Article first published as Thirty-one Cowardly Democrats on Technorati.

President Obama took the initiative earlier this month to use his bully pulpit and give the Democratic base a reason to get out and vote in November. He started the final weeks before the election out stumping and defining the differences between the parties. Democratic voters could feel the momentum start to build. But one week later, the cowardly lions on the left began their customary collapse, and with their tails between their legs decided to join ranks with the Republicans.

To his credit, the President first took the podium in Milwaukee on Labor Day and revealed his $50 billion infrastructure plan. Two days later he came out swinging in Cleveland and attacked the Republicans on everything from their obstructionism to their factitious support of small business. He focused much of his message on the $250,000 line drawn in the sand over the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and set the stage for an 8-week fight over who really represents the middle class.

But obviously not up for the fight, on Wednesday, 31 Democrats broke ranks and signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi advocating for the extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the top 2%. The letter starts with “In recent weeks, we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners, and families who have voiced concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth.” In other words — we don’t have the courage of our convictions and believe that we may lose votes if seen as supporting tax increases.

The single page letter goes on to attempt to justify the cowardice, stating that the upper tax brackets include only 2%-3% of tax payers, but that “they are responsible for 25% of national consumer spending.” It states further that 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending, therefore “this is not the time to jeopardize further growth.” Of course ALL of these statements are true, but the conclusion is a non sequitur fallacy.

People in the group in question would be reporting $250,000 or more in taxable income. By definition they would already have the money to continue their 25% of consumer spending. They are obviously not the people being adversely affected by the economic collapse or they wouldn’t be reporting such high income. Contrary to what the letter implies, most economists agree that the money saved by this group would largely be set away in savings and have no impact on stimulating the economy. Besides, as the President has articulated, the rich would still be receiving the very same tax relief on the first $250,000 as everyone else.

The letter also offers up the same tired Republican distortion regarding the overlap of the top 2% and small business. Reciting statistics stating that “up to one-third of high-income taxpayers are small business owners,” these Republicrats assert that expiring the cuts for the rich will cost jobs and harm the recovery. Of course they know better than that. They know that only 2%-3% of real small businesses fall in to this category. They know that the “small businesses” in this group are actually the largest law firms, hedge funds, and other elitists that employ very few people. This is pure “I’m not a tax raiser” politicking.

Liberals need to seriously consider whether or not there’s anything on the planet more cowardly than a congressional Democrat. This entire maneuver is because they’re worried that the mean old Republicans might spin their support of tax cuts for only the middle class into perceived support for raising taxes, even if on the rich . . . poor Democrats. So, instead of saying, “Hell yes! We support relief for the middle class,” the Democrats are willing to bow down again. Football fans will recognize their strategy in the many NFL teams who go into a “prevent” defense in the fourth quarter to protect a lead, and ALWAYS wind up losing. Democrats play not to lose while the Republicans play to win.

Democrats need to learn that public opinion follows spin, so instead of letting the Republicans do the spinning, the damn Democrats need to get out there and tell the story. The only reason the Republicans get away with adhering to a strict loyalty to the upper 2% and still get elected is because the Democrats allow them to get away with a constant barrage of fact-free propaganda. Republicans by necessity use distortion, hyperbole and outright lies to obfuscate their true agenda, but the Democrats are too afraid to expose them, fearing that public opinion may not roll their way.

Now, even on an issue where the Democrats are obviously acting on behalf of 98% of the population (whether the people know it or not), these cowardly 31 are still too timid to push the agenda. What exactly do these mice stand for?

Fortunately, at this point, Speaker Pelosi is holding strong, and still has the support of the majority of Democrats in the house. At least Madam Speaker has some conviction and fortitude. It’s high time that the rest of the Democrats get behind the President and help define why people should vote for them. After all, if the people want to elect a Republican, why would they vote for one who’s a Democrat?

There’s not much argument that Republicans as a whole support business and the free-market. They’ve long espoused their belief in government’s responsibility to support the private sector and its role in job creation. With machine like consistency, they’ve beat back efforts to spawn government jobs, always asserting that small business is where the jobs are. So, one would think the Republicans would support an attempt to assist small businesses. But such was not the case yesterday, when Senate Republicans voted unanimously to defeat a bill to stimulate investment in small business.

The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 is intended to spur investment by eliminating capital gains taxes for investment in small firms, and also creating a Small Business Lending Fund to underwrite loans through community banks. It would also waive fees on Small Business Association loans and allow increased tax deductions for new equipment and other expenses. For many this sounded like a reasonable shot in the arm for beleaguered businesses, but Republicans filibustered yet again — and another potential jobs bill failed to pass.

This comes after weeks of Republican fighting to strip the job creation provisions from the bill to extend unemployment benefits, which they subsequently stalled even after stripping. Democrats in the Senate did finally pass the extension last week with the help of 2 Republicans, but not before 2.6 million Americans had seen their benefits run out. If this all seems more than a little counter-production in an environment where real unemployment is still over 16.5%, that’s because it is.

So, what is the reason for the seeming incongruity between Republican rhetoric and their voting record? The answer just might be found in their position on the Bush tax cuts.

When defending the extension of the Bush cuts for the wealthy, Republicans routinely cite the detrimental impact the “hikes” would have on small business. This slant certainly makes good political sense, since according to the Small Business Administration (SBA), 90% of U.S. firms have fewer than 20 employees. And considering the current state of unemployment, coupled with the fact that small business creates between 66% and 88% of net new jobs, it’s patently obvious that efforts to stimulate job growth must be focused on this segment of business.

So, Republicans profess support for the little guy, and typically rely on Grover Norquist’s 2008 estimate stating that two-thirds of small businesses would be adversely affected by expiring the cuts for the rich. Asserting their allegiance, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently appeared on CNBC to make his case for extending all tax cuts and claimed it was because of the Republican desire to, “commit ourselves to help small business.” Indeed, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director who now runs a Republican think tank, tied it all back to jobs, claiming that the tax increase would reduce small business hiring by 18%.

Of course, all of this is as much nonsense as the Republican spin on tax cuts paying for themselves. In truth, only a small fragment of small businesses would be affected by ending the cuts for those making over $250,000. Tax expert Len Burman put the number at 3% of small businesses that are subject to the top two individual tax rates. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities set the number even lower, at 1.9%. As it turns out, Norquist’s calculations looked at the percentage of income, not of firms. What he was attributing to the ranks of small business was the wealthiest hedge funds, law firms and lobbying outlets in America.

Fortunately, once the layers are peeled off the onion, the Republican message at least becomes consistent. It’s not small business that they support, not unless you consider multi-million-dollar sole proprietorships or partnerships as small business — just because they have few employees. The sad truth is that Republican support for small business is as ephemeral as their concern over the unemployed. It only lives in the rhetoric they use to justify their policies while hiding their true and undying loyalty to the richest 2% of Americans.

Let all voters wake up and beware. A line has been drawn in the sand. We no longer need to debate the sides based on some nebulous idea of who Democrats and Republicans support. All ambiguity has been removed — the Republican Party supports big business and will gladly sacrifice small business, the unemployed, even the nation if it will increase the profits of their elite minority.

People need to take a serious look at this and ask themselves which side of the line they’re on. And if they make under $250,000 per year and still choose to vote Republican, they need to do so with full understanding that they’re contributing to their own demise.

But the facts won’t make a difference to dyed-in the-wool conservatives, since the facts will be filtered through their ideological frames: when the facts don’t fit the frames, the facts will be ignored.

The conservative worldview says man has dominion over nature: nature is there for human monetary profit. Profit is sanctioned over the possibility of massive death and destruction in nature. Conservatives support even more dangerous drilling off the coast of Alaska and are working to repeal the President’s moratorium on deep water drilling. Nature be damned; the oil companies have a right to make money, death or no death.

George Lakoff, Huffington Post

I agree with much of this article, but I think the central premise is somewhat askew. I see the problem differently as it pertains to the common conservative. These are people who have real concerns about themselves and their families. They fear the loss of their meager means and the intrusion of those not like them, and these fears are fanned on a daily basis by those they trust — those who seek to exploit their naïveté, to use them.

I’m not an apologist for ignorant conservatives, but I believe that at the core, we all share a similar set of concerns and principles. These people don’t reject a liberal telling them something that doesn’t fit their model because they’re arrogant or uncaring. They do so because they’ve been trained not to trust that “snake oil peddling” liberal.

This dynamic grows in both consequence and complexity in situations like those in the Gulf, or the Appalachian coal mines, or any number of cases where the economic wellbeing of average Americans is wed to the future of given industries.

When liberals rightfully demand a drilling moratorium, or campaign against dirty coal, they position themselves between people and their livelihoods — they ask people to cut of the hand that feeds them.

This is not a problem of a certain people. It’s a societal problem. We need to educate everyone, and when we show them that we care about their personal situation, they just might listen to us long enough to learn.