The Democratic Party’s Permanent Majority
By Pujie Zheng
Liang Chen said, “One very strange and perplexing thing I find in American politics is that all the coastal states (NY, CA, MA...), which are usually more economically and intellectually developed, firmly choose to side with Democrats, whose policy often work against economical development, individual rights and free speech. The underlying self-conflicting logic is quite puzzling for me. Especially, when silicon valley CEOs all side with Hillary and bombard Peter Thiel's support for Trump, while their success largely depend on a Free enterprise environment instead of heavy government regulations.”
This is a very good question that I have been asked before. Not understanding the answer to that question is probably the reason for the inability to understand Trump’s difficulties.
We will take California for example. Although the numbers of New York are different, the conclusion is the same.
California’s population is 37 million, comprising several solid Democratic voting blocks, adding up to a permanent Democratic majority.
First, the poor: For years, the generous welfare system has attracted the poor to California. For a state that has only 12% of the nation's population, it has 34% of the nation’s welfare recipients.
Supported by 14 million employees (among them 12 million are in the private sector), California has 1.4 million TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) receivers, 4.1 million SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) receivers, and 7.3 million Medicaid receivers.
In addition, the poor people who want to become rich tend to avoid California and go to states that encourages entrepreneurship, such as Texas. I had a fairly long conversation with someone from Texas recently. He started poor, have been in jail when his wife divorced him, etc., not your typical good-student turned rich, Silicon-Valley type millionaires, but he is full of hope to become rich. (Since he is making six figures already, probably I should say that he is full of hope to become richer.) He is staying in Texas and supporting Trump. With the difficult business environment in California, these people would not think about moving to California.
One should not underestimate the power of welfare, i.e., free money. At the end of 2012, nationwide, there were 109,631,000 living in households (35.4% of the population) taking federal benefits of one kind or another. If we add non-means-tested federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and veterans benefits, 153,323,000 people (49.5% of the population) were getting some form of federal benefits. The benefits give them the incentive to vote for big government. (It is buying vote with other people’s money.)
Trump said that he wants to cut corporate tax to allow the companies to move overseas cash into the U.S., and give the corporations an incentive to start businesses (and hiring people). Those 50% of the people would not respond to that. To them, Trump merely wants to reduce tax revenue which represents the reduction of the pool of money from which they are paid.
Second, the government vested power: California has 2.4 million government employees, twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. That is about one government employee for every 16 residents. If they are from a family of two, that would get big-government Democrats one in eight (or 12%) of votes.
These people are well paid and with good benefit, so they are distinct from the first group. You add 12% to 50%, it is 65% support for big government.
In addition to that, the government contractors, who also rely on the taxpayer’s dollars, would strongly support big government, because the bigger the government, the bigger their business opportunities.
Third, the ignorant: In 2012, 80% of the Chinese voted for Obama’s second term. I, for one, could not fathom a reason for so many Chinese to vote for Obama. We are from China, and have seen the damage of communism under Mao and fascism today, as well as the one party dictatorship. Why do we want a fascist America? (Here, fascism is used simply to denote the social system where traditional liberal democracy is replaced by totalitarian big-government rule. Today, in the U.S., the traditional one party rule is replaced by the two-party collusion toward the same goal.)
In 2014, Latinos overtook the white and became the majority in California. The Latinos, although more reasonable than the Chinese, is nonetheless pro-Democratic.
Fourth, the income tax structure: Almost 50% of the people do not pay federal income tax. The question is: If they don’t pay into the taxpayer fund, what is going to make them vote no on getting money from the taxpayer fund?
That was Mitt Romney’s frustration in 2012 when he said: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
It is the moment of truth for a politician who normally does not tell us what he or she thinks. When they vent, we know what they really think. For instance, Clinton vented that “half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables" and "11 million [Trump supporters] are irredeemable.” Obama vented, as he told entrepreneurs, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”. Those moment truth often show the true feelings of the politicians. For Romney, it is the frustration of the tax structure.
Fifth, Silicon Valley CEOs, the movie industry closer to home (as I am writing from Los Angeles), or big banks, are also for Democratic big-government system.
The U.S. has a government-controlled public educational system, which does not explain different social systems, such as socialism, communism, or fascism, to students.
I looked up fascism online when writing this article. Fascism is said to be rightist, against the liberal left. However, today’s “liberals” are not for any liberal ideas. They are for big government control. Also fascism is described as one-party authoritarian rule, but today’s two-party collusion could reach precisely the same goal.
The educational system does not explain to people, that socialism is destined to degenerate into either fascism or communism, as Hayek had explained in his The Road To Serfdom. Since Marxism is considered bankrupt today, communism is not really anyone’s choice. In the Chinese reform, Deng Xiaoping changed China from a communist system into a fascist system although the Leninist governing structure still remains.
However, that does not stop Clinton from using Marxism as her main attacking weapon. As Mao Zedong had said that “class struggle always works,” Clinton is waving the banner of class struggle (the poor against rich) to great effect. Her supporters, with hatred, do not see the contradiction of poor-against-rich with her “Stronger Together” slogan.
In addition, corporation is the single most important invention that brought us the industrial revolution, because with stock market, the form of organization allows massive number of people, who do not know the identity of one another, to get together and put money toward the same goal. Today, the government-run educational system has succeeded in making corporations the source of all social evils. It is trying to return us to the medieval times, absolutely crazy, but Clinton’s supporters could not see that.
I have all the respect for the Silicon Valley CEOs, to their hard work to learn the technologies, to their risk-taking spirit, and to their stamina of taking failure after failure until the success, but they do not understand social systems, especially, they don’t understand the alternatives of capitalism. When they see problems, they want the government to the rescue, thinking that it takes a village to solve the problems, because the government-run educational system does not show students the clear history of problems of all alternatives to democracy and capitalism. They are simply too busy doing what they do best and have no time to study Marxism, history of communism and fascism, The Road To Serfdom, or The Federalist Papers, which is a debate by our founding fathers on how to avoid all those evil systems, more than 100 years before any of them first appeared in the world.
By the way, interestingly, the elite preference of big government control also exists in China, where the government is a dictatorship. Even the elite does not know how leaders are produced in that big black box called the Great Hall of People in Tiananmen Square. When they were young, many of the Chinese elite, who belong to the Tiananmen Massacre generation, was against the communist or fascist rule, but their leftist and “liberal” ideology (in today’s western sense) has put them on the same bed with the ruling Communist Party. The result is the weird Chinese structure: one billion people are exploited by the 300-million strong middle class, which is exploited by a few million through the tailor-made real-estate market, stock market, and other schemes.
Back to our topic, there are other reasons for this group to support big government, such as big corporations colluding with the big government (especially the banks), or the fancy of being close to the power (especially the Hollywood stars, who know nothing about socialism, fascism, or communism).
Sixth, the politically correctness atmosphere: The establishment has established a politically correctness atmosphere. For people like Trump, who dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes on, the establishment could easily label him as obnoxious and cause those who are used to pampering and button pushing to hate him, as we have seen today. Voters living under the politically correctness atmosphere are no longer thinking (or read long articles such as those in the Federalist Papers, or the ones that I write). That is the assurance for the political establishment, by using the political correctness to close the minds of their supporters.
Trump, as a fresh air in the suffocating political correctness atmosphere, speaks his mind as a habit. Clinton is trying, quite successively, to hit him with hateful labels. Many people “hate” Trump because he is not politically correct, and speak about the uncomfortable truths all the time.
The result of the aforementioned five voting blocks, when put under the politically correctness atmosphere, is the permanent Democratic state of California. Even when a Republican could win the governorship at one time or another, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic controlled legislature could quickly reduce him into what he called “a girlie man” (yes, with the accent please).
Among 18 million registered voters in California, 7.9 million or 43.9% are Democrats, with only 5.2 million or 28.9% Republicans. The Democrats has a 15.0% advantage, which is impossible for any politician to overcome.
The Democratic Party, taking California as their example of success, is trying to replicate this model to the entire nation. It is a present and clear danger. Trump, the hardworking quick study, is probably the best choice to America to counter that movement. His first debate is amateur-against-professional. His second debate is 50-50. His third debate is a clear victory over Clinton. One could only imagine what would happen if there had been more debates.
Facing all Clinton’s problems (criminal incitement of violence in Trump rallies, criminal attempts to rig the election by, among other things, illegal voter registrations, a campaign so boring that attracts few people, and her serious unexplained health problems unfit to be the president of the United States) and Trump’s clear show of his abilities, the country is still leaning toward Clinton.
Freedom is such a fragile thing.
This is a very good question that I have been asked before. Not understanding the answer to that question is probably the reason for the inability to understand Trump’s difficulties.
We will take California for example. Although the numbers of New York are different, the conclusion is the same.
California’s population is 37 million, comprising several solid Democratic voting blocks, adding up to a permanent Democratic majority.
First, the poor: For years, the generous welfare system has attracted the poor to California. For a state that has only 12% of the nation's population, it has 34% of the nation’s welfare recipients.
Supported by 14 million employees (among them 12 million are in the private sector), California has 1.4 million TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) receivers, 4.1 million SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) receivers, and 7.3 million Medicaid receivers.
In addition, the poor people who want to become rich tend to avoid California and go to states that encourages entrepreneurship, such as Texas. I had a fairly long conversation with someone from Texas recently. He started poor, have been in jail when his wife divorced him, etc., not your typical good-student turned rich, Silicon-Valley type millionaires, but he is full of hope to become rich. (Since he is making six figures already, probably I should say that he is full of hope to become richer.) He is staying in Texas and supporting Trump. With the difficult business environment in California, these people would not think about moving to California.
One should not underestimate the power of welfare, i.e., free money. At the end of 2012, nationwide, there were 109,631,000 living in households (35.4% of the population) taking federal benefits of one kind or another. If we add non-means-tested federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and veterans benefits, 153,323,000 people (49.5% of the population) were getting some form of federal benefits. The benefits give them the incentive to vote for big government. (It is buying vote with other people’s money.)
Trump said that he wants to cut corporate tax to allow the companies to move overseas cash into the U.S., and give the corporations an incentive to start businesses (and hiring people). Those 50% of the people would not respond to that. To them, Trump merely wants to reduce tax revenue which represents the reduction of the pool of money from which they are paid.
Second, the government vested power: California has 2.4 million government employees, twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. That is about one government employee for every 16 residents. If they are from a family of two, that would get big-government Democrats one in eight (or 12%) of votes.
These people are well paid and with good benefit, so they are distinct from the first group. You add 12% to 50%, it is 65% support for big government.
In addition to that, the government contractors, who also rely on the taxpayer’s dollars, would strongly support big government, because the bigger the government, the bigger their business opportunities.
Third, the ignorant: In 2012, 80% of the Chinese voted for Obama’s second term. I, for one, could not fathom a reason for so many Chinese to vote for Obama. We are from China, and have seen the damage of communism under Mao and fascism today, as well as the one party dictatorship. Why do we want a fascist America? (Here, fascism is used simply to denote the social system where traditional liberal democracy is replaced by totalitarian big-government rule. Today, in the U.S., the traditional one party rule is replaced by the two-party collusion toward the same goal.)
In 2014, Latinos overtook the white and became the majority in California. The Latinos, although more reasonable than the Chinese, is nonetheless pro-Democratic.
Fourth, the income tax structure: Almost 50% of the people do not pay federal income tax. The question is: If they don’t pay into the taxpayer fund, what is going to make them vote no on getting money from the taxpayer fund?
That was Mitt Romney’s frustration in 2012 when he said: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
It is the moment of truth for a politician who normally does not tell us what he or she thinks. When they vent, we know what they really think. For instance, Clinton vented that “half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables" and "11 million [Trump supporters] are irredeemable.” Obama vented, as he told entrepreneurs, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”. Those moment truth often show the true feelings of the politicians. For Romney, it is the frustration of the tax structure.
Fifth, Silicon Valley CEOs, the movie industry closer to home (as I am writing from Los Angeles), or big banks, are also for Democratic big-government system.
The U.S. has a government-controlled public educational system, which does not explain different social systems, such as socialism, communism, or fascism, to students.
I looked up fascism online when writing this article. Fascism is said to be rightist, against the liberal left. However, today’s “liberals” are not for any liberal ideas. They are for big government control. Also fascism is described as one-party authoritarian rule, but today’s two-party collusion could reach precisely the same goal.
The educational system does not explain to people, that socialism is destined to degenerate into either fascism or communism, as Hayek had explained in his The Road To Serfdom. Since Marxism is considered bankrupt today, communism is not really anyone’s choice. In the Chinese reform, Deng Xiaoping changed China from a communist system into a fascist system although the Leninist governing structure still remains.
However, that does not stop Clinton from using Marxism as her main attacking weapon. As Mao Zedong had said that “class struggle always works,” Clinton is waving the banner of class struggle (the poor against rich) to great effect. Her supporters, with hatred, do not see the contradiction of poor-against-rich with her “Stronger Together” slogan.
In addition, corporation is the single most important invention that brought us the industrial revolution, because with stock market, the form of organization allows massive number of people, who do not know the identity of one another, to get together and put money toward the same goal. Today, the government-run educational system has succeeded in making corporations the source of all social evils. It is trying to return us to the medieval times, absolutely crazy, but Clinton’s supporters could not see that.
I have all the respect for the Silicon Valley CEOs, to their hard work to learn the technologies, to their risk-taking spirit, and to their stamina of taking failure after failure until the success, but they do not understand social systems, especially, they don’t understand the alternatives of capitalism. When they see problems, they want the government to the rescue, thinking that it takes a village to solve the problems, because the government-run educational system does not show students the clear history of problems of all alternatives to democracy and capitalism. They are simply too busy doing what they do best and have no time to study Marxism, history of communism and fascism, The Road To Serfdom, or The Federalist Papers, which is a debate by our founding fathers on how to avoid all those evil systems, more than 100 years before any of them first appeared in the world.
By the way, interestingly, the elite preference of big government control also exists in China, where the government is a dictatorship. Even the elite does not know how leaders are produced in that big black box called the Great Hall of People in Tiananmen Square. When they were young, many of the Chinese elite, who belong to the Tiananmen Massacre generation, was against the communist or fascist rule, but their leftist and “liberal” ideology (in today’s western sense) has put them on the same bed with the ruling Communist Party. The result is the weird Chinese structure: one billion people are exploited by the 300-million strong middle class, which is exploited by a few million through the tailor-made real-estate market, stock market, and other schemes.
Back to our topic, there are other reasons for this group to support big government, such as big corporations colluding with the big government (especially the banks), or the fancy of being close to the power (especially the Hollywood stars, who know nothing about socialism, fascism, or communism).
Sixth, the politically correctness atmosphere: The establishment has established a politically correctness atmosphere. For people like Trump, who dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes on, the establishment could easily label him as obnoxious and cause those who are used to pampering and button pushing to hate him, as we have seen today. Voters living under the politically correctness atmosphere are no longer thinking (or read long articles such as those in the Federalist Papers, or the ones that I write). That is the assurance for the political establishment, by using the political correctness to close the minds of their supporters.
Trump, as a fresh air in the suffocating political correctness atmosphere, speaks his mind as a habit. Clinton is trying, quite successively, to hit him with hateful labels. Many people “hate” Trump because he is not politically correct, and speak about the uncomfortable truths all the time.
The result of the aforementioned five voting blocks, when put under the politically correctness atmosphere, is the permanent Democratic state of California. Even when a Republican could win the governorship at one time or another, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic controlled legislature could quickly reduce him into what he called “a girlie man” (yes, with the accent please).
Among 18 million registered voters in California, 7.9 million or 43.9% are Democrats, with only 5.2 million or 28.9% Republicans. The Democrats has a 15.0% advantage, which is impossible for any politician to overcome.
The Democratic Party, taking California as their example of success, is trying to replicate this model to the entire nation. It is a present and clear danger. Trump, the hardworking quick study, is probably the best choice to America to counter that movement. His first debate is amateur-against-professional. His second debate is 50-50. His third debate is a clear victory over Clinton. One could only imagine what would happen if there had been more debates.
Facing all Clinton’s problems (criminal incitement of violence in Trump rallies, criminal attempts to rig the election by, among other things, illegal voter registrations, a campaign so boring that attracts few people, and her serious unexplained health problems unfit to be the president of the United States) and Trump’s clear show of his abilities, the country is still leaning toward Clinton.
Freedom is such a fragile thing.
Pujie Zheng is an attorney in Los Angeles
First published on October 24, 2016
Contact information:
For discussions: http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
For past articles: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
