High Prices Leaving Dark Mark on Families
Feb. 25, 2024
A sizeable number of families across the country are hurting financially – no matter if the experts and certain media observers insist the economy is booming.
“It’s hard times for most folks I know.” – Independent from Middletown, Ohio
“My family is drowning and we aren’t alone.” – Democrat from Black Canyon City, Ariz.
“It’s defeating and incredibly sad to work as hard as we do, get raises, but are struggling. Food costs are almost unbearable.” – Independent from Bishopville, S.C.
The common thread running through these and many more statements, all collected from Our Common Purpose’s just completed nationwide survey on the 2024 presidential election, is the higher cost of living.
Respondents say they are stressed not only by the high cost of food but also housing, utilities, gasoline, all types of insurance. A large number of their comments, which in the past have been referred to here as “Voices of America,” were plaintive. More than a few were desperate. One respondent talked of doing something drastic. Another, unfortunately, was openly suicidal.
The hardship and angst they’re feeling isn’t accepted by the liberal media observers who staunchly believe any negative assessment of the economy is off-base. This is the know-it-alls telling people what they should be thinking rather than going to the trouble of looking into what they are thinking. How, they ask, could anyone reasonably complain with employment so high, the stock market at all-time highs, and inflation supposedly now so under control? They mockingly describe the condition we have not as the recession that was feared but as a “vibe-cession.”
No question, there’s plenty of bad vibes going around. It’s hard to explain away data such as that coming out of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard that claims 650,000 people are homeless and 42 million households are “cost-burdened” – meaning they pay more than one-third of their income for housing.
Much to the dismay of President Biden, the crisis of high costs might be the best thing going for Donald Trump. A near majority of the respondents to the poll feel they are worse off today than they were three years ago. And of those with that negative outlook, two-thirds say they will vote for Trump.
Overall, the just-completed Our Common Purpose poll shows Trump leading Biden, 47% to 39%, with 10% favoring third-party candidates and 5% undecided. The nationwide canvass of 1,550 voters, conducted by Survey USA Feb. 10-12, has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.
An important caveat bears mention. Up to one-third of the electorate say they are wavering or undecided. In particular, supporters of third-party candidates might re-evaluate their votes. Based on past experience, Survey USA believes those voters will eventually opt for a candidate who can feasibly become President. Things could change before November, but for now Trump has a distinct edge.
The comments provided by poll respondents show that in some corners, partisanship is alive and nasty. Some statements are pure GOP animus, occasionally expressed with gutter profanity. In their minds, Biden has never and will never do anything right. Conversely, other respondents acknowledged they are doing just fine financially, in part due to the booming stock market. They gave credit to Biden.
For example, just to highlight the difference, these two responses came in one right after the other:
“I hate it and can’t wait til Biden gets out.” – Independent from Laurel, Miss.
“I don’t think enough has been said of the accomplishments of Pres. Biden.” – Democrat from North Babylon, NY.
Even putting aside those who are eager to assess blame or credit, there’s no getting away from the elephant in the room. A full 92% of voters responding to this poll consider the economy to be a very important or critical issue. Their biggest beef is with inflation – or rather the increased prices that came from inflation.
This angst isn’t exclusively owned by one political party or the other. To the fortunate, high prices are simply aggravating. To those without a financial safety net, the implications are far more serious.
“We don’t have enough money to survive or to pay our bills.” – Republican from South Portland, Maine
“We can’t afford groceries anymore. You have to choose which bills to pay and sometimes you have to choose whether you’re going to pay the bills or buy groceries.” – Independent from Louisa, Ky.
“If prices of rents and food don’t drop, I will have to do something drastically.” – Democrat from Lawrenceville, GA.
Among the hardest hit are the elderly. The cost-of-living increases in Social Security aren’t keeping up with the cost of living.
“Just feels like I can’t afford to live and, being elderly, this scares the hell out of me!” – 73-year-old Democrat from Bakersfield, Calif.
“People on fixed incomes have to choose to eat or pay bills. We get very small COLA in our social security checks, and what little we get is sucked up by Medicare.” – 69-year-old Republican from Uvalda, Ga.
But it’s not just the seniors. Young people are also feeling the pinch.
“Utilities are up $110 from last year. Gas for the car is up. Insurance is up. Food prices way up on needed items. I just can’t keep up any more.” – 19-year-old Republican from New Richmond, Wis.
“Makes getting groceries a tooth-pulling miserably stressful task, knowing you’ll have to blow a ridiculous amount of money for far less groceries than you would even a year ago.” – 20-year-old Democrat from Midland, Mich.
Few if any are buying that this is over.
“Food prices keep rising even though the government says differently.” – Republican from Gipsonburg, Ohio
“I keep hearing inflation has dropped but the $0.49 can of vegetables increased to $0.79 and is now $0.89. That is NOT going down!” – Independent from Merritt Island, Fla.
“Need some de-flation.” – Democrat from Farmingville, N.Y.
To be clear, these laments do not reflect every reply to the survey. A sizeable number do not offer any further comment. As outlined earlier, a number of others either attack or defend the President’s record. A few mention being laid off and the difficulties of finding work.
But the theme repeated over and over is the damage done by higher prices. The litany of complaints makes clear that many across the country have been and continue to be impacted. While certain media observers might not want to hear it, here’s the bottom line:
“Grocery prices are just way too high. Until those come down, nobody is going to have a good attitude about the economy.” – Democrat from Opelika, Ala.
The consequences, quiet as they might be, are felt every day. As such, they will bear heavily on the 2024 presidential election.
Inflation Over, Sticker Shock Isn’t
Feb. 11, 2024
Bacon, eggs and toast for breakfast. Meat loaf and potatoes for dinner. Ice cream and chocolate-chip cookies for dessert.
The sticker shock that hits you while filling the grocery cart is real. The cost of these items, along with the rest of Our Common Purpose’s hypothetical weekly shopping list for a household of four, has jumped 28% since 2020.
And that’s best case. It assumes someone in the household is willing and able to prepare those meals every day. The Consumer Price Index doesn’t track most of the processed, and presumably more expensive, foods that have become a greater part of the national diet. Additionally, by the way, it also doesn’t track staples such as peanut butter and jelly nor most vegetables other than romaine lettuce and tomatoes.
That makes for something of an imperfect exercise in gauging the increase in food costs for a household of four, but it’s reassuring that this computation of 28% is snug up against the Washington Post’s independent calculation of 28.5%. In any event, the exercise shines light with whatever precision on what we’re all experiencing.
We know about eggs, which even though the price has come down, still cost $2.50 a dozen today versus $1.48 in 2020. A loaf of white bread has jumped from $1.53 in 2020 to $2.02 today. A bag of chocolate chip cookies has risen from $3.79 to $5.12. Ground beef is up from $3.95 per pound to $5.21. A 12-ounce can of orange juice concentrate has gone from $2.33 to $3.71. A pound of sugar is up from 67 cents to 96 cents. A can of soda has risen from 39 cents to 57 cents.
Overall, Our Common Purpose’s analysis of the Consumer Price Index data shows that grocery prices jumped 7.7% in 2021 and another 19.3% in 2022, before actually dropping 0.8% in 2023.
With that leveling off, the Fed is claiming and prominent media pundits are crowing that inflation has been tamed. But while the Biden administration is doing its best to downplay inflation and more generally the overall economy as being valid issues in the upcoming election, issues they remain.
The economy registered more concern than any other issue in Our Common Purpose’s public opinion survey of the battleground states conducted in December, with 89% of voters calling it either critical or very important. And when respondents were given an open-ended opportunity to say what issues were on their mind, they mentioned inflation more frequently than anything else.
Biden’s problem being that while inflation has cooled, the higher prices it caused have not gone away. A cart of groceries that cost $100 to purchase in 2019 and 2020 costs $128 today. It’s the same data but looked at in different ways. One view shows the rate of change. Inflation has slowed down. The other view shows the result. Prices remain high.
All this got started with panic buying due to the pandemic, which then turned into global supply issues. This on top of unpredictable weather and a variety of other problems. There was the widespread outbreak of bird flu that caused the jump in egg and chicken prices. The increased price of sugar is blamed on unusually dry weather that damaged harvests in India and Thailand. The increase in potato chips is said to be caused by an increase in the cost of sunflower oil.
It doesn’t stop. Here on the eve of Valentine’s Day, the price of chocolates is expected to increase due to the price of cocoa futures being driven up by bad weather in West Africa.
And what goes up doesn’t necessarily come down. The Consumer Price Index data is sprinkled lightly with food prices that declined in 2023. Eggs was the big one. Tomatoes, cheddar cheese, strawberries and pork chops came down modestly. But for the most part, what goes up stays up.
Who knows how much of the cost of soda pop is attributable to the can it comes in, but the large increase in soda prices beginning in 2021 was attributed by Reuters to a run-up in the price of aluminum. Aluminum peaked in April 2022 and has since decreased, but the price of soda remains higher than ever.
The chief financial officer of Coca-Cola Co. has been often quoted from the 2nd-quarter earnings call of 2022 for blaming “other costs, including wages, transportation, media and operating expenses are also increasing and adding incremental pressures.”
(“Media” would include, for instance, the $7 million it will take for Coca-Cola to buy a 30-second spot in today’s Super Bowl. According to CBS, that’s up from $4.5 million in 2019. Hard-pressed consumers will find little solace in knowing some portion of their food dollars is funding the football money machine.)
Inflation is frequently attributed to inflation. The circularity of cause and effect seems nonsensical, but there is something to it. For one, higher costs of ingredients inevitably lead to the higher price of the finished product. For another, suppliers raise their prices because they can. With all the other price increases providing air cover, why not join the fun?
Which is what puts us in this jam. Food prices are coming close to qualifying as common purpose. They certainly amount to common concern. Voters clearly expected some greater response from the government than what they got. In France, for comparison, the Macron Administration has attempted to force the big supermarket chains to resist price increases from their suppliers.
The Biden Administration is stuck on what do. Presidential task forces come and go with regularity. What’s the harm of naming another to delve into food prices? The problem being there is a major downside in seeming to take responsibility for something over which, in our free enterprise system, the federal government has no control.
The administration could, however, gain a little credit by more proactively shining a light on what we’re all experiencing along the grocery aisles. Late in the game as this is, it could authorize the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to augment the Consumer Price Index to spotlight who is raising prices, and more favorably who is rolling them back.
A little exposure might be just enough disincentive to slow down the serial increasers. And it would allow Biden to say in a concrete way, “Hey, we’re doing something.”
Pocketbook Issues Keep Arising
Jan. 14, 2024
The big issue in this year’s election is not abortion, even as outraged as many women (and men) are. It’s not climate change, no matter that it’s getting hotter and hotter. It’s not the fate of the Gaza Strip. Strangely enough, it’s not even the security of our own borders, though that concerns many.
All of these problems will surely factor into the outcome but the most recent public opinion survey commissioned by Our Common Purpose indicates the make-or-break issues are much closer to home.
It’s paying the rent, buying gasoline, making ends meet. It’s the cost of medicine, the cost of health care for those who can find it. It’s stretching the paycheck or the stipend from Social Security. It’s about getting by.
The economy ranked as the country’s largest issue in the poll, with 89% either calling it critical or very important. The poll, conducted for Our Common Purpose by Survey USA during the first week of December, surveyed 880 likely voters in the six key battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The predominance of the economy is entirely consistent with other polls. Even so, how it stacks up against other major issues of the day still comes as something of a surprise. Abortion has been so argued about and climate change so worried about, but they take a backseat along with today’s other major policy questions.
The emphasis on the economy has left some commentators sputtering. Isn’t Wall Street running at all-time highs? Isn’t the joblessness rate about as low as it can go? Didn’t the country avoid the hard kerplunk of a recession?
Certain op-ed columnists will go to their death beds wondering how the numbers could be so good and the vibe be so bad. What they see as unwarranted pessimism has created what they call a “vibe-cession,” which they variously attribute to the lag time it takes for consumers to accept price increases to residual gloom from the pandemic to predictable partisanship.
The situation frustrates the President as well. Why isn’t he getting more credit for the series of stimulus packages that kept the economy from tanking in the worst days of the pandemic?
From a macro perspective, all of them are right. The economy is certainly humming along. But “economy” is a catchall term that can encompass any number of connotations and intended meanings.
When respondents to the Our Common Purpose poll were given an open-ended opportunity to list in their own words what they saw as other important issues, their most frequent response was inflation. In the words of one, “How we are gonna build the economy back to where a gallon of milk doesn’t cost $4?”
Mentions of inflation were followed in frequency by the cost and availability of health care, then by the generic response of “economy.” These and the variety of related concerns can be grouped under the familiar heading of “pocketbook issues.” Together they made up a near majority of the responses.
“Health, jobs, housing,” is the succinct summation of an older white woman, a Republican, from a small town outside of Atlanta.
“Everything that deals with our well-being,” is the way a young Black man, a political independent from Philadelphia, sums it up.
Their more micro perspective is where the op-ed commentators have it all wrong. Pocketbook issues almost always come front and center in an election, and there are plenty of reasons for it now, as anyone who has been in a grocery store recently will be quick to tell you.
Prices for food, rent, and gas are higher. Interest rates are higher. Meanwhile, the stimulus checks and other forms of assistance from the pandemic have long since disappeared.
Of course, those worst hit are the most vulnerable, but it’s not limited to them. Gallup began tracking the impact of inflation in November 2021. The number of respondents reporting at least some financial hardship kept rising in a succession of Gallup polls, reaching 61% of all households in May of last year.
That inflation has slowed in recent months is like saying a dangerous storm has passed without recognizing the massive damage it left behind. Higher prices didn’t suddenly go away. They’re now permanently affixed to every item on the shelves.
One measure of the stress is that credit card debt has now topped $1 trillion. The U.S. Government Accountability Office says that stimulus checks and other forms of assistance helped cardholders reduce their debt levels during the pandemic but inflation now has undone all that. Making matters worse, the interest rate on unpaid balances has ballooned above 20%.
In this age of economic disparity, once again the rising tide is not raising all boats. Solutions are hard to come by but the media, as well as the President, need to start by acknowledging the pain, rather than denying its existence, and then go on to forthrightly consider the ramifications.
Failing to do so, they risk missing the festering discontent that caught Hillary Clinton, pollsters and media observers by surprise in 2016. The same could cost Joe Biden the election in 2024.
–Richard Gilman
Making Our Case in USA Today
This appeal to our better angels, co-authored with Will Johnson, CEO of the Harris Poll, was just published by USA Today.
Not us vs. them: How Republicans and Democrats can unite ahead of 2024 (usatoday.com)
On the eve of 2024, here’s wishing you health and happiness in the coming year. It’s a year that likely will test our core principles as a country. Let’s resolve to rise above the partisan divide by doing what we can to find ways of working together.
Options to Biden-Trump Look Dim in Poll
Dec. 27, 2023
Those wishing to avoid another smash-up between Joe Biden and Donald Trump had better get their act together in a hurry. The only outside hope at the moment is Nikki Haley, and it’s a distant one.
Our recent poll shows that the upcoming Republican primaries and a nascent third-party presidential campaign that has nettled Democrats are thus far drawing little more than a yawn in the six key battleground states. This disinterest will come as a severe disappointment to those who are hoping somehow to avoid a reprise of 2020, or more pointedly are opposed to a second term for the past president or, for others, the current president.
The public opinion surveys done for Our Common Purpose have consistently shown that Americans want better for the country than what we have. But the latest iteration of the poll, focusing specifically on the 2024 presidential election, shows that our better angels don’t always win out.
Despite all the evidence of damage done by division – witness the dysfunction in Congress – and the good that common sense tells us would come of working together, we persist in hunkering down in our partisan trenches.
The poll, conducted by Survey USA in the first week of December, explored a series of what if scenarios with 880 likely voters. What happens if it’s again Trump versus Biden? What happens, given all the attention being paid to the upcoming GOP primaries, if the candidate ends up being someone other than Trump? What happens if a third-party candidate mounts a real challenge?
The top line shows Trump leading Biden by the razor-thin margin of one percentage point, 44% to 43%, across the aggregate of six battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). That’s a tad tighter than other polls have shown but some variation is to be expected with a margin of error of +/- 4%.
More concerning is that with more than 10 months to go before the election, fully 75% of the respondents (38% for Trump and 37% for Biden) say they are locked into their votes.
This even though many acknowledge they have concerns with their own candidate. While it’s Trump who is embroiled in legal problems, it’s Biden’s supporters who are more inclined to worry about their own guy with 11% admitting to serious concerns and another whopping 53% to some concerns.
They’ll be voting for Biden anyway because their concerns about Trump are even more pronounced. More than 4 of 10 of respondents say their vote will be determined as much or more by their concerns about the opposition candidate, this is equally the case on both sides of the fence, than by the considerable policy issues faced by the nation.
The striking thing is that despite their concerns they are nonetheless channeling their attention on the Big Two, rather than considering the alternatives.
If 75% are firm for Trump or Biden, that leaves only 25% who at this juncture could be classified as “persuadable.” They are either wavering in their support of one candidate or the other, aren’t decided, or couldn’t support either one if they were the only two in the race.
Out of deference to the sitting President, Democrats aren’t offering up any alternatives. but what if Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley were to displace Trump on the GOP side? The poll shows that in the battleground states, at least at the moment, neither fares as well as Trump. Both trailed by 8 percentage points in head-to-head matches against Biden.
The only ray of hope is that more voters – in particular independents – say they are as yet undecided about Haley. In the matchup of Trump versus Biden, 14% of independents say they wouldn’t vote and 11% are undecided. With Haley versus Biden, those numbers go up to 18% and 20%.
What about adding a third-party candidate to the mix? The poll shows voters in the battleground states aren’t much interested in that possibility either.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has declared as an independent, draws 12% support in a three-person field with Biden and Trump. Joe Manchin, who hasn’t declared anything but stands as perhaps the most prominent of the spokesmen for the No Labels initiative that has Democrats screaming spoiler, attracts a mere 5% against Biden and Trump.
Of course, lots can change on the campaign trail or in the courtroom before November. Other polls show Haley gaining ground in New Hampshire. With a good showing there, voters in the battleground states likely will pay her more notice. That’s about the best chance there is for breaking up the Biden-Trump monopoly.
But for the moment anyway, voters in the battleground states appear to prefer seeing the two heavyweights, rampant distrust of Trump in the one corner and misgivings about Biden in the other, duking it out to the finish. As if this will settle matters.
Yes, there will be a winner, albeit likely a disputed one. Whoever wins, the animus will go unabated. We will squander the opportunity for the fresh start the country desperately needs, and instead double down once again on the partisanship that divides us. Sad to say, a good portion of the responsibility will rest with we the voters.
–Richard Gilman
Moderates Missing the Fire
Nov. 26, 2023
The extreme ends of the political spectrum monopolize the discussion, dominate the media, and give the everlasting impression we are a country divided.
We moderates, who logically should be the bridge-builders spanning the big divide, stand by largely powerless.
That’s not happenstance. We moderates come up short on leadership, a platform, and on passion. Each of these deficiencies is a topic onto itself, in totality involving much too much information to present or digest all at once. Let’s limit ourselves here to the question of passion, the least explored of the shortcomings.
Our Common Purpose devoted a good portion of one of its periodic public opinion surveys, this was conducted two years ago by Survey USA, to exploring whether personality differences line up with political differences. Are conservatives fire-breathing monsters? Are liberals warm and fuzzy pushovers? Are moderates milquetoasts?
The answers are to a degree reassuring. We are pre-conditioned by continuous vitriol and disparagement to expect the worst of those on the other side. But at least according to how survey respondents see themselves, we surprisingly track together more often than we might think. In fact, there is no appreciable difference between conservatives, moderates and liberals on 11 of the 27 personality traits that were examined.* Those of all political affiliations lean more toward:
Taking charge, rather than following others.
Getting organized, rather than taking things as they come.
Adjusting to circumstances, rather than doing as planned.
Hearing out others, rather than persuading them.
Smoothing things over, rather than arguing the case.
Assisting others when needed, rather than figuring it’s on them.
Even where differences emerge, those of varying political ideologies are not – in aggregate – totally opposite of each other. They all generally trend in the same direction, just to greater or lesser degrees.
So, for instance, each persuasion is more inclined to follow the news than not be interested. While liberals average +47 and conservatives +26 on the side of following the news, those in the middle come in at just +15. Moderates follow the news, but on average the interest is lukewarm.
This pattern repeats. Contrary to what we might expect, the biggest such differences – particularly involving traits that have a more direct bearing on political involvement – are not between conservatives and liberals, but with moderates. In contrast with those on either side of the political spectrum, those in the middle tend on the margin to be:
Less interested in politics.
Less interested in following the news.
Less likely to speak their mind and, in general, slightly less talkative.
Slightly more inclined to second-guess themselves.
More likely to wait to join in until they’re invited, rather than initiating.
Put this together and in aggregate we moderates profile as holding back. We are not just moderate in ideology. We practice moderation. At best this might be characterized as ambivalence. At worst, aversion. Only 17% of those in the moderate category regard themselves as heavily engaged with politics. That compares with 33% of the “very conservatives” and 45% of the “very liberals”. **
This finding sheds new light on why those on the extremes get all the attention. It’s not just that many of them are willing to assert themselves. They get to shout loudly as they want because there’s pretty much no one else in the arena. It also helps explain why so much attention is paid to so-called “swing voters.” We are docile sheep waiting to be enticed in one direction or the other.
For anyone wanting moderates to push their own agenda, these conclusions are not encouraging. The lower level of involvement could be one of those chicken-and-egg questions. Does the lack of passion explain the lack of leadership and agenda? Or does the absence of leadership and agenda give moderates nothing to be passionate about?
Whichever, the absence of a countervailing force in the middle is not good for the country. We moderates have to find a way to overcome our personalities if we expect to build any bridges.
–Richard Gilman
Notes on methodology:
*Respondents were asked to evaluate where they put themselves on a 201-point scale (-100 to +100) for 27 traits. A particular trait would be shown at one end of the scale and the opposite behavior at the other end. For instance, “In group settings, I speak my mind . . . hold my tongue.”
**Respondents were placed into one of five categories – very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal – based on how they placed themselves on the same 201-point scale. They also rated their own engagement in politics. So of those who ended up in the moderate classification, only 17% gave themselves high marks for engagement.
Thank Goodness for Thanksgiving
Nov. 19, 2023
Thank goodness for Thanksgiving.
Gathering with family and friends, cooking and consuming way too much food, recognizing our many blessings, this is one day when we come together in communal spirit.
In one of its periodic public-opinion surveys, Our Common Purpose last year asked 2,500 respondents to decide which of a list of American institutions and practices unite or divide us. While 8 of the 28 factors were regarded as divisive, 20 were judged to be unifying to one degree or another.
Thanksgiving finished at the top of the list, tied with the liberty we enjoy and a grouping of our patriotic holidays.
True, not everyone is a fan (one of every 10 respondents find Thanksgiving to some degree divisive), and all of us could do without the dreaded annual encounter with Cousin Vinny.
But at least for this one day of the year, the great majority of us are on the same page. It’s another small reason to give thanks. And to pray for more of the same.
Happy Thanksgiving!
This Is “Democracy”?
Nov. 5, 2023
This is what democracy is about, crowed several ringleaders of the recent unpleasantness in the U.S. House of Representatives.
For one, the new Speaker himself said of his election: “Democracy is messy sometimes, but it is our system.”
Well slow down, Mr. Speaker. If you believe what happened in the House is democracy at work, you better go back to civics class.
It’s democracy when in January a small band of ultraconservatives hold hostage the large majority of their fellow Republicans, not to mention the House as a whole, by denying their votes to Kevin McCarthy until he coughs up a bunch of promises and concessions?
It’s democracy when eight of these ultraconservatives buck the wishes of the majority of their Republican brethren to orchestrate the subsequent ouster of McCarthy?
It’s democracy when Rep. Steve Scalise wins majority support within the Republican caucus to replace McCarthy, but has to withdraw when in contravention of congressional tradition, the loser won’t throw his support to the winner? And the loser then gets rewarded by becoming the proposed Speaker, only for him to lose once again on the House floor?
It’s democracy when in the next go-round Republicans select Rep. Tom Emmer as their candidate, only to have him withdraw because once again the losers won’t go along with the wishes of the majority?
In the end, the hell-raisers bullied their colleagues into electing an ultraconservative as Speaker of the House. The path they took was dysfunctional, divisive and disregarded the basic rule of democracy. The first two of these have been amply described, but it’s the third that could cause long-lasting damage.
Beyond the overall axiom of the people, by the people, for the people, nothing about how we conduct ourselves is more basic than the majority rules. This simple and clearcut principle applies to our elections and how governing bodies operate. It applies when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down 5-to-4 decisions that carry far-reaching implications. It even gets applied to many instances of everyday life.
It works because people accept that the majority rules, even when it hurts. That is up until now.
The new Speaker’s own involvement in seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election result has been well documented. As it turns out, that was just the start of what is becoming a pattern.
Rather than respect the process and accept the results, a certain cadre of elected officials are willing to do whatever they can to subvert and resist majority rule until they get their way. Niceties such as honoring the time-honored norms and traditions of Congress or abiding by the wishes of their colleagues are of little concern.
Our Common Purpose strives to strike a balance between the two political parties. Generally speaking, neither has it entirely right and neither is entirely wrong. Our common purpose as a country rests somewhere between the two.
However, in this case there is nothing to be shared. The dynamic we are witnessing, this new order of things, is entirely one-sided. The militant wing of the Republican Party is threatening to turn democracy on its ear.
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, the lesson your backers are demonstrating is not democracy in action. It’s how to disregard democracy’s most basic rule except when it suits them. That’s not our system. It’s a threat to our system.
These outliers might be regarded as heroes by some. The rest of us should regard them as a dangerous menace, both for the damage they have done to the House and for the tactics they are teaching others at all levels of government and across all of society.
–Richard Gilman
Give ‘Uniparty’ a Chance
Sept.22, 2023
Cooperation, collaboration, compromise are dirty words to some.
But if you want to really get their blood boiling, just say “uniparty.” That’s their epithet for the Republicans and Democrats who have a few ideas in common, share some common goals, and on occasion even work together for the common good.
The very thought sends them into a deep dither. In the minds of hardliners, the mainline factions of the two political parties are virtually interchangeable, tools of the deep state that controls the nation’s capital and thereby the nation.
“Uniparty” is not a thing, it’s a putdown.
Steve Bannon reincarnated the term (originated perhaps by Ralph Nader back in 2000) in support of Donald Trump’s 2016 “drain-the-swamp” campaign against the Washington establishment. From that time period, here are a couple of opinions quoted in Politico magazine:
Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation wrote in an editorial for Reason: “The two parties – actually the two divisions of the Uniparty that represents the permanent regime – agree on all fundamentals.”
Alexander Marlow, editor in chief of Breitbart News Network, said in an interview with Ann Coulter: “I’m becoming more obsessed with this Uniparty in Washington, where the Republicans and Democrats seem to be fusing together.”
These quotes are now a little long in the tooth but that does not mean the idea has gone away. It reared its head again this summer as ultraconservatives raged over the bipartisan agreement to increase the debt ceiling.
The New York Times reported hardliners “railed against what some far-right lawmakers refer to derisively as the ‘Uniparty,’ the group of mainstream Republicans and Democrats, including party leaders, who have routinely banded together to do the necessary business of funding the government.
That task is now front and center as those very same far-right lawmakers hold hostage the spending bills for the fiscal year set to begin on Oct. 1.
The disparaging aspersion of “Uniparty” is directed at those who try to keep government on something approaching a steady course. In the minds of those who want to dramatically alter that course, nothing could be worse.
The rabbit hole is a dark one. Those who descend into it conjure up the hidden forces of the “Liberal World Order” pulling the strings, warn that solutions to this problem will have to come from outside the ballot box, and almost eagerly anticipate the eventual downfall of the nation as we know it.
The supposed pawns in this scheme, according to something called the Freedom First Network, are the Democrats and Republicans who “pretend to be on opposite sides of the aisle but other than the radical progressives such as ‘The Squad’ and the America First patriots like most in the House Freedom Caucus, the majority work well together in the murky middle.”
The sentence, difficult as it is to parse, shows why those on the far right are so caught up in warning about something that doesn’t exist. The extreme elements in the House of Representatives wouldn’t be able to control the proceedings in Congress, as they are now doing with the federal budget, if the majority in the murky middle could actually bring themselves to work together.
Members of the murky middle call it a “two-party solution.” Middle-of-the-road Democrats working with middle-of-the-road Republicans. Middle-of-the-road Republicans working with middle-of-the-road Democrats.
Unfortunately for us, politics as usual prevents this from occurring any more often than a blue moon. Lawmakers who are willing to work across the aisle are up against political tradition, parliamentary rules of the House, and threats of political retribution.
It’s time though to turn the tables. Rather than fleeing from the supposed boogeyman of the Uniparty, we should be embracing the notion. If the majority in the murky middle would work together on constructive solutions, we could short-circuit a lot of the extremist shenanigans that are stymying the legislative process. Even the name Uniparty is palatable. Maybe we can turn the connotation into a good one.
With the House careening toward a government shutdown, or in desperation a last-minute stopgap measure to put that off a while, responsible lawmakers of both parties need to step forward to do the right thing not just at this moment but at all times. The House’s Problem Solvers Caucus, made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, did just that yesterday by putting forward a bipartisan compromise that would fund the government through Jan. 11.
By the very definition of the concept, the Uniparty could represent a novel, across-the-aisle approach to legislating. And working together in that fashion is what most Americans, according to all the polling done for Our Common Purpose, want to see.
–Richard Gilman