–The mystery of right-wing election victories. The answer and the question.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the Gap.

Many factors account for election victories — organization, charisma, gerrymandering, scandal, money, media support — even on rare occasion, actual issues.

But there is one factor that seems to explain the Republican Congressional victories of late.

Before we reveal it, let’s look at some seeming logic.

As a generality, Republicans wish to:
–Reduce Social Security benefits
–Eliminate federal support for health care insurance
–Eliminate or reduce social programs for the poor
–Cut taxes on the rich while broadening the tax base
–Reduce the power of the Environmental Protection Agency
–Increase the ability of the rich to buy politicians and elections
–Eliminate same-sex marriage
–Eliminate all abortions, regardless of circumstance
–Give private corporations the right to impose religious beliefs on employees
–Give everyone the legal right to carry a hidden weapon, and to buy or sell weapons without a background check
–Make immigration more difficult, and deport undocumented immigrants

Polls seem to indicate various majorities of Americans disagree with those positions.


Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago.

Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.

Americans’ increasing shift to independent status has come more at the expense of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Republican identification peaked at 34% in 2004, the year George W. Bush won a second term in office.

Since then, it has fallen nine percentage points, with most of that decline coming during Bush’s troubled second term. When he left office, Republican identification was down to 28%. It has declined or stagnated since then, improving only slightly to 29% in 2010, the year Republicans “shellacked” Democrats in the midterm elections.

Given only these factors, one might suppose that Democrats have won most recent elections. But that hasn’t been the case. Why?

The financially stressed favor Democrats, don’t vote much, study finds

About half of American adults have no retirement account beyond Social Security, 4 in 10 don’t have a credit card, and 1 in 5 lack a checking account.

Statistics like that paint a picture of the widespread nature of financial insecurity in the U.S. Americans who are most financially secure were, by a large margin, the most likely to have voted this last fall, the study found. They were also the most likely to favor Republicans.

Americans whose finances are precarious tended to reject the GOP, but were also much more likely to have dropped out of the political process, either not registering to vote or not planning to cast a ballot.

Among the most well-off, about half favored the GOP. That support dropped to fewer than 1 in 5 among the least well-off, the study found.

And, don’t think it’s just a matter of race:

Support for the two parties was very similar whether they looked at the overall electorate or just at white Americans. Democrats got less support among whites than among the electorate as a whole, but the level of backing was fairly consistent at all levels of financial security.

Support for Republicans dropped sharply among whites in the least financially stable groups.

Those who are better off are more conservative on issues involving government spending and help for the poor. The wealthy are much more likely than the poor to believe that government benefits are overly generous. The poor are also more skeptical of business than are the well off.

On only one issue in the survey, immigration, were less economically secure Americans more likely than the well off to take a conservative stand.

Well-off Americans said, by more than 2-1, that they agreed with a statement that immigrants “strengthen our country” rather than one that said that immigrants are a “burden … because they take our jobs.”

Among the least financially secure, that pro-immigration position still commanded a majority, but the division was much tighter, 51%-44%.

Why do the less-financially-secure not vote their own self interest? Their best hope for a more compassionate government, is to elect Democrats. Yet they don’t take that simple, no-cost step.

I suspect that not having money induces feelings of weakness and hopelessness, while having money gives one a sense of power and control.

Perhaps the poor and middle-income-groups have become so accustomed to being treated unfairly (compared with the rich), that they no longer even see the unfairness. Perhaps, they merely accept that “It’s just the way life is?” “Why bother to fight it?”

I also suspect that only a charismatic, populist leader — for instance a Roosevelt or a Kennedy — can arouse the people from their torpor, and get them to the polls.

President Obama could have been the one, but he proved either to be weak or fiscally in league with the right wing.

Until a true liberal emerges — a liberal who understands Monetary Sovereignty — the 99% will continue to lose what they currently have and see their futures diminished.

The sole question: Will the people even bother to vote for that liberal?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


6 thoughts on “–The mystery of right-wing election victories. The answer and the question.

  1. “…they merely accept that “It’s just the way life is?” “Why bother to fight it?”

    I’d bet that’s it. Helplessness.

    Unfortunately, and I keep coming back to this, we emerge by means of emergency. Somehow MS has to be understood by more than the few on board here. With the media bought up by the.1% and everyone else scared to death to broach the subject of MS’s promise of total affordability, and complacency at election time, it does not look good for peaceful transition. It looks like hell. And it’s just getting started.

    The good news however is no one yet has been able to refute MS feasibility.


    1. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102347332

      “President Obama will use his State of the Union address to call on Congress to raise taxes and fees on the wealthiest taxpayers and the largest financial firms to finance an array of tax cuts for the middle class,”

      Tetrahedron, how can people realize that the US has monetary sovereignty when its President declares in his SOTU that increased taxes on the wealthy are needed to finance tax cuts for the middle class?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s