by David Safier
The bloggers' code (which I had to swear to uphold before they'd teach me the secret handshake) requires me to air my inexpert opinions about Tuesday's elections. Here they are, for what they're worth.
Republicans earned bragging rights. They picked themselves up from the 2008 losses and scored some significant wins around the country. In Tucson, no matter how the City Council races turn out, the challengers made them two of them close and may pull out a win in either or both (AZ Blue Meanie said Kozachik has semi-officially beaten Trasoff, but Uhlich is squeaking out a victory) — in a heavily Democratic city. Any news of the death of the Republican party was premature. What they lack in numbers, they made up for in enthusiasm.
But that's also why their wins are a poor indicator of future success. Only the dedicated few vote in odd year elections, so the group that's most fired up tends to show up in greater numbers. The 2010 races could be very different ball games. More voters will dampen the importance of the enthusiasm factor. Besides, the Ds, seeing that Rs have decided not to roll over and play dead, will campaign harder and make a point of showing up at the polls. The 2010 races begin today.
That being said, Democratic candidates had better give their voters something to vote for. The most dangerous thing they can do is play it safe. If candidates don't define themselves, the opposition will be more than happy to define the Ds, painting them with liberal applications of tar and feathers and hoping the voters will ride them out of town on a rail.
With the caveat that I'm a lousy political advisor, my advice to Ds is, stand for something, proudly and strongly. Not something vague. Something substantial and even controversial. Though it may sound counter intuitive, I think AZ Democrats should take a stand as caring, mature grownups and say, "If we need higher taxes to ensure our children's futures by giving them first class educations and quality health care and social services, then so be it. We need higher taxes." Don't use euphemisms like "revenue enhancements." Say "taxes." And explain which taxes you prefer and why they will be equitable and produce the money the state needs to move into a more prosperous future. Show the voters you have the courage to say what you mean even if it's risky. But never say the word "taxes" without saying "education" and maybe "health care" in the same breath.
Sure it's a risk to come out for raising taxes. But it's far riskier to cower in a corner, then be attacked by opponents who hammer Dems, accusing them of pretending they don't want to raise taxes. If Dems don't own up to it with pride and conviction, they'll end up waffling, weaseling and looking spineless. That's a good way to lose elections.
Right-o, stand for something!
As for declaring your support for raising taxes, there are plenty of ideas justifying government programs but you will get farther supporting a lie that orthodox society (96% of polls say society will believe a well defended lie) will defend than you will advocating for an idea that everybody, orthodox or not, consensus or not recognizes as unpopular.
Gun control is no longer popular, although its poster child Mr. Bloomberg can swim against the tide spending 85.2 million dollars (and then some) in the very center of gun control heaven and barely manage to eek out a win against his opponent who spent 6 million dollars.
Bob Burns and Jan Brewer are the two most prominent Arizona advocates of higher taxes (apart from all the Democrats in the legislature). I look forward to seeing how those two will turn out should they qualify for the 2010 General election.
There is a reason why more people don’t advocate for higher taxes – it is because it isn’t popular with most unless you can say its for the sick/children. Even then there is more support than ever for those who ask “Is there a better solution available?” and plenty of people will refuse to swallow the reflexive and uniform answer of “no” even if the orthodox tv and newspapers say so.