Posted on 12/26/2007 4:45:26 AM PST by Kaslin
What will the right-of-center coalition in American politics look like in five or 10 years? Before considering that, let's consider what it looked like in, say, 1940 and 1980. In 1940, the conservative alternative to FDR was in the minority. It was largely anti-New Deal, somewhat anti-Catholic, pro-domestic free market, pro-protectionist, isolationist in its Midwestern center of gravity (with a more internationalist Northeastern wing). It was strongly opposed to the draft (the August 1940 vote in Congress for the draft had 182 Democrats and only 21 Republicans supporting it. The no vote was 133 Republican, 65 Democratic.) Culturally, particularly in the Midwest, there remained a strong anti-alcohol consumption attitude.
By 1980, the newly forming Reagan right-of-center coalition was ready to start winning national elections. The small government, domestic free market component of the coalition remained from the 1940s. A strong libertarian element also became part of the coalition that, in the past, had been in favor of using government to enforce social and moral standards.
Also, its foreign policy was now strongly interventionist, in favor of an expanded military and, notably, no longer anti-Catholic. The Reagan Democrats (who added to the free market and interventionist factions to form a majority electorate) were largely white Catholic Democrats alienated by the cultural excesses of the McGovernite Democrats. Steadily adding to the size of that majority coalition in the 1980s was the expanding Protestant evangelical vote (about 15 percent of the entire electorate in the late 1990s; and up to 20-25 percent of the entire electorate by 2004). The outlawing of prayer in public schools and the permitting of abortion and racial busing were strong forces driving both Catholic Reagan Democrats and fundamentalist Protestants into the Reagan coalition.
It is noteworthy that the Northern Catholics had been reliable union member votes for the 1932-1976 FDR coalition, while many of the Southern conservative Protestants previously had been supporters of Southern economic populist Democratic candidates. To some extent, culture shock trumped economics and drove those voters from a left-of-center coalition to a right-of-center coalition. In each case, their presence was the element that made their coalition the majority.
So what would a majority right-of-center coalition look like in the next decade or so? It would have to hold almost all of its Reagan coalition plus gain the support of at least 40 percent of the growing Hispanic vote. As the white percentage of the country moves from 75 percent of the country (in 2000) toward 50 percent by 2050, there won't be enough white people to make the 1980s-era Reagan coalition a majority. Depending on birth, immigration and voting rate changes in the coming decades, the right-of-center coalition would need between 40-45 percent of the emerging Hispanic vote to supplement the shrinking white percentage.
It is pretty obvious that, in a time of prosperity (post-World War II America), the left-of-center economic and populist appeals to Northern Catholics and Southern Protestants were less compelling than the cultural fears being generated by society. But in hard times -- or, equally importantly, if hard economic times are expected and dreaded -- the historic appeal to those voters of populist and left-of-center economic arguments may regain their potency. If those blue-collar, rural, culturally and religiously conservative and (in part) lower-middle-class voters switch their electoral loyalty back to the left-of-center economic-argument-based coalition, that will be the end of a majority right-of-center coalition.
Although the economy remains strong, the public's economic anxiety about the future has been building steadily during the past half-decade. The emergence of China and India is engendering growing anti-free trade feelings (even 59 percent of Republicans now believe free trade hurts America, according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll). Ever-rising health care costs and the anticipated burden of taking care of the boomer parents as we mentally and physically start declining add to the economic fears for young and early middle-aged Americans.
It is precisely these kinds of economic fears that Mike Huckabee is talking to (as well as his religious and culture message). Whatever happens to his candidacy in 2008, I think it is highly likely the Republican Party (as the presumed continuing vehicle for a right-of-center coalition) will have to talk persuasively to the growing economic anxiety.
It is possible that the case for confidence in continuing economic prosperity can be made convincingly to the public. In that case, the appeals of populism and big government programs may fail -- at least for a sufficient percentage of the public to maintain a majority free market, low-tax coalition.
But if public economic anxiety persists amongst these key elements of the right-of-center coalition, at some point, the free market advocates will have to consider modifying their policy if the coalition that makes possible any free market policy is to continue to be politically viable.
The Huckaboom demonstrates, as did the Carter victory in 1976, that a lot of the Christian “conservatives” are economic and foreign policy liberals.
This is already happening. This very forum has its elements who disdain trade, limited government, they'll spout class warfare, and bang the drums of constant negativity, insisting that our standard of living is getting worse. I find this development sad beyond belief.
In order to form a more perfect union, we will unite to defeat any anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life candidate.
Run Hillaryous Run!
Why talk about anything else? Here is our fate.
Illegal aliens, who have no right to vote, will steal America and turn it into Mexico.
By the way Tony, it has nothing to do with WHITE people you racist. It has to due with a culture that used to believe in obeying the law and illegal newcomers who want what they can get from a big American government.
Correct. The symbol of this is the cultural populists(R) joining the economic populists(D) to elect democrats Heath Shuler and Jon Testor.
The dems have a 3 prong strategy.
The Blue State strategy aimed at the Catholics aka northern Catholics.
The Southern Strategy, aimed at Southern/Midwestern Protestants and cultural populists in which the appeal becomes "Moral Populism"
The Western Strategy aimed at the libertarian leaners and Hispanics.
Mrs Clinton's VP will depend on which strategy they intend to accentuate. I predict that they will go with Richardson and the Western Strategy.
Over a cliff, if the gatekeepers in the Republican Party are followed in this election.
They're fat shepherds, with skinny sheep.
Unless we unite as Tony writes, we will lose all 3 branches of govt. The Pub purists must stop this one issue voting. All 3 wings of the conservative GOP must keep in mind electibility as well as platform ‘purity.’ In Ca., I will be voting for Rudy and not Huck. I advise that we all keep our powder dry till after Feb. 5 before we read anyone out of the Party.
Is there such a thing, or is one on the way, and how would we know?
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
The Republicans desperately need to figure out how to speak to the public’s anxiety over the economy rather than continue the tactic of recent elections of preaching to people that the “economy is good on paper.” That matters little if people aren’t experiencing it. Reagan was able to identify and empathize with people’s fears (e.g. his line about the difference between a recession and a depression), but then he was able to convince them that conservative economic policies were the key to improving voters’ individual balance sheets. But for conservatives to continue to scream at voters that they are stupid or being manipulated by the media if they are uncertain of their economic future is to face certain defeat.
I've never understood why these people still believe the lies of the left when it comes to government "solutions". One, they have always failed. Two, why do they think the government can help and at what cost? Higher taxes they'll soon pay once they are "helped" and then move upward?
I don't get it.
Reagan democrats have not found a long-term home in the GOP coalition. They were not a good fit with the WASP, Wall Street and Country Club orientation. Previously their anti-communism and social issues views allied them with the GOP. Currently economic, health care and war are moving them back to the Democrat column.
Huckabee appears to be winning, because the pollsters are only asking the 6.4% of Republicans who voted for Bush in 2004. The evangelicals are tired of rolling over for the GOP while being obviously patronized. Their vote is split now.
However, any Republican will beat a Democrat in 2008.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.