From "United We Stand" to "Divided We Are"

Inroads, Summer 2004 by Bergstrom, Hans

So why so much anger among the Democratic grassroots?

Hanging chads

One reason for the anger is that the memory of the 2000 election is very much alive, and not only here in south Florida, home to the famous "hanging chads" of Broward County. Activist Democrats still argue that Bush stole the presidency, and there is a strong sense of illegitimate rule. There is also a feeling that Bush has not been appropriately humble and has behaved "as if he had a mandate" - for example by pushing tax cuts through Congress. Turnout in the Democratic primaries has been unusually high - evidence, perhaps, of a belief that now is the time for revenge.

A second reason is the war in Iraq. A major war has a major impact and burdens the American people in several ways. Taxpayers' money amounting to $86 billion was appropriated as a start, and speculation about what could have been done at home with that kind of money is a topic of daily conversation. More than 500 dead is a heavy toll, if all the United Sates has to show for it is chaos. With the National Guard and reservists called in for long periods of duty, family solidarity is stretched and homeland security is threatened (by forest fires and the like). And with no weapons of mass destruction and consequent doubts about prewar intelligence, it is no surprise that the validity of the war as well as the credibility of the President are subjects for heated debate. Big issues create big controversies, and this certainly is a big issue.

A year of populism

The resonance John Edwards found for his populist message - "the two Americas" - indicates a third reason for the anger. The classic ingredients of American populism, epitomized in Williams Jennings Bryan's 1896 presidential campaign, are: Ordinary People against the Rich; Small People against Big Business; Hard-Working People against "The Elite in Washington"; and Protectionism against Free Trade. All were central in the Democratic primaries, especially in the Edwards campaign. They were summarized in Al Gore's characterization of the 2000 election as "The People versus the Powerful."

Why might this message have particular resonance now? Even if Bush's tax cuts were aimed at stimulating investment and economic growth, it is not hard to describe them as "favouring the rich." Add his up-bringing in a wealthy family and his background in Texas and the oil industry, and it becomes easier still to see some of his policies in that light. Tax subsidies to oil companies in his energy bill, attention to the concerns of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries in his prescription drug bill, favouring companies like Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton with contracts in Iraq - all lend themselves to description as "listening more to the big companies than to the interests of the people." And Enron and other corporate scandals have eroded trust in big business.

There are also signs of growing pressure on the American middle class. Costs for both health insurance and postsecondary education have skyrocketed in recent years. Health insurance in America is mainly employment-based, and employers have faced annual cost increases of about 14 per cent. Employees are being forced to make higher copayments and some types of coverage (for prescription drugs, for example) have been reduced or eliminated. Many retirees and laid-off workers are no longer covered, and in some cases new employees are no longer eligible. The trend has caused growing discontent among the middle class - more so than when the main victims were the poor. In our neighbourhood in south Florida, I hear it constantly from Democrats and Republicans alike. That a solution to the problem of rising health insurance costs would have to include tort reform to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance is not widely known. Democrats oppose tort reform, as do trial lawyers, many of whom are major contributors to the Democratic Party. John Edwards himself is a trial lawyer.