Extra

Many readers of the Planet are probably also readers of the online New York Times and may have seen the charts published January 3 about the presidential vote. They showed that compared to support for Romney in 2012 support for Trump from voters with incomes of $30,000 or under increased by 16% and that compared to support for Obama in 2012 support for Clinton from voters with incomes of $200,000 or more increased by 8%. Further, they demonstrated that Trump’s tax plan will be beneficial to high-income Clinton voters and inconsequential to low-income Trump voters. The charts are yet another instance, among many already discussed by pundits, of how Trump voters seem to have sabotaged their own self interest. A similar phenomenon was spun into a book a few years ago by Thomas Frank entitled What’s the Matter with Kansas? What’s less discussed is why liberals also vote against their own self interest. The book yet to be written might be titled What’s the Matter with Marin County?. 

Being one of those liberals I suppose that among the reasons for our votes is that we are willing to pay taxes for good schools and universities, we are socially liberal, support environmental causes, and (maybe) are a bit altruistic about the less fortunate in society. But given the trouncing that many of those less fortunate gave us, I suggest Democrats reconsider some of their long held political positions.  

Guns for example. Rural Americans and lots of others love guns and seem to regard any restrictions on their use as tantamount to castration. So why do liberals insist on making gun control an issue that hurts them at the ballot box? There is little evidence that the federal restriction of assault weapons improved anything or that its expiration caused any harm. Firearm deaths, whether purposeful or accidental, are highest in conservative states like Alaska and Mississippi. So why worry about this issue at the national level? If folks in those states want to kill each other, let them do so and not hand the right wing another cudgel at election time.  

Obamacare. Under then-governor Mitt Romney Massachusetts passed the first version of the affordable care act. Now the Republicans plan to repeal the national version. Okay, let them. Can’t California pass its own state version or, better yet, pass a state version of single payer? If the folks in Kentucky and Wisconsin get sick and die without insurance, that’s what they voted for and what their elected senators and congressmen promised. Why should Democrats expend their limited political capital to save these voters from themselves? Democrats should just be sure that repeal allows states to pass a replacement.  

Israel. In a perfect world our Mideast policy would not be dictated by Sheldon Adelson, but it’s not a perfect world, especially with Senator Schumer as minority leader and evangelical voters who believe their unconditional support of Israel will hasten the Rapture. So, with apologies to J Street and many op-ed writers in the Planet, let the embassy move to Jerusalem and let the settlements continue. If Israel wants to have an Arab majority, that’s their privilege. Note, however, that caving in to Israel does not mean scuttling the Iran nuclear treaty which has broader regional implications. 

Taking these three issues off the table will leave liberals and the remaining Democrats in congress with time and energy to tackle the non-negotiable ones remaining, the most important of which is climate change. It can’t wait four years for action.