The early contours of the 2004 presidential campaign became clear Tuesday. And they very much resemble 1896, one of the first times that Democrats labeled Republicans the party of big business and the rich and themselves the champions of the vast working (now middle) class.
Class warfare is perhaps the most durable subtext of presidential elections, used most recently in 2000 by Vice President Al Gore, whose campaign anthem was the “People vs. the Powerful.”
Similar themes were sounded again Tuesday after President Bush laid down markers on the economy that were unflinching in support of business and tax cuts to bring broad economic prosperity. But the president also tried to defuse the argument that he favored the rich with additional proposals to provide aid to the unemployed and tax cuts for lower- and middle-income workers.
That appeal, of course, didn’t work with Democrats, who immediately seized on the president’s proposals as a sop to the well-to-do that would in fact do little to help those suffering in a stagnant economy. They instead proposed a more immediate stimulus package.
Together, the president and the Democrats gave Americans a clear choice of direction in a time when both parties had otherwise tried to blur their differences. It might not be William McKinley against William Jennings Bryan, but nonetheless the White House and the Democrats now most definitely have something to fight about.
“I think it’s time for engagement,” said Democratic strategist James Carville. “I hope that we have an early clash here, a skirmish of ideas and ideals.” And if Republicans try to dismiss the Democrats’ argument as just class warfare, “So what?” Carville said. “We can say, `Yes, it is,’ and if the consequence of pointing out the effects of a policy is off the table, why don’t we just suspend all debate in this country?”
One Democrat who quickly took up that challenge, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), a presidential aspirant, derided Bush’s plan by saying, “If it looks like a tax cut for the rich, if it walks like a tax cut for the rich, it is, in fact, a tax cut for the rich.”
The president’s message was that the government should spur business activity to create jobs and jump-start the economy, with the benefits flowing to all workers. The Democrats’ plan is more reliant on government providing immediate and direct assistance and protection to individuals.
Each argument is freighted with risk. Bush is relying on the fact that about half of Americans, and a much larger percentage of voters, have investments directly or indirectly in the stock market and will embrace his call to eliminate the tax on dividends.
But if the stock market does not recover this year, then dividend income will be among the least of investors’ worries. The president also called for elimination of the federal estate tax, which generally applies only to the wealthy.
Those kinds of proposals are low-hanging fruit for Democratic critics, and those critics surfaced before, during and after the president’s speech to say that Bush was far more concerned with Wall Street than Main Street.
“Clearly it is the Republicans practicing class warfare because it [Bush’s proposal] is for one class of people and it is not us,” said Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, the departing governor of Vermont.
But Democrats had hoped that a depressed stock market, and thus depressed 401(k) plans, would prompt voters to punish Republicans in the midterm elections. Instead, it was the Democrats who suffered while the GOP made gains.
Most analysts agree that the Republicans benefited as well from a well-crafted White House strategy to try to make the midterm election a referendum on security and Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism and a prospective conflict with Iraq.
Now, Democrats clearly have decided they will challenge Bush directly on domestic issues. One problem for them is, however, that while other Republicans–with the possible exception of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)–are likely to embrace Bush’s plans, Democrats, especially those who want to run for president, are likely to offer a variety of alternatives and present a less-than-clear challenge to Bush.
“The peril is that they all break out in 10 different factions,” Carville said.
That is almost certainly not going to be a problem for Republicans. Bush’s greatest challenge will be to convince the public that he understands the economic pain that many Americans are going through and is working to help them directly.
“The proof will be in the pudding,” Dean said. “If the economy improves by the middle of 2004, it will be harder for us to get traction. I think people like this president. Right now they want to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though they don’t think it will work.”
It is also unclear whether the Democrats’ version of an “us versus them” strategy can succeed, especially because it has become increasingly unclear just who is who.
Democrats consistently win substantial majorities of voters in the annual income brackets less than $15,000, but those voters represent a small portion of the electorate, just 7 percent in 2000, according to exit poll data. And Republicans, notably Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, have been able to capture the majority of votes of those earning between $15,000 and $30,000–not exactly the rich.
Republican and Democratic candidates have essentially split the votes of those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 since 1976. In 2000, Bush and Gore split the votes nearly evenly among those whose incomes ranged from $30,000 to $70,000 annually, while Bush easily won the votes of those whose incomes exceeded $75,000.
Bush’s speech to the Economic Club of Chicago might well be viewed as the opening address for his 2004 re-election campaign. He talked nearly as much about the war on terrorism and a possible war with Iraq–two issues where he has strong support and little partisan criticism–as he did about his economic proposals.
Those two issues will be hitching posts of his campaign as he tries to balance the competing and often conflicting demands of war abroad and economic challenges at home, a balance that eluded his father.
