No Future for the GOP?

[vimothy]

Matt Yglesias has an interesting post on one problem facing it now faces: putting together a winning coalition in the face of the growth of inequality since Reagan: The Right’s Inequality Challenge.

Responses here and here.

On the other hand,

Will the economic contraction reduce the Dem vote by decimating Dem voting states' economies?

Or maybe the policies trumpeted by the GOP under Bush (free trade, immigration) keep them out of power for the foreseeable future by having caused the growth of strongly Democrat voting urbanised population centres.

Where is the Rep demographic base? Where will it go from here?

Really, an excuse for speculation.

 

[nomadthethird]

Well, I think one thing to note is that rich states don't vote democrat because they have money (and I meant to ask you--are "rich states" the ones whose government has the most money, or the states where people in general make more money, or the ones with the highest gross?), they vote democrat because of their values.

What I think is happening is the center shifted a few steps to the left after the last 25 years of neo-con orgy in Washington. Welcome to the fallout.

People in the U.S. are largely moderate on abortion, and far to the left of, say, Palin. They want to be able to see a doctor when they need to, and if the government has to help to make health insurance more accessible in the face of hugely powerful Big Healthcare, then they say: so be it! They want the U.S. to be respected by the world, not seen as a blind aggressor.

The GOP is a party based on the world according to Leave it to Beaver, on TV Land rather than the real world people live in, as Spike Lee pointed out on MSNBC recently. The first order of business if the GOP wants to survive and comeback strong has to be the abandonment of their appeal to social conservatives and fundamentalist-extremists and a good long look at how people actually live, not how a small minority wishes everyone did.

 

[nomadthethird]

About the Wilkinson article: I don't know why republicans find this so hard to believe, but a lot of people vote democrat *knowing full well* that this will mean an increase in taxes for them. However, in order to live in a society that is more equitable and where opportunities exist for all, making the standard of living for everyone just that much better, rich democrats are glad to part with that extra tax money. They know they can afford it, for one, and their principles and ideals trump their immediate greed.

I know this is hard to fathom for some...

 

[swears]

The economy got the dems in, and could easily chuck them out again if things don't improve noticably in the next couple of years. The 6% percent of people that put O over the top could be swayed back again if they're seeing their job/house/country slip away. It doesn't really matter who the GOP put forward in 2012 if they can frame the opposition as incompetent (even if the fundamental problems go all the way back to Reagan/HW/Clinton/whoever) then they've got a chance. But let's hope not, eh?

Good luck, USAers!

 

[vimothy]

That's certainly possible. But what I'm really thinking of is demographic trends. Stuff like:

Gen Nexters are more pro-government than older age groups on several dimensions. They are much less likely to characterize the government as wasteful and inefficient. On balance, the general public agrees with the statement, "When something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful" (55% agree vs. 41% disagree). A strong majority of Nexters (64%) reject this idea.

The views of the general public on this issue have shifted over time with fewer Americans now saying the federal government is inefficient and wasteful. But today's young people have a much more positive view of government in this regard than young people did a generation ago. In the late 1980s, 18-25 year-olds were evenly divided on this issue: 47% agreed that government is often inefficient and wasteful, 47% disagreed.​

 

[luka]

what
a
load
of
bollocks

 

[scottdisco]

i'd be interested in the US pols heads on the board (like Craner, i only follow US pols to the extent of their foreign policy) speculating a bit on what hopes there are that the nutjob element can (again, hopefully) perhaps in time be completely marginalised and just electorally massacred and be made to go away.

but as someone said, i know the sane side of the GOP and the wingnuts kind of need each other electorally.

it was genuinely distressing to see McCain change himself for the sake of it. i think i've already quoted the Esquire endorsement elsewhere but they basically said 'we were hoping for an election but only one candidate turned up'.

incidentally i didn't read too many endorsements of either candidate in the press beforehand (though the Globe and Mail had a incredibly daft endorsement of Harper in their leader one day, which redefined the phrase 'damning with faint praise' for a newer, more robust age), but the New Yorker was quite eloquent on Obama.

 

[crackerjack]

incidentally i didn't read too many endorsements of either candidate in the press beforehand (though the Globe and Mail had a incredibly daft endorsement of Harper in their leader one day, which redefined the phrase 'damning with faint praise' for a newer, more robust age), but the New Yorker was quite eloquent on Obama.

Yeah, the New Yorker one ws reprinted over here in one the nationals. The WaPo was fairly well balanced too.

(who's Harper?)

 

[crackerjack]

On the main subject, I'm jst gonna re-post what i said on the other thread cos I can't be bothered saying it afresh.

Obviously the economy matters, but the demographic changes aren't going away. The US will get less WASP, not more and if the GOP continues turning itself into a nativist party, building walls and denying immigrant rights, then no amount of abortion waffle is going to bring the Hispanic vote back. Bush & Rove weren't stupid - which is why the presidnecy has been more liberal on this issue than the party for the last 8 years. McCain, being from Arizona, understood it too, but having been so closely identified with the liberal policy, he felt obliged to turn somersaults to get the nomination.

Nevada and New Mexico went Dem this time. Arizona could well go in 2012. A flat economy might mean Obama loses Ohio, but retains Florida (esp if anoother fundie on the ticket means the GOP get squeezed both by Hispanics and Jews).

Racial guff here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225...=article

And a breakdown for the lazy (someone else did the sums, so don't blame me if they're wrong - i just c/p-ed)

Quote:
Some statistics from the WSJ.

Total Obama McCain
White 74% 43% 55%
Black 13% 95% 4%
Hispanic 8% 66% 31%
Total 52% 46%

Jews:
Orthodox 13% 78%
Conservative 59% 26%
Reform 62% 27%

 

[craner]

I just caught up with this (hysterical? hilarious?) pre-election stab by Daniel Pipes. If it carries on like this, there is no future for the Republican Party.

 

[crackerjack]

I just caught up with this (hysterical? hilarious?) pre-election stab by Daniel Pipes. If it carries on like this, there is no future for the Republican Party.

Dunno know much about Pipes (only his rep as a cockhead), but it amazes me that anyone who makes a living from political journalism or academia can fuck themselves up by parroting utter, utter shite.

But this is typical of the whole GOP this election (notwithstanding the official campaign itself, which fluctuated somewhere between respectability and sliming). The blogs I've read are just full of headbangers going on Obama's marxism, terrorism, islamism, dodgy passport, black power politics, drug abuse, illegal auntie, more terrorism and the mother he keeps locked in the basement out at the Bates Motel.

And when it was obvious that none of it was working, they just kept on doing it, like they couldn't quite believe they wee fucked.

Never has a major party so richly deserved their thrashing as this one.

 

[craner]

I have to agree.

 

[craner]

And even the few who didn't could hardly be called honorouble exceptions. For example, David Frum -- who called the Palin & McCain campaign to account early, and got a lot of fire for it from, for example, his NRO colleagues -- whose own basic message boiled down to, "we have to broaden our appeal to become electable." Very New Labour. I mean, what's the point? American conservatism is now the preserve of headbangers and trivial cynics.

 

[scottdisco]

very well said crackerjack on the GOP nutter brigade.

BTW Stephen Harper i meant.

the Canadian Tories really owned this election of theirs. (i was surprised they did as well as they did, i must admit. i was in Canada for nearly a month recently during the whole election cycle and it was fascinating.)

 

[scottdisco]

Ollie: that Daniel Pipes article is class.

i didn't read it. i read the headline and the first paragraph. (well, actually, that's enough.)

i am consistently amazed that the Middle East Forum (to which i am, of course, indebted to Ollie for introducing me to) can contain the odd very sane voice, but is also - of course - stuffed to the gills with utter loons, Pipes being perhaps pre-eminent there.

the point i am trying to make, i suppose, is just that i am weirdly impressed that it is such a, well, big tent..

 

[vimothy]

On the main subject, I'm jst gonna re-post what i said on the other thread cos I can't be bothered saying it afresh.

IIRC (buried somewhere in the Red State, Blue State stats, and I assume drawing on the Pew Political Typology Surveys -- I'll try to dig the ref out), Hispanics aren't voting (or not voting) Rep because of abortion.

Were Bush's policies really 'nativist'? Think they were in many senses pretty open, and that this is part of the GOP's problem. Immigration, globalisation, free trade -- these are not hugely popular ideas with significant parts of the GOP vote at present, to say the least. I expect to see both the Democrats and the Republicans increasingly turn to -- and I mean this descriptively -- 'populist' positions in order to win more support.

In addition, even that section of the population generally sympathetic to 'free-market' economic conservatism, the rich, are not consistent in their support for the Republican Party. Rich cosmopolitan/'latte Dem' voters are still on average economic conservatives, but nevertheless vote as social liberals. Combined with continued growth of large coastal cities, this suggests rich opportunities for future Democratic Party strategic triangulation. Not so much for the GOP.

 

[vimothy]

In fact Ollie, I wonder if your New Labour analogy might be very apt...

 

[crackerjack]

IIRC (buried somewhere in the Red State, Blue State stats, and I assume drawing on the Pew Political Typology Surveys -- I'll try to dig the ref out), Hispanics aren't voting (or not voting) Rep because of abortion.

Were Bush's policies really 'nativist'?

Did you read what I wrote? I specifically said Bush was more liberal on this issue than the party; that McCain was too, but was forced in the 'nativist' direction to win the nomination.

My point is that Hispanics are deserting the GOP (and Bush got a decent shake of them, more than he did blacks certainly) because the party is now identified with 'nativism'. To win them back, the GOP wil have to address that rather than ramping up pro-life talk.

 

[vimothy]

Did you read what I wrote?

Er, looks like no...

Really just agreeing -- It doesn't look like abortion has been motivating Hispanic voters in the past, so silly to try to build a platform in the vague hope that it will in the future. Don't think they will risk losing the religious/social conservative vote by abandoning the issue, though.

'Nativism' -- right. Outright nativism is probably a non-starter, but a more illiberal stance on immigration generally seems likely. Could cost them more votes than it brings in, in the long run.

Seems like the GOP will move closer to the Democratic Party on lots of economic issues.

Why did Obama get this (crucial) Latino surge then? You think it was anti-immigration campaigning from McCain?

 

[crackerjack]

Why did Obama get this (crucial) Latino surge then? You think it was anti-immigration campaigning from McCain?

It would be really interesting to see. During the primaries, Hillary was reckoned to be doing better than Obama with Hispanics, and there was some doubt they'd stick with the Dems in the GE.

But the immigration issue must have counted against them, and the Palin/"not like us" campaigning must have hurt. If you find the figs, I'd be interested in looking.