Both parties seem to have elements that the other party considers extreme.  For the Democrats it is union thugs, liberal anti-Semites, environmental zealots, and blatant socialists. For the Republicans it is creationists (considered anti-science),  fundamentalist Christians, pro-lifers, and the ethnocentric. (Many Democrats just say ‘racists’. Republicans do not accept that for good reason but many still fall victim to ethno centric thinking.)  It is interesting to observe that fundamental Christians have become more allied with Israel and Jewish interests over the last twenty years and that anti-Semitic rhetoric has become much more pronounced from the left.

The challenge for both parties is to what extent the extreme elements will define the party in the general election. This is only relevant to the extent that the independents consider these elements to be extreme.  Each party will play the other as being controlled by their extremist elements.  The Democrats play the extremist card relentlessly.  The Republicans would be very wise to do the same; the last few years has certainly given them plenty of ammunition.   The party that is best able to marginalize their extremist elements will have a tremendous advantage.

During primaries it seems that candidates, desperate for traction, appeal to ‘extremist’ elements.  But this moderates in the general elections as the winner must attract more centrist voters. Inevitably this leaves the ‘extremists’ disappointed  no matter who wins.

Republicans have often fallen because their more extreme elements refused to fall behind their candidate.  George H. Bush lamented how the various GOP litmus tests impeded their success.  The Democrats have often succeeded more from their solidarity than their representation of a voting majority.

This time may be different. As divided as the GOP appears to be during this primary, this is likely to dissipate when the nominee is selected.  Obama is considered so extreme that the GOP may display the kind of solidarity more often associated with their rival.

I confess that I am less than enthused by the GOP choices offered.  The primary has more of the feel of a reality TV show than a serious political discourse.  The process seems to serve media interests and ratings more than political interests.  Ideas take a back seat to the lurid and the irrelevant.  Yet, somehow, in this media madness, there is a severe and brutal vetting process that may serve the winning candidate well in the general election.

A winning strategy for the GOP is to constantly remind the voters how extreme this sitting president has been and focus on restoring a proper balance between the public and private sector. Talk of radical changes such as a balanced budget amendment, a gold standard, abolishing the Fed, isolationist foreign policy is more likely to excite elements of support at the expense of ultimate victory. It is better to promote strong action than radical change.

I am guilty of associating freedom with democracy.  Thomas Sowell writes in his book The Thomas Sowell Reader that there is a distinct difference in the chapter ‘Freedom Versus Democracy.’

Democracy and Freedom are too often confounded.  Britain itself did not have anything cloze to democracy until the Reform Act of 1832.  But it had freedom long before that.

The fundamentals of freedom- limited government, separation of powers, and independent judiciary, free speech, jury trials- existed in Britain for many generations before the franchise was extended to most males.

Just as freedom can exists without democracy, so democracy can crush freedom.  During the Reconstruction era after the Civil War, blacks in the South had many rights that they lost when the occupying Union army was withdrawn and democratically elected state governments took over, ushering in the Jim Crow era.

Today, the confusion between freedom and democracy leads far too many Americans, including those in high places, to seek to spread democracy around the world- in complete disregard of the circumstances of the of the particular countries.  In some respects, we may be more dangerous to our friends than to our enemies, when we pressure them to set up at least the trappings of democracy.

Both freedom and democracy have prerequisites.  When those prerequisites do not exist, democracy especially can be a house of cards.

It is much easier to imitate the outward institutional forms of Western democracy than to synthesize the centuries of traditions that make those institutions work.

HKO comments:

For democracy to function it takes an educated populace.  Freedom is more directed related to capitalism.  Democracy without freedom can be exceptionally oppressive.  As Neil Boortz noted democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

This is an important distinction.  George W Bush push for democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza, when freedom was more important.  But freedom as we know it would have been much more difficult to obtain.

Much of the talk about the fairness of the tax code and the extension of the Bush tax cuts is just thinly veiled class warfare. By focusing on billionaires and millionaires we lose sight of the far more mundane reality.

$380,000 in income puts you in the top 1% of income earners. This could be a small business owner who is PAID $130,000 and shows $250,000 in Sub S earnings on his business, which is often NOT received as cash wages. The new tax increase just passed by the House has raised his taxes and probably the taxes of nearly 50% of small business owners.    In a time of sluggish growth and very stubborn unemployment this is a very foolish idea.

The tax increase alone is not nearly as bad as the accumulation of regulations, taxes and uncertainty that has most businesses sitting on their cash rather than deploying it.  It is like investing in a CD at a bank without knowing what the interest rate will be, or even being certain it will be a positive number.

The focus on “fair” is irrelevant.  The focus should be on creating new jobs and getting businesses comfortable enough to invest the money they have. Nobody will invest without  the expectation of some return on their money. This tax increase is just one more weight on the decision scale against economic growth.

It is hard to conceive of the thinking of the expiring Democrat majority that just got routed at the recent election, and that has lost both Ted Kennedy’s and Barak Obama’s seat to Republicans.  Two years ago it seemed the Republican party was dead; now they actually outnumber Democrats for the first time in decades.  Yet they still seem clueless as the cause of this stunning reversal.

If this bill passes the Senate then the largest job creating sector in the economy will be handicapped.  If it doesn’t pass then all the Bush tax cuts expire and nearly everyone’s taxes go up.  Perhaps they are trying to force the Republicans to go on record either voting against the tax cuts for the majority or for the tax cuts for the “rich”.  The voters are not as stupid as they think.

Meanwhile with less than 30 days till year end, investors will be cashing in their capital gains this year and trying to recognize income in 2010, before the tax increase takes effect.  Expenses, including charitable donations will be forestalled into 2011 when the after tax value is greater.  Taxes do affect behavior.

But that may be just one more lesson they are unable or unwilling to learn.

In the wake of the elections  of November 3, 2008 we noted the dramatic swing of the independent voter.  Who are these voters and why do they refuse to ally themselves with one of the two major parties?  I confess up front that this is my sense and perception and I do not propose to support this with any legitimate research.

The independent is fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. This would make them libertarian but they are not dogmatically so.  They do realize that there is a place in foreign affairs for the military whereas the more dogmatic of the libertarian would categorically condemn foreign military adventures.

The social tolerance explains their willingness to support a black man with a distinctly ethnic name.  They are tolerant of ethnic diversity and I guess they are probably about evenly split on the subjects of gay marriage and abortion rights.

The independent is a realist.  He realizes that there is a continuum of socialistic government policy and individual liberty and is only likely to become mobilized when he sees a move to an extreme, which he probably now sees. When 48% of the population received more in benefits that they pay in taxes it is extreme in any reasonable view. The independent recognizes that there is evil in the world and that there is a time when violence must be employed.

The independent is civil.  The demonization of one party by the other, the name calling, and the negative campaigning alienates the independent. In a display of uncivil discourse they hear only the emotion and not the message.

The independent is rational.  He does not blindly follow a party line if it does not make sense. He is skeptical of radical change, but willing to question policies that no longer work. He understands that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not create wealth. In fact it is more likely to destroy it. He understands that the economic laws that govern his household are not dramatically different than the economic laws that govern our nation. Wealth must be earned, and debt must be repaid- one way or another.

The independent understands the role of government and its limits. He understands that life is imperfect, often unfair, and frequently uncertain.   He understands that government policies that seek to solve all our problems and counter the laws of nature often end in tyranny.

The independent is not necessarily the same as a populist.  The independent is more likely to compromise than the populist, less likely to have a single issue litmus test, and less likely to campaign actively, put a bumper sticker on their car or attend a ‘Tea Party.’

The independent is less tied to a principled philosophy and thus is more likely to be swayed by appearances and charisma. By not being attached to a party he is more likely to change if his candidate disappoints.  This explains the voter swing in VA and NJ.

The independent is more likely to change priorities in crisis.  After 9/11 they became hawks. After the financial meltdown they became economics Keynesians. After the bailouts and nationalizations they became fiscal conservatives.

The independents are honest and expect the representatives to be honest as well.  Transparency and bipartisan efforts were promised by this administration and they are not keeping their promise. They are intolerant of the corruption that is plaguing the party in power. They are even more intolerant that the party leaders tolerate the blatant corruption of a Charles Rangel or Chris Dodd.

The Republican populists that challenged the party leaders in NY district 23 are probably correct that the Republicans cannot win by being a lighter version of Democrats. But they also cannot win by ignoring the wishes and motivation of the independents. The alliance between the independents and populists in matters of sound economics and limited government will not necessarily include a mandate on social issues the independents oppose.

The radical policies of the current administration have energized the Republican base more than the attractiveness of any specific candidate to represent them.  Centrist Democrats in the White House or in Congress may have rendered a figure like Sarah Palin irrelevant.  Combined with the flexibility (or fickleness) of the independents the Right has quickly regained a footing many recently thought was unrecoverable.

A thorough review of what caused the financial crisis is needed and it should be  a fascinating subject. Unfortunately the hearings are weak and boring. In the Wall Street Journal’s “After the Crash, a Crashing Bore
The men behind the bailout take refuge in impenetrable jargon” Peggy Noonan writes of  her disappointment in the hearings.

In this excerpt she imagines what should be said but is not:

“Let’s be real. This is what happened the past 10 years. You, for political reasons, both Republicans and Democrats, finagled the mortgage system so that people who make, like, zero dollars a year were given mortgages for $600,000 houses. You got to run around and crow about how under your watch everyone became a homeowner. You shook down the taxpayer and hoped for the best.

“Democrats did it because they thought it would make everyone Democrats: ‘Look what I give you!’ Republicans did it because they thought it would make everyone Republicans: ‘I’m a homeowner, I’ve got a stake, don’t raise my property taxes, get off my lawn!’ And Wall Street? We went to town, baby. We bundled the mortgages and sold them to fools, or we held them, called them assets, and made believe everyone would pay their mortgage. As if we cared. We invented financial instruments so complicated no one, even the people who sold them, understood what they were.

“You’re finaglers and we’re finaglers. I play for dollars, you play for votes. In our own ways we’re all thieves. We would be called desperadoes if we weren’t so boring, so utterly banal in our soft-jawed, full-jowled selfishness. If there were any justice, we’d be forced to duel, with the peasants of America holding our cloaks. Only we’d both make sure we missed, wouldn’t we?”

I think she pretty much nailed it.