about this being reported? People like to know what lobbyists have a financial hold on politicians, why not advocacy groups, too? It’s only fair, seeing as all their money is coming from groups that support the legalization of marijuana, and they claim they don’t support that cause.

Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone said it’s fair to scrutinize the money behind the movement.

“The fact that Question 2 is being financed by activists who support over-the-counter marijuana is further evidence that they have a larger, pro-drug mission,” Leone said in a statement.

Exactly.

The Real Story Behind Jill Carroll’s Release

It’s a real shame that the real story behind Jill Carroll’s release is not at all being discussed. While controversy is brewing over her forced statements, it seems like the heaviest criticism is being levied on “Right-wingers,” according to the UK’s The Telegraph.

The freed American hostage Jill Carroll arrived home after 83 days of captivity in Iraq yesterday – to a barrage of criticism from Right-wingers who accused her of showing too much sympathy for her kidnappers.

Miss Carroll has been under sustained assault from some on the pro-war Right. Bloggers and hosts on the country’s influential talk radio stations have attacked her for stating that she had not been threatened during her confinement.

Others attacked her for wearing Muslim dress and the news channel CNN carried an interview suggesting that she was suffering from “Stockholm Syndrome”, in which victims begin to sympathise with their captors. One blogger called for Miss Carroll to be arrested for treason.

This is quite clearly an attempt by the left wing media (not exclusively the Telegraph, though they are included) to hide the real story behind Jill Carroll’s release and her disavowed statements. Frankly, the liberal mainstream media doesn’t want the action line of the story to be that the terrorists forced Jill Carroll to sound like a bleeding heart liberal.

The real story that is being avoided is that Jill Carroll read a script at the terrorists’ gun point that could just as easily been written by Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Ted Kennedy, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, George Soros, Sen. Russ Feingold, or Michael Moore. You may also to that list: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein, and all the cowardly masked terrorists you see in videos released by al Jazeera. The real story here is that the terrorists used Jill Carroll to spread their propaganda, the same propaganda that is commonly professed by the anti-war left wing of the United States, including prominent Democratic members of Congress.

The criticisms of Jill Carroll’s statement were made prior to having known that she was forced to say things. On top of that, she said what she said so she could be released. Without knowing the nature of the comments and the conditions under which they were made, the questions that were asked about the statements were valid. Once the truth came out, that she was under duress, that she was just trying to be released, that changes the story, but doesn’t mean that apologies are necessary. There were legitimate questions that arose from her bizarre comments, and upon her release, we got the answer behind the comments. People were right to question the comments, and as it turned out, there was something questionable about what she said: she was told she would be released if she said these things, and like many of us, she did what she thought she needed to do to get out of the situation alive. It worked. (Do you have any doubt that if Jill Carroll came out tomorrow and said that the War in Iraq is just, and we must defeat terrorism, that liberals would call her Kool-aid drinking right-wing lunatic? Of course they would.)

I know some folks out there are suggesting that Jill Carroll should not have said those things as a barter for her release. I, however, will give her a pass on that. As a journalist, she did not go to Iraq to risk her life, though by going she did put her life at risk. She’s not expected as a journalist to die for a cause–our military, however, know that they are putting their lives on the line, and you would expect a nember of the military to endure far greater hardships (i.e., torture) before breaking. I do not castigate Jill Carroll for do what she could to be released.

It’s time to make this story what it ought to be. The left wing media is trying to make this story about how evil the right wing is, when in fact, the story should be about this latest example of how ideologically aligned the liberals are with terrorists. This is not the first example, and it certainly won’t be the last.