Letter to Andrew Sullivan

The body of a letter I just sent:

I am a 34 year old son of staunch moderate Democrats. The first election I could vote in was 1992. Which means my Democratic voting life has been defined and dominated by the Clintonian view of the party. Which started with a tax hike, no question, [but that undid the 12 years of deficit spending and] led to a galvanic economic boom. Compared with Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, Clinton was a model of fiscal restraint and doing more with less and less government.

Given that, how can the label "tax and spend Democrat" have any mileage? Maybe there are some of these tax-liberals still left (I do live in Lamont-ridden Connecticut) but they haven't been in power since Carter. As far as I can tell, being a Democrat means believing in small government and fiscal restraint while being a Republican, Reagan Bush or Bush, means to borrow lots of money and spend lots of money.

I think why you and many other conservatives are finding the Democrats more palatable is because the Republicans now stand for all the things for which the Democrats had been reviled: (1) reckless spending, (2) weak/dangerous foreign policy, (3) high taxes (because my tax dollar goes mainly to pay for debt), (4) constant intrusion into bedroom and classroom, and (5) absurd moral posturing.

I know that all those things were the Democratic talking points from McGovern to Dukakis, but Clinton ended that and for people like me, there's been no other Democrat to define the party. The Republicans now own those 5 talking points. All the recent reports tell us that the "independents" and "unaffiliated" voters are the fastest growing group in this country. Those people, I believe, are the ones who hate the 5 points above and will follow whomever can embody good government.

Which is why I hope and pray the Democrats win on Tuesday and they will try to live up to the Clinton leadership legacy of moderation. If not, then it really may be time for a third party - and the numbers will be there.