The four historiucal decisions of expediency that have dmaged the GOP
I've been thinking today about several of the GOP's choices of course throughout the last 5 decades that have won them elections, but have sent them into shrinking demographics. Just a quick list today intending to provoke discussion. Maybe more or a rewrite on another day.
1) Nixon's Southern Strategy - This is the granddaddy decision that set the course for the modern GOP. The decision to consciously appeal to whites who were against (or at least uncomfortable with) the civil rights movement substantially shifted the GOP base South and to the more reactionary. It worked, they won the election, but saddled the GOP with a core constituency that would shrink with time.
2) Reagan's dragging the "Christian conservatives" into politics. Prior to Reagan, fundamentalist were fractured and fairly non-political. It was Reagan's campaign that attempted to unify them and turn them into a force. It won elections at the time, but it also created a "Christian conservative" movement which has now taken over the levers of control of the party, forcing Republicans to pledge fealty to social positions that are distant from the majority of the country. (Do you believe in evolution?)
3) The anti-60's "immoral arguments." During the Clinton years, the Republicans dragged out a collection of "morals" arguments which were really not much more than a harnessing of the fear/rejectionism of the liberalization of the late 60's and 70's. Twenty years down the road, Republicans finally figured out how to harness "the angry white male" and his reaction to feminism (Remember feminazi?,) the broadening cultural base (the railing against political correctness,) and the supposed immorality and naivite of the Democrats who were teens/twenties in the era. (Where the Clinton sex outrage came from as well as the point at which "libera"l became an epithet.)
This was the era of Rush Limbaugh, and although those angry white males were feeling their oats, one of the reasons they were so angry is that demographics were already working against them.
4) Two decisions of the Republicans under George Bush, gay marriage and the non-Bush anti-immigrant zeal. You know both of these by now, but they fit into this broader pattern I'm trying to paint.
In each of these decisive choices for immediate political gain, Republicans have tapped into
a reactionary anger in their "base" to try to score politically, but, by doing so, they've been alienating large demographics, blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, the non-fundamentalist population.
Admittedly, each of these groups has been too small to effectively fight back and thus they make good targets, but in all, they constitute a large percentage of the electorate, and, more importantly, these demographics which now dislike the Republican party are now the groups that are growing either in their numbers or in their political activity and power.
Way back in Nixon, a decision was made to win an election that recreated the Republican base as white, male, and reactionary. Because of that decision, the Republicans are now tied to that group, that demographic, and all of those other choices have flowed from that, narrowing the base, and alienating the rest of America.
I'm not one of those who believes the Republican party is dead. Right now they're at a particularly low ebb, but they will bounce back to some degree. The question is whether they will find some way to draw in some of the growing demographics, because if they don't they are dead. An old, white, male party goes against the broader direction of our liberalizing, multiculturalizing country.
What they need is not necessarily new ideas, but a way to get their white, male, reactionary base willing to accept a message that appeals outside that white reactionary base to include more Hispanics or gays or women.
Can that happen?
In theory, Republicans could appeal to Hispanics, for example, through an economic message of small business and opportunity, or they could appeal to gays through a reinstatement of libertarianism, but the crazy elements of the party would have to let go of anti-immigration or "gays are bad" both of which are bedrock to the reactionary core of thecurrent GOP.)
(This is just a quick one off draft version. I may rewrite, repost, or god knows what. It's just a quick riff on what's been on my mind for months.)
1) Nixon's Southern Strategy - This is the granddaddy decision that set the course for the modern GOP. The decision to consciously appeal to whites who were against (or at least uncomfortable with) the civil rights movement substantially shifted the GOP base South and to the more reactionary. It worked, they won the election, but saddled the GOP with a core constituency that would shrink with time.
2) Reagan's dragging the "Christian conservatives" into politics. Prior to Reagan, fundamentalist were fractured and fairly non-political. It was Reagan's campaign that attempted to unify them and turn them into a force. It won elections at the time, but it also created a "Christian conservative" movement which has now taken over the levers of control of the party, forcing Republicans to pledge fealty to social positions that are distant from the majority of the country. (Do you believe in evolution?)
3) The anti-60's "immoral arguments." During the Clinton years, the Republicans dragged out a collection of "morals" arguments which were really not much more than a harnessing of the fear/rejectionism of the liberalization of the late 60's and 70's. Twenty years down the road, Republicans finally figured out how to harness "the angry white male" and his reaction to feminism (Remember feminazi?,) the broadening cultural base (the railing against political correctness,) and the supposed immorality and naivite of the Democrats who were teens/twenties in the era. (Where the Clinton sex outrage came from as well as the point at which "libera"l became an epithet.)
This was the era of Rush Limbaugh, and although those angry white males were feeling their oats, one of the reasons they were so angry is that demographics were already working against them.
4) Two decisions of the Republicans under George Bush, gay marriage and the non-Bush anti-immigrant zeal. You know both of these by now, but they fit into this broader pattern I'm trying to paint.
In each of these decisive choices for immediate political gain, Republicans have tapped into
a reactionary anger in their "base" to try to score politically, but, by doing so, they've been alienating large demographics, blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, the non-fundamentalist population.
Admittedly, each of these groups has been too small to effectively fight back and thus they make good targets, but in all, they constitute a large percentage of the electorate, and, more importantly, these demographics which now dislike the Republican party are now the groups that are growing either in their numbers or in their political activity and power.
Way back in Nixon, a decision was made to win an election that recreated the Republican base as white, male, and reactionary. Because of that decision, the Republicans are now tied to that group, that demographic, and all of those other choices have flowed from that, narrowing the base, and alienating the rest of America.
I'm not one of those who believes the Republican party is dead. Right now they're at a particularly low ebb, but they will bounce back to some degree. The question is whether they will find some way to draw in some of the growing demographics, because if they don't they are dead. An old, white, male party goes against the broader direction of our liberalizing, multiculturalizing country.
What they need is not necessarily new ideas, but a way to get their white, male, reactionary base willing to accept a message that appeals outside that white reactionary base to include more Hispanics or gays or women.
Can that happen?
In theory, Republicans could appeal to Hispanics, for example, through an economic message of small business and opportunity, or they could appeal to gays through a reinstatement of libertarianism, but the crazy elements of the party would have to let go of anti-immigration or "gays are bad" both of which are bedrock to the reactionary core of thecurrent GOP.)
(This is just a quick one off draft version. I may rewrite, repost, or god knows what. It's just a quick riff on what's been on my mind for months.)
posted by mikevotes at
1:46 PM
11 Comments:
can the GOP reach-out to women? if so, how or with what initiative? I think gays, immigrants, and blacks are at least one generation (or more) away from their reach...but women might be a door back to relevancy for them...if they can find a winning issue...healthcare? education (college)? abortion (OMG!)? but rush and beck will need to be deflected somehow...Maybe Carly F. can lead something...
Altho, i hope the GOP dies a slow agonizing suffocation (at least what it looks like now). 100% crazy-town.
By
Anonymous, at 6:46 PM
All your points have one thing in common, FEAR.
Republicans have been pushing the politics of fear for way to long. I cannot understand why the American public has not rejected this ideology long before 2008.
If Republicans reject the politics of fear and push the politics of conservatism, they might have a chance.
If Republicans had cut spending along with their tax cuts, rejected the religious right as their guides, and stopped pushing one morality on a diverse population, they could have held political power and become the most popular party in American History.
By
Unknown, at 7:04 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-five-strands-of-conse_b_187675.html
By
Anonymous, at 9:00 PM
Anon, I tend to agree pretty strongly. No real argument. And the one bonus to women being a target is that they don't have to move the needle that much to have an effect. But there is a bias they would have to overcome, and I don't know how they do that.
....
Time, exactly. That's what they've been using to stoke that reactionary base, fear that others are taking over. The crazy thing is, using that fear has worked very consistently in the short term, but has created a whole raft of wedges that their own, now fear stoked base, won't let them reach over.
By
mikevotes, at 9:01 PM
2nd Anon, thanks, that does fall right into it. If I rewrite, I'll reference.
By
mikevotes, at 9:14 PM
The problem with fundamentalism (political or religious) is that it's driven by a demand for increasing levels of purity. Once you've reached one level of purity you ratchet up the standard for orthodoxy. Eventually, you end up fracturing your own ranks in the quest to weed out the "impure."
I think we saw this in 2007.
Fear works. Until people realize they were afraid of make-believe threats (gays, for example). Once the veil begins to lift, the power of fear (for a given boogeyman) becomes more and more impotent.
By
-epm, at 7:10 AM
Very much so. I think you hit it right on.
The one weird variance is that because there's only practically two choices, even those moderates that are chased away are still floating around, in theory available for re pickup.
But, yeah, look at Specter or Shays, or some of the other moderates who are being hounded from their own party.
By
mikevotes, at 8:23 AM
"I'm not one of those who believes the Republican party is dead."
I don't think they are "dead", either.
The GOP has a fairly firm hold on the current red states. That isn't enough electoral votes to win the White House, but it's far from "death".
There is a fundamental problem with getting their base to accept a "new message", however. As you went into detail to explain, that old message is the very identity of the Party. This is a Party that wants to move backwards. Hell, Reagan wanted to repeal the Voting Rights Act.
My take on your insightful analysis is that if the Republicans abandon the racists, the nativists, the birthers, and the fundamentalists that they can become a libertarian, pro-military intervention, pro-corporate Party.
This sounds a lot like the DLC.
While I have my doubts as to whether this shift would benefit them over the next decade, it would spare them the slow death from demographic shift.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:21 AM
Hey, the DLC's message is pretty popular.
Also, I don't know how they get that reactionary group to accept the message.
They're never going to vote Dem, so it's not a total loss, but right now they need every one of those votes just to stay where they are.
Who has the courage to tell one of these groups that their issues no longer matter? At this point they control enough of the party that they can destroy anyone who works against their issues.
They're in a catch 22.
By
mikevotes, at 10:46 AM
"Hey, the DLC's message is pretty popular."
Exactly true. The point is that the DLC is pretty entrenched in that territory, and the "new" Republican Party would be in direct competition with them. If successful, though, they could rip the Democratic Party in two and return to power.
"Who has the courage to tell one of these groups that their issues no longer matter? At this point they control enough of the party that they can destroy anyone who works against their issues."
Yeah. Anyone with that kind of guts and integrity has already bailed on the Party or was forced out in humiliation.
Aside from lack of courage, the party has become extremely good at self-deception. They seem to really believe that moving further right is the path to electoral success, and they are quite adept at ignoring or explaining away failure so that they never learn from it.
Judging from the past five years of MN internal polling that I have seen, about 20% of the Republican Party are not "true believers", but rather "anti-Democrats" for an assortment of reasons. This is probably why we have a viable third Party in MN. If a national (viable) third Party does emerge, the Republican potential for a "comeback" gets darker, as the "anti-Democrats" and moderate Republicans that have already bailed will not be tempted to return.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:38 PM
Well, they elevated the litmus test purists for immediate election reasons, and now they're running the party.
And, when the party shrinks and sheds independents, as it has because of Bush, their power only grows.
That's the bind I was trying to elaborate in the post.
By
mikevotes, at 3:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home