The debate between Thomas Frank and Larry Bartels about the white-working class vote in America is certainly an interesting one. Frank makes the point that white-working class voters in the United States (at least prior to 2008) are voting against their economic interests, by voting for the Republicans who use emotionally charged social issues such as abortion and guns to win their support. On the other hand Bartels uses statistical analysis to conclude that outside of the South, white-working class voters have not abandoned the Democratic Party, nor do they brush aside their economic interests in favor of social issues. While Bartels argument is persuasive in its use of pure black-and-white numbers, Frank is correct in recognizing that this issue cannot be solved by simply analyzing the numbers from the National Election Survey (NES).
In the early 1930s working class whites were the foundation of the New Deal coalition. This was true not only in what was the "solid South," but also in other parts of the nation, Kansas included. Slowly over the years (particularly after President Johnson passed the Civil Rights legislation) white, working class society (not just in the South, but in predominantly white states such as Kansas) has gravitated to the Republican Party. Frank makes a persuasive argument explaining why this happened. He borrowed a familiar theme from the 2004 Presidential Campaign of John Edwards about "two Americas" (38). However he did use it differently to demonstrate how the GOP has taken everyday issues and turned them into wedges to carve up the Democratic Party during Presidential Elections. Particularly striking to me was when he stated that "a Red Stater is a regular, down-home working stiff, whereas Blue staters are always some sort of pretentious paper-shuffler." And he followed that up by quoting a man from a small town in Pennsylvania: "These people are tired of moral decay. They're tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." This man bought into the Republican brand of populism that candidates such as former President Bush used during his 2004 re-election campaign to win the support of working class voters. He and the Republican Party painted Senator John Kerry as a "pretentious paper shuffler" and an out-of-touch liberal from Massachusetts. Frank was right, the GOP got away with painting themselves as the populist party while still holding the hands of Wall Street, while the Democrats had no idea how to respond and Kerry looked weak.
Bartels repeatedly used statistical analysis to confront Frank's argument. But unfortunately he does little to explore the numbers further and had a very narrow definition of "working class." Frank confronted him about this directly in his response. Frank correctly argued that by defining "working class" as anyone who makes $35,000 a year or less Bartels was simply missing the point. He repeatedly made the case that individuals who had college degrees (and as a result could not consider themselves working class) were more culturally conservative than their "working class" counterparts who made less than $35,000. However as Frank argued, he does not define who is actually making less than $35,000. Some of those folks could "be struggling but they are not 'working class' by anyone's definition." On the other hand, Frank does not make this case, but some of those who make more than the $35,000 threshold could be making just slightly higher than that and are therefore bumped up into the "middle class." Just because they make $40,000 does not mean that they automatically change their mind about their ideals. Nor does it mean that they think of themselves as part of the middle class.
By setting a maximum income threshold to define a particular segment of society, Bartels is taking a cold look at a nuanced argument. Members of the working class do not define themselves by the amount of money they make. They define themselves as working class based on their lifestyle and profession. His choice to set an arbitrary barrier is radical and certainly not persuasive. Unfortunately this is not an argument that can be made on numbers alone. Prior to 2008, when Democrats learned how to speak the language of the working class again (with an assist by the terrible state of the economy and the nation's collective distaste for the GOP), the Republican Party was able to capitalize on and appeal to the working class by talking about emotional issues that appealed to them.
During the 2006 and 2008 campaigns voters, white working class included, recognized what Frank argued about the GOP, they "talk[ed] Christ, but...walk[ed] corporate" (34). People such as the man from small town Pennsylvania were "tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." The only difference according to Frank is they recognized that they had been had by the GOP and voted for the Democrats. Frank was correct when he discussed the importance of authenticity and how working class people (and all I people, I would argue) search for authenticity in a candidate. In 2004 they thought they had found it in George W. Bush, but they realized that unfortunately he was authentically artificial and according to Frank's logic, in 2008 they followed his advice and voted "right."
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Specter Joins Democrats; Senate Count May Reach 60
Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat relates to a lot of what we have been reading. The bottom line is he is an ambitious politican who wants to be re-elected. And the best way for him to that is to become a Democrat.
This obviously also helps the Democratic Party and President Obama. Assuming Al Franken is eventually seated, that puts the Democrats at 60 seats in the Senate, a fillibuster proof majority. But there are still many factions to contend with. For instance, the liberals from the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast still have to debate with Senators Nelson (Nebraska), Dorgan, Baucus, Tester, and others from more conservative parts of the country.
This obviously also helps the Democratic Party and President Obama. Assuming Al Franken is eventually seated, that puts the Democrats at 60 seats in the Senate, a fillibuster proof majority. But there are still many factions to contend with. For instance, the liberals from the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast still have to debate with Senators Nelson (Nebraska), Dorgan, Baucus, Tester, and others from more conservative parts of the country.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Conservative Party
If the GOP fell apart, there would be an extraordinarily large void on the right side of the political spectrum in this country. If I were to begin a new Conservative Party in this country it would be modeled after the creation of the Republican Party following the collapse of the Whig Party and the current British Conservative Party. The American version of the Conservative Party would have a similar base and attempt to attract the same voters as the GOP, but it would be more moderate (as the GOP has lost a lot of voters who tend to be socially moderate, while remaining fiscally conservative), ethnically and socially inclusive (I've written this in other posts, but the nation is slowly creeping toward a society that is no longer dominated by whites), and forward thinking (like their British counterparts who are led by David Cameron who is energetic and, as Time Magazine columnist Catherine Mayer describes him, posh, not necessarily a term associated with the GOP).
Specifically the American Conservative Party would do what according to Aldrich, its GOP counterparts were able to do when the Whig Party was shredding itself: "the Republican party had to expand its appeal from its antislavery position to a broader basis," (Aldrich 155). A new conservative party needs to expand its appeal from the roots of moderate homeowners who don't want their taxes increased and the national defense crowd and limit the influence of what James Carville described as the "GGG Party (More god, more guns, less gays)." A successful 21st century conservative party must do what they can to build on the other two parts of the GOP and attempt to mute the GGG's influence.
Specifically the American Conservative Party would do what according to Aldrich, its GOP counterparts were able to do when the Whig Party was shredding itself: "the Republican party had to expand its appeal from its antislavery position to a broader basis," (Aldrich 155). A new conservative party needs to expand its appeal from the roots of moderate homeowners who don't want their taxes increased and the national defense crowd and limit the influence of what James Carville described as the "GGG Party (More god, more guns, less gays)." A successful 21st century conservative party must do what they can to build on the other two parts of the GOP and attempt to mute the GGG's influence.
To get here, the Conservative Party needs to first reconcile some of the issues that the GOP is currently grappling with. Simply they need to cede the following to the Democrats: civil unions/gay marriage, stem cell research, climate change, immigration reform, and health care reform. By foregoing fighting over gay marriage and stem cell research, the Conservative Party would recognize the moderate shift of the electorate toward the middle on certain social issues. In addition the Conservative Party platform would acknowledge the striking damage done to the climate through the emission of greenhouse gases. As a result, they would fall in line with the rest of the country and vociferously support legislation that leads to the reduction of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The GOP stance on immigration reform during the 2005 debate was far from inclusive. Conservatives need to adopt a softer approach or they risk alienating the fastest growing voting bloc in the electorate. Similarly health care reform is an issue that also appears to have gained support recently. Just as the GOP has accepted and acknowledged the success of Social Security as a social program, the Conservative Party would recognize the positives surrounding some sort of universal health care program.
Beyond those five issues which the GOP appears to have taken the wrong track or constructed irrational and scattered viewpoints, the Conservatives would adopt the GOP's advocation for limited government intervention in business and other parts of the economy, their pro-gun stance, and their pro-life beliefs. However, with each, particularly the pro-gun and pro-life stances, the platform would read more pragmatically and be accepting of those who happen to not stand uniformly behind the platform.
Tied to the switch in tone is a new generation of leadership. Fire-brandish members of Congress such as Michelle Bachman and Spencer Bachus would be allowed in the party, but would not be highly visible. Instead the Conservative Party would highlight, younger, moderate leaders who are not only respected by the GOP base (which will eventually be necessary if the American Conservative Party is to survive), but also have strong working relationships with the middle of the electorate. Potential leaders would be similar to what, according to Aldrich, the Republicans did when the Whigs were slowly dissipating (147-148). The party would begin to gain traction at the local, state, and Congressional levels. Then eventually as they moved ahead and attracted conservative voters, the Republican Party would begin to lose it influence and grip on the ideological right. As the GOP began to fall apart, older party leaders would simply retire or join the Conservative Party. But they would likely take a back seat to some younger, more innovative members of Congress or other party members.
The Conservative Party cannot limit itself to a strict region anymore. The country is shrinking as a result of urban sprawl and advances in technology. However the party must be born somewhere other than the Deep South. If the GOP survives at all, and maintains their current ideology, they will remain strong in the Deep South. Recently the increasingly diverse West has been flirting with Democrats (e.g. elections of Ken Salazar and the Udalls to the Senate, not to mention President Obama's gains made in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada). If the party is born in the West they will have popularity and recognition in the newest round of battleground states. Then when the GOP collapses the South will fall into line even if they are not necessarily satisfied with the Conservative Party's willingness to be more socially inclusive (social issues, not racial issues).
As the GOP shrinks, the Conservative Party would begin to fill the void for conservative voters. Because of the magnitude of the current parties, the Conservative Party would need to be patient in its development, but once it began to spread its message, the vacuum will be filled quickly. The time the GOP spends in decline will likely take about 10 years and the Conservative Party will slowly begin to build a national infrastructure by attracting party activists who hold conservative viewpoints, but are dissatisfied with the direction of the GOP. Then once the GOP collapses the Conservatives will rapidly ascend (within 1-2 election cycles) to national prominence. This will happen much quicker than during the period of Jackson when the Democrats went unchallenged for a few election cycles.
The Conservative Party cannot limit itself to a strict region anymore. The country is shrinking as a result of urban sprawl and advances in technology. However the party must be born somewhere other than the Deep South. If the GOP survives at all, and maintains their current ideology, they will remain strong in the Deep South. Recently the increasingly diverse West has been flirting with Democrats (e.g. elections of Ken Salazar and the Udalls to the Senate, not to mention President Obama's gains made in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada). If the party is born in the West they will have popularity and recognition in the newest round of battleground states. Then when the GOP collapses the South will fall into line even if they are not necessarily satisfied with the Conservative Party's willingness to be more socially inclusive (social issues, not racial issues).
As the GOP shrinks, the Conservative Party would begin to fill the void for conservative voters. Because of the magnitude of the current parties, the Conservative Party would need to be patient in its development, but once it began to spread its message, the vacuum will be filled quickly. The time the GOP spends in decline will likely take about 10 years and the Conservative Party will slowly begin to build a national infrastructure by attracting party activists who hold conservative viewpoints, but are dissatisfied with the direction of the GOP. Then once the GOP collapses the Conservatives will rapidly ascend (within 1-2 election cycles) to national prominence. This will happen much quicker than during the period of Jackson when the Democrats went unchallenged for a few election cycles.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama’s Revenue Plans Hit Resistance in Congress
This was an interesting take on a pretty mind-numbing issue. It appears that a significant portion of President Obama's budget has hit a bit of a road block in Congress. Particularly his health care proposal. This is just another example of the President and Congress attempting to work together. Even though Democrats control both branches, it is still a struggle.
One more. According to Politico the GOP is a little late getting to health care party. They have yet to come up with an alternative and there is some concern within Congress that the Dems may be making headway toward universal coverage.
One more. According to Politico the GOP is a little late getting to health care party. They have yet to come up with an alternative and there is some concern within Congress that the Dems may be making headway toward universal coverage.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
GOP: Not Going Anywhere
The modern Republican Party's decline is a product of their unwillingness to adapt to a new world. However, once they begin to find their footing they will continue to be a national party. At this point, it is highly unlikely that they will suffer the same fate as the Whig Party. This is particularly true since they (almost alone) occupy the mainstream conservative ideology. Who on the right is going to do what Aldrich described? The GOP filled a void left by the Whigs in the Northwest and eventually moved into the Northeast? The Libertarian Party has a niche, but it drifts too far out of the mainstream (legalizing drugs is one example). That said, the demographic direction of the nation is skewing away from those people who currently make up the GOP base. However, there are enough innovative people within the party who can rescue them from becoming a regional faction that simply occupies the South and Great Plains. There are just going to be some growing pains.
Currently the GOP is attempting to meld themselves into a 21st century party made up of more than just (as the stereotype would say) crusty white men who continue fighting the 1960s-born culture wars by railing against abortion, gun control, and taxes. They have made some attempts to reach out to minorities (who, by 2050, will outnumber whites) and younger voters. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is an African-American. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered the response to President Obama's address to Congress earlier this year. He is of Indian-American descent. Meghan McCain has recently become somewhat of a spokesperson (and a critic) for young Republicans. In addition, Congressman Aaron Schock, at 27 years old is the youngest member of the House of Representatives. Although his role so far has been more gossipy than substantive (he is frequently mentioned on tmz.com). The problem is that they have not quite figured out how to reach their target audience (other than perhaps McCain).
Steele has received criticism for his verbose personality and unwillingness to acknowledge the evolution of issues. For instance, his declaration that "we are cooling. We are not warming," runs counter to what former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson was quoted as writing in the NY Times article for this blog: “The issues of the moment — income stagnation, climate disruption, massive demographic shifts and health care access — seem strange, unexplored land for many in the movement.” I realize it is the party chair's job to be controversial and partisan, but even Gerson (no pinko) recognizes climate change and the need to explore alternative forms of energy. Steele cooked up the "drill baby, drill" line during the campaign. So while he may represent a symbolic change away from the stereotypical Republican, he has yet to have a serious discussion with some of the more moderate forces (Governors Jon Huntsman, Charlie Crist, and Arnold Schwarzenegger) within the party. The good thing for the Republicans is that I think he wants to have that discussion. Shortly after being elected, he took a swipe at Rush Limbaugh by calling him what he is, "an entertainer." He later apologized. That demonstrates that while he is not publicly comfortable confronting the party heavyweights, he understands that it must be done.
Similar to Steele, Governor Jindal represents a shift away from what has represented the conservative movement. He is young, innovative, and not white. But he has done little to distance himself from base of the party (the number of people who identified themselves as Republicans fell significantly between 2004 and 2008). His decision to oppose the stimulus package was a little shocking and appeared to be in line with the conservative base of his party. Despite this and his lackluster response to President Obama's address to Congress, he has demonstrated leadership by attempting to rebuild a state that has been physically and emotionally destructed. If he can somehow translate that into a coherent message about the successes of the Republican Party, he can help the party rebound.
Perhaps the person speaking most clearly for the Republican Party is Senator John McCain's daughter, Meghan. She speaks a young person's language. She frequently posts a blog on The Daily Beast and has a tendency to be overtly critical of the party's fire brandish members (e.g. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham). If she and others (such as Chairman Steele, Governor Jindal, and Congressman Schock) within the Party can convince party leaders that Ronald Reagan is dead and the battles of the 1960s are over and the issues facing the nation need solutions that are not divisive toward minorities and young people, they can rebound and remain a national party.
To answer the 2nd question, yes I hope a byproduct of living in extraordinary times is that some of the chatter on cable news and in the blogosphere about the direction of the party will cease. Talk about issues is good for a change. Times are too sober to have a public that is more in tune with who got kicked off of Dancing with the Stars than what universal health care can mean for you. But what happens when the economy recovers? Does the GOP become what they were post World War II and we are left with Chris Matthews asking every other guest about the direction of the party GOP?
Currently the GOP is attempting to meld themselves into a 21st century party made up of more than just (as the stereotype would say) crusty white men who continue fighting the 1960s-born culture wars by railing against abortion, gun control, and taxes. They have made some attempts to reach out to minorities (who, by 2050, will outnumber whites) and younger voters. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is an African-American. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered the response to President Obama's address to Congress earlier this year. He is of Indian-American descent. Meghan McCain has recently become somewhat of a spokesperson (and a critic) for young Republicans. In addition, Congressman Aaron Schock, at 27 years old is the youngest member of the House of Representatives. Although his role so far has been more gossipy than substantive (he is frequently mentioned on tmz.com). The problem is that they have not quite figured out how to reach their target audience (other than perhaps McCain).
Steele has received criticism for his verbose personality and unwillingness to acknowledge the evolution of issues. For instance, his declaration that "we are cooling. We are not warming," runs counter to what former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson was quoted as writing in the NY Times article for this blog: “The issues of the moment — income stagnation, climate disruption, massive demographic shifts and health care access — seem strange, unexplored land for many in the movement.” I realize it is the party chair's job to be controversial and partisan, but even Gerson (no pinko) recognizes climate change and the need to explore alternative forms of energy. Steele cooked up the "drill baby, drill" line during the campaign. So while he may represent a symbolic change away from the stereotypical Republican, he has yet to have a serious discussion with some of the more moderate forces (Governors Jon Huntsman, Charlie Crist, and Arnold Schwarzenegger) within the party. The good thing for the Republicans is that I think he wants to have that discussion. Shortly after being elected, he took a swipe at Rush Limbaugh by calling him what he is, "an entertainer." He later apologized. That demonstrates that while he is not publicly comfortable confronting the party heavyweights, he understands that it must be done.
Similar to Steele, Governor Jindal represents a shift away from what has represented the conservative movement. He is young, innovative, and not white. But he has done little to distance himself from base of the party (the number of people who identified themselves as Republicans fell significantly between 2004 and 2008). His decision to oppose the stimulus package was a little shocking and appeared to be in line with the conservative base of his party. Despite this and his lackluster response to President Obama's address to Congress, he has demonstrated leadership by attempting to rebuild a state that has been physically and emotionally destructed. If he can somehow translate that into a coherent message about the successes of the Republican Party, he can help the party rebound.
Perhaps the person speaking most clearly for the Republican Party is Senator John McCain's daughter, Meghan. She speaks a young person's language. She frequently posts a blog on The Daily Beast and has a tendency to be overtly critical of the party's fire brandish members (e.g. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham). If she and others (such as Chairman Steele, Governor Jindal, and Congressman Schock) within the Party can convince party leaders that Ronald Reagan is dead and the battles of the 1960s are over and the issues facing the nation need solutions that are not divisive toward minorities and young people, they can rebound and remain a national party.
To answer the 2nd question, yes I hope a byproduct of living in extraordinary times is that some of the chatter on cable news and in the blogosphere about the direction of the party will cease. Talk about issues is good for a change. Times are too sober to have a public that is more in tune with who got kicked off of Dancing with the Stars than what universal health care can mean for you. But what happens when the economy recovers? Does the GOP become what they were post World War II and we are left with Chris Matthews asking every other guest about the direction of the party GOP?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Newt: U.S. at greater risk under Obama
So since we are posting about the future of the GOP this week, I thought I would provide some talk from their former (and possibly future) leader, Newt Gingrich. He seems to be everywhere. Every time I turn on a Sunday talk show, there he is. Now he is answering reader questions on Politico. Gee, I wonder if he is considering running for President in 2012?
Along the same lines of Gingrich's comments comes this article about North Korea's missile launch over the weekend. The interesting question is, is North Korea crazy enough to launch a nuclear warhead? Or are they simply doing this for political reasons?
Along the same lines of Gingrich's comments comes this article about North Korea's missile launch over the weekend. The interesting question is, is North Korea crazy enough to launch a nuclear warhead? Or are they simply doing this for political reasons?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
