THE THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN BEFORE ENTITLEMENT REFORM

One of the few good things to come out of the last elections was some more clarity on the political atmosphere surrounding entitlement reform.  Once again the electorate resoundingly rewarded the candidate who said little to nothing about entitlement reform, and punished the team that had the audacity to bring up the subject.  It is now more clear to me than ever before that we need to take several more steps before we can even have a rational discussion on entitlement reform.

First, raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  The President campaigned on taxing the wealthy "a little bit more".  I assume he was alluding to the restoration of the pre-Bush tax rates on those who make more than $250,000 per year.  Of course, this tax increase will have only a marginal effect on the annual budget deficit, which has been running at more than a trillion dollars per year for the last five years.  But symbolically, the average voter must see that the wealthy are paying their "fair share", whatever that is, before even listening to an argument about changing entitlement programs. 

Second, cut defense spending substantially.  The average voter is no longer interested in watching American blood and treasure being expended in far away lands filled with people who hate us no matter what we do.  They are also tired of America as world policeman, accepting responsibility for defending Europeans, Japanese and others who have plenty of wealth to spend on defense but instead, since they are covered by our military, choose to spend their money on other things, like their own welfare states.

Third, cut all other programs to the bone.  Starting with foreign aid, then moving on to various and sundry other subsidies.

Once we have taken these three steps, no matter how self-destructive, then, perhaps, the average voter will awaken to the fact that the real money is in the entitlement programs and only the reform of those programs will stop the flow of red ink.

THE POST-COLD WAR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PICTURE

The re-election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is cause for a great deal of soul-searching by Republicans at all levels.  Most of the discourse has, so far, been centered on the composition of the electorate (older and whiter for the GOP, younger and more ethnically diverse for the Democrats), and those policies that might be preventing the Republicans from making themselves and their candidates more attractive to a larger group of voters (immigration, social issues, etc.).  But a look at the raw numbers in historical context brings up another explanation, one much harder to address by any change in policy.

First, the raw numbers for every presidential election since the end of the Cold War;

2012
D - 63,679,412 (50.73%)     R- 59,769,964 (47.61%)

2008
D-69,499,428 (52.87%)       R-59,950,323 (45.60%)

2004
D-59,028,439 (48.27%)       R-62,040,610 (50.73%)

2000
D-51,003,926 (48.38%)        R-50,460,110 (47.87%)

1996
D-47,400,125 (49.23%)        R-39,198,755 (40.72%)

1992
D-44,909,806 (43.01%)         R-39,104,550 (37.45%)

As you can see, the Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the six elections held since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.  By contrast, the GOP won the five out of six held between 1968 and 1988.  The total for the entire Cold War period (1948 to 1988) was seven wins for the GOP (1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988) and three for the Democrats (1948, 1960, 1964).

Correlation is not causation.  But is it not possible that the existence of an existential threat may have given the Republicans an advantage when choosing a President who is, after all, the man in charge of our war-making capabilities?  It has often been argued persuasively that the Democrats are perceived as the party of domestic, bread and butter issues while the GOP is the party seen as strong and robust on defending the country against foreign threats.  It seems to me not simply a coincidence that the one election won by the Republicans in the post-Cold War period was, in fact, the 2004 election, an election when memories of the 9/11 attacks were still fresh and our soldiers were only recently engaged in large-scale combat in Iraq, seen by many (correctly or not) as a part of the "War on Terrorism".  By 2008 the war, while still ongoing, seemed less relevant, especiall without another major domestic attack.

It may be that all the speculation about how the Repoublicans can revise their policies or re-make their image is sound and fury signifying nothing.  It may simply be the case that domestic concerns being predominate in the minds of the electorate in this historical era has given the Democrats the advantage.  When the wheel of history brings war or the threat of war back on the horizon, the Republicans may be seen as the party best suited to provide the leadership necessary to guide us through those troubled waters.