Earlier today, our own LJ summarized the political reorganization that is currently underway in our nation, as voting blocs and interest groups that were once colored red now sport a deep blue hue. I have written on this sort of thing before, and I continue to believe that the last century has seen a near complete reversal of the nation’s two major parties and of the interests and voters that each party embodies. The white working class, the South and Interior West, and the foreign policy idealists, once the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, are now the base of the GOP. Meanwhile, middle class suburbanites, Northern businessmen, Western New Economy libertines, and Scowcroftian realists have taken over the Democratic Party, despite their former support for Republicans like Nixon, Goldwater, Rockefeller, and Bush 41. In short, we’re now a nation of Truman Republicans and Eisenhower Democrats, or perhaps one of Kennedy Republicans and Rockefeller Democrats.
National Journal has outlined the challenges that Republicans will face due to this reorganization in an excellent piece that illustrates the blue shift of states like Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia. In each state, New Democrats in the mold of Mark Warner, Janet Napolitano, and Bill Richardson were able to create a center-left majority by governing as pragmatic, technocratic, post-ideological politicians who used government in a practical way to solve public problems instead of embarking on the ideological crusades of the Old Left. Money quote:
Since the 2006 election, Republicans (in Arizona) have gained 10,000 registered voters and Democrats have added 19,000, while the number of independents has jumped 51,000. Independents’ share of the electorate has doubled since 1996 to about 28 percent. Using the yardstick of registrations since last fall, as many as two-thirds of Arizona’s new legal residents are independents. Maria Weeg, the state Democratic Party’s executive director, said that these independents are the prime reason Arizona is tipping toward her party. “These people are not tied to the parties, and they are not very ideological,” she contended. “They are interested in practical solutions to problems.”
The new voters’ pragmatism reminds most politicos in Arizona of the state’s wildly popular Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano. Even Republican operatives concede that Napolitano’s moderate and nonideological style of governing has made her the dominant political force in a state whose U.S. Senate seats are held by Republicans. “People like her. They respect her. And she represents what most [Arizonans] want to see in a leader right now,” said Kevin DeMenna, a GOP political consultant.
After squeaking by former Rep. Matt Salmon in 2002 in her first race for governor, Napolitano was re-elected in November with 63 percent of the vote. She hasn’t endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate and won’t for a while, but political operatives on both sides expect her to be a huge asset in the state to the Democratic nominee. Jason Rose, a Republican political consultant, said that Napolitano’s domination of the middle has led many Arizona independents to identify with the Democratic Party.
The problem with the GOP is twofold. First, the Republican Party, now rooted in the constituencies of the William Jennings Bryan Democratic Party, is on the losing side of every demographic battle. The GOP is the party of the working class in an increasingly post-industrial nation. It’s the party of whites in a nation that gets less white every year. It’s the party of cultural traditionalists in a society whose culture is evolving every day. And it’s the party of a shrinking geographic base due to the influx of blue voters into formerly red states in the South and Southwest, along with the ability of New Democrats to capture both left and center in many of these states. Finally, the GOP is the party of base politics while the future lies with independents and centrists.
The other major problem that the national GOP faces is that, like the California GOP, the New Jersey Republican Party, and the British Tories, the national GOP is currently beholden to a very rigid base that seems disinterested in moving forward and that seems very interested in reliving the political battles of the past four decades in an almost nostalgic manner. This prevents Republicans from putting forth the sort of non-ideological, technocratic, pragmatic Republican problem-solver who can and does win in the America of the 21st Century. It’s no coincidence that New Republicans like Sarah Palin, Charlie Crist, and Tim Pawlenty won their respective elections despite a Democratic tidal wave last year while Old Republicans like Rick Santorum on the right and Linc Chafee on the left, still reliving the moderate v. conservative battles of the 1980s, both lost big to Democrats.
Republicans have a choice. They can retreat into the reddest portions of the Old Confederacy and watch shelved videos of Reagan’s Inauguration while Democrats dominate the nation for a generation, or they can move boldly into the future with the sorts of policies and politicians that can win elections. Republicans can either continue to win the same voters who cast ballots for Bob Dole and shrink into a pathetic minority, or they can reach out to demographic groups like suburbanites and minorities in order to try and regain majority status. Republicans can lament the transformation of this country into one less ideologically opposed to government, less culturally traditional, and less partisan and base-driven than they would prefer, or they can man up and do what is demanded of a serious political party in serious times. The GOP is at the crossroads. Regardless of what happens in 2008, the choice will remain and Republicans at the grassroots must make a decision. The GOP can either dwindle into irrelevance or come out roaring.
Palin/Jindal ‘16?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Excellent post concerning a topic I have been thinking about for some time. The fact that the GOP now has to reach out to suburbanites is the ultimate sign of our weakness.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Excellent post.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Blessed are those who are flexible, for they shall not be bent out of shape.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Just a couple of quibbles, Dave – in an otherwise excellent analysis.
“…middle class suburbanites, Northern businessmen, Western New Economy libertines, and Scowcroftian realists have taken over the Democratic Party, despite their former support for Republicans like Nixon, Goldwater, Rockefeller”
Nixon and Rockefeller yes. Goldwater no. These are the GOP types that Goldwater and the new conservative movement tried to drive out of the party in 64. Nixon won them back for a while as the conservatives were discredited by Goldwater’s trouncing.
“The GOP is the party of the working class in an increasingly post-industrial nation. ”
That is quite a stretch. The GOp has made some gains by stressing social issues over economic ones, but there is no way one could claim that the working class as a whole leans GOP, let alone the GOP being the party of the working class.
As of ‘05, Dems had a 42-20% edge amongst the lowest quintile (
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Ooops. Dont know what happened to my last post – got cut off…
Let me try to finish that…
That is quite a stretch. The GOp has made some gains by stressing social issues over economic ones, but there is no way one could claim that the working class as a whole leans GOP, let alone the GOP being the party of the working class.
As of ‘05, Dems had a 42-20% edge amongst the lowest quintile (
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
One more time. I must have put some strange stuff in the parens….
As of ‘05, Dems had a 42-20% edge amongst the lowest quintile ( under 19K/yr), and a 35-28% advantage in the next quintile (19-35K/yr). Republicans had a 5-10% advantage in the higher three quintiles.
Union households went nearly 60% for Kerry, which has been the historical norm.
Finally, just an observation on your general thesis. The southern conservatives are an anchor around the neck of your party now, and they will do anything they can to resist the evolution that you, correctly, see as necessary if the GOP is to have any viability in the 21st century. As a Dem, I am so glad we shed that constituency – it hurt us for a generation, just as LBJ predicted, but its not our problem anymore.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:18 am
Great points. We need definitely need “New Republicans” as you call them…and your 2016 ticket selection of Palin and Jindal is superb.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
The GOP Needs a Survival Instinct
By Tony Blankley
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/the_gop_needs_a_survival_insti.html
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 am
Well… an analysis I don’t have the data to refute, if your reason for being a Republican is some sort of brand loyalty, that you prefer the letter R to the letter D for some obscure reason, and you want the letter R to stay on the top of the pack. Funny me, but I thought the purpose of parties in the American system was to serve as a vehicle for enacting the policy preferences of it’s membership, and that it would be more likely to succeed in that purpose by crafting a policy set that could be subscribed to by a broad coalition – not simply to have the arbitrary arrangement of letters starting with “R” stay in power. If you haven’t noticed, the Dems haven’t exactly been outspoken about abortion rights of late. If the “R” takes the exact same position on abortion as the “D” (“just don’t talk about it”), which appears to be what you’re proposing, why should the socons have any particular fondness for the R? If what you’re saying about demographics is true, which I tend to doubt, either the R loses the socons via the inevitable tide of history, or the R losses the socons by ignoring them, but in either scenario there’s no reason for the moderate middle class to prefer the R since the D, in your analysis, already seems to own the fiscally moderate, socially moderate, technocratic brand you want the R to fight for. How do you come out roaring for the squishy middle?
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:56 am
PnGrata: ‘If you haven’t noticed, the Dems haven’t exactly been outspoken about abortion rights of late.’
If you haven’t noticed, the Republicans who WON, haven’t been outspoken about abortion rights either. How many times did Bush come out straight and say: “I want abortion to be against the law”?
‘why should the socons have any particular fondness for the R?’
It’s up to them, really. The important thing is to neutralize them and to prevent them from hurting the party any further.
‘either the R loses the socons via the inevitable tide of history’
The socons will be gone within a generation. Thay are dying out. Just like the pro-slavery activists and segregationists died out, modern-day social conservatives are basing their movement on a pathological hatred of America and freedom (at their debate, they actually had a choir singing “Why should God bless America?”), and that is not really a recipe for a movement that is going to survive.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
Awakened,
“Thay (the SoCons)are dying out. Just like the pro-slavery activists and segregationists…”
How ironic that you would compare those who defend the right to life with slavers who operated under the same “less-than-human” premise as the pro-abortionists.
In fact, if you compare the reasoning behind Blackmun’s opinion in Roe, with the majority opinion in Dred Scott, the similarities are eerie.
In both cases, the majority seeking to justify the treatment of people as disposable property tried to separate the concept of “human being” from “personhood.”
Be more careful with your analogies next time, they may prompt parallels you don’t want people to think about.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:05 am
Tano,
“As a Dem, I am so glad we shed that constituency – it hurt us for a generation, just as LBJ predicted, but its not our problem anymore”
How did southerners hurt the Democrats when they were part of the Democrat constituency? I can’t think of a single Democrat who has ever won the presidency within winning at least a few southern states. After the defection you refer to following LBJ- which supposedly helped the Democrats- the Republicans carried 7 of the next 10 presidential elections. No northern Democrat has been elected since Kennedy in 1960, and he would not have been even close if he hadn’t carried most of the South.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
….in fact, by my count, in the last 10 elections since LBJ, Southern Democrat candidates are 3-2, and the Northern Democrats are 0-5, including the historic blowouts of McGovern and Mondale (Dukakis’ loss wasn’t quite historic, but it was pretty bad). Only one southern Democrat (Carter ‘80) has been blown out in that time, and that was similar to Dukakis’ defeat in ‘88.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 am
MWS: ‘How ironic that you would compare those who defend the right to life with slavers who operated under the same “less-than-human†premise as the pro-abortionists.’
Who is defending the ‘right to life’? I’m not seeing them. The only ones I see are those who seek to enslave women with their religious beliefs. And thank you for providing a prime example of such a person – someone who thinks that rape is only a crime because the legislature just decided to make it a crime.
‘In fact, if you compare the reasoning behind Blackmun’s opinion in Roe, with the majority opinion in Dred Scott, the similarities are eerie.’
I’d bet $100 that you have read neither Roe nor Dred Scott.
‘Be more careful with your analogies next time, they may prompt parallels you don’t want people to think about.’
If you want to say that this caused people to think, you might want to come up with a better example than yourself.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
MWS:’How did southerners hurt the Democrats when they were part of the Democrat constituency?’
Any party that includes Southern evangelicals/fundamentalists is bound to be tarnished by the slaveholders, (later on) segregationists, anti-abortion activists who live there.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Awakened,
“- someone who thinks that rape is only a crime because the legislature just decided to make it a crime.”
You make it sound so arbitrary, which is the exact opposite of what I have contended. Yes, typically things are crimes because of laws passed by the legislature. That is how it works in a Republic.
However, our legislatures did not pass these laws randomly, but because rape is a violent affront to the dignity and integrity and safety of another person- and hence, immoral. Our rape laws reflect our moral values- thank God.
Do you really think laws are random?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
MWS: ‘You make it sound so arbitrary, which is the exact opposite of what I have contended. ‘
No, you make it rather arbitrary by calling for the criminalization of everything you (arbitrarily) deem immoral. Criminalizing rape is very different from criminalizing something that has no victim, let’s say, gambling. Do you at least recongize that?
I suspect that by framing it the way you do, you try to pre-emptively justify other laws you undoubtedly favor.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
DaveG – Bringer of Doom, R408’s own Prince of Darkness, is at it again with this indefensible thesis that the GOP is on the losing end of a century-long realignment.
In all elections since 1980, the winning margin has been delivered by the political center living in the suburban/exurban areas — the area trapped between the Democratic, Socialist leaning urban areas and the Republican Federalist leaning rural areas. The so-called Reagan Democrats and Clinton’s Soccer Mom’s delivered victory. In Y2K and 04 the suburbs split between the Democratic and Republican candidate. The key difference was the political personality of the candidates: Reagan and Clinton had it, Bush, Kerry, and Gore do not have it.
Hence, Obama who has an attractive political personality and nothing else is able to at least hang-in with Hillary who has no political personality, but is married to Bill. And the appeal of Fred in the GOP who seems like maybe he might have the needed political personality, or maybe that is dream since all the other candidates seem so — ordinary.
The war is 400 gorilla… the GOP can win the Presidency if it can win the suburbs on the ware issue. But, do not be surprised to find a return to divided government which is a time-proven method of incapacitating the government’s ability to act.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Sorry for my lousy editing in post #18
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Awakened,
“No, you make it rather arbitrary by calling for the criminalization of everything you (arbitrarily) deem immoral.”
For one, Christian morality is anything but arbitrary. If you think so, I’d suggest you read Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Chestorton, Augustine, Chrysostom, or any myriad number of Christian theologians. You may not agree with them (and clearly you don’t), but no serious scholar simply dismisses Christian morality and ethics as “arbitrary.”
Secondly, I never even hinted at the notion that I seek the “criminalization of everything (I) deem immoral, and I defy you to show me where I suggested such a thing. I’ve noticed you spend a lot of time impugning others’ motives and making up their agendas. I really don’t see how you could have a serious debate with anyone if you simply invent their positions.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
MWS: ‘For one, Christian morality is anything but arbitrary. If you think so, I’d suggest you read Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Chestorton, Augustine, Chrysostom, or any myriad number of Christian theologians.’
I’m not going to waste my time. It’s not based on reason, it’s based on an age-old book that was written by a bunch of shepherds. As for all these figures, if you really want to base your views of society on the views of people who have been dead for centuries, you’re welcome to do so, but I would find that deranged. Obviously, you seem to think that the fact that they justified the arbitrary beliefs of Christianity justifies their existence. It does not. It’s merely a rationalization; they set out with the conclusion in hand and tried to create the reasons for it.
‘Secondly, I never even hinted at the notion that I seek the “criminalization of everything (I) deem immoral, and I defy you to show me where I suggested such a thing.’
The fact that you call rape immoral (I would agree with that, by the way), and say that the fact that it is immoral, is sufficient grounds for its criminalization. No, the fact that it violates another person’s rights is grounds for its criminalization. Now if you believe that you can make everything you don’t like (call ‘immoral’) a crime, you must arbitrarily decide what should be a crime. Compare that to my view that only things that violate another being’s rights can be made a crime. I’m consistent, you are not. My views are objective, yours are subjective and arbitrary.
Also, I clearly asked you whether you think that, for example, gambling should be a crime, and you refused to answer.
‘I’ve noticed you spend a lot of time impugning others’ motives and making up their agendas. ‘
I’m doing my best not to insult you, since you’re not quite as dumb as you sound at face value. However, I do know what people like you are up to.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Awakened,
This discussion is pointless.
Have a good day.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 am
MWS: ‘This discussion is pointless.’
It may or may not be pointless, but I suspect that you’re trying to dodge my question. It’s a simple yes or no, should gambling be a crime?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
From the RCP article that Aron posted – this is so right:
So in this season of slow-motion GOP suicide, it is only logical that earlier this week, leaders of the party’s social-conservative wing declared him not only unacceptable, but so unacceptable that they may run a third-party candidate if he gains the nomination. By doing so, they would assure the election of Hillary, who, notwithstanding anything she might say to get elected, surely will set in motion policies that will kill more unborn humans and advance more biblically prohibited policies than Rudy ever would. Moreover, she would appoint the most liberal judges she can find. Rudy would nominate the most conservative ones. I fail to see the moral high ground to which these divines claim to be climbing.
They also would be walking away from a coalition that, since 1981 (and particularly since 2001), has delivered a higher percentage of their agenda than it has to any other part of the conservative coalition. Fiscal conservatives received tax cuts but not spending cuts. Hawk conservatives received assertive foreign policy but bad management of it and a dangerous running down of the Army. But social conservatives received first-rate Supreme Court justices, a real effort at faith-based initiatives, constant rhetorical support for biblical values, and in fact, they have been denied nothing of consequence that brought them into politics. It would be an act of historic ingratitude to sabotage the GOP candidate at this point. It also would be a short path to undermining everything they have gained in national politics in the past quarter century.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Michael Lawrence: ‘It would be an act of historic ingratitude to sabotage the GOP candidate at this point. It also would be a short path to undermining everything they have gained in national politics in the past quarter century.’
I believe it’s called: divine justice. Personally, I would mourn the loss of the GOP nominee, but I would be pleased by the fact that the relgious right is shooting itself in the foot. For 30 years, all their litmus tests have served them well, but now, their arrogance might just destroy them. “The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices, make instruments to haunt us.”