The Reemerging Republican Majority?

RealClearPolitics ^ | September 25, 2009 | Henry Olsen

[neverdem]

Especially in a democratic age, statesmen are careful students of social trends. They know that the art of political leadership can't afford to ignore the science of political demography, even though the former can never be reduced to the latter. Conservatives who seek a revival in their movement must exhibit similar wisdom and closely examine how America has changed since the glory days of President Ronald Reagan, and how those changes pose new challenges to, and may impose new limits on, conservatism today.

The conservative ascendancy of the Reagan years centered in the middle class. It wasn't just any middle class, though; conservative strength was concentrated in the modern suburb. Commonplace today, suburbs revolutionized American life. In 1940, 23% of Americans lived on farms; by 1980, only 4% did. Big cities declined too: between 1950 and 1980, cities in the North and Midwest lost millions of residents either to their own suburbs or to those in the Sunbelt. Though they began as a small, largely upper class phenomenon, the suburbs eventually became home to nearly a majority of the American population.

Thus the key political question increasingly became: who are the suburbanites and what do they want? When Reagan was elected...

--snip--

Populism need not be directed against Big Business alone. The essence of populism is the belief that an unworthy elite whom you cannot control has control over you, and that government can redress that grievance. Wall Street bailouts that enrich corrupt elites enrage working-class voters. Non-payment of taxes by administration appointees fuels the common man's suspicion that government is not on his side. Add the economic pressure he will soon feel from the Obama Administration's aggressive pursuit of its environmental and immigration agendas, and one can see how Republicans could begin to recapture the populist mantle for themselves...

[freeangel]

I kind of hate it being called a Republican majority. I’d rather call it a Conservative majority. And one way to have that is to get rid of as many RHINOs as we can in 2010.

[Niuhuru]

Yes. The PC crowd has run rampant and wrecked everything. I only regret that when things become prosperous and stable, they turn to liberals who mess it up again.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

What good will it do, if all leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be undone? This is the question that needs definitive answers to by conservatives! There's still too much leftist legislation that's already in place from FDR's days as POTUS through past Obama’s entire duration as POTUS!

[dalebert]

may not happen...i am not re imerging with them....not til they start waving the constitution like its the flag of this country

[rjp2005]

No, it’s something new that’s starting. The GOP as we know it has too many Rhinos.

[Reagan Man]

Ronald Reagan: The New Republican Party, 4th Annual CPAC Convention, February 6, 1977

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."
~~~ President Ronald Reagan

[tennmountainman]

I would not hold my breath waiting on the current batch of GOP leadership ( Steele, Bonehead Bohnior and Mcconnell ) to lead the GOP to a majority. Sure, the GOP will pick up seats in the mid-term because of the RATS policies. But with this current crop of leaders, a majority is out of the question.

If there were a young, Newt Gingrich, leading the charge i would have a different opinion. Not with this current bunch of losers.

[Jacquerie]

What good will it do, if all leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be undone?

Leftists are pros at institutionalizing Leftism. What they cannot get passed into legitimate law via Congress they can count on Scotus and regulations issued by the unelected, untouchable bureaucrats in such agencies as the EPA.

So yes, all we conservatives can really do is dance around the edges of what the Left has made permanent and maybe delay what they will eventually get.

[Defiant]

Demographics is destiny, and the point of immigration reform and unfettered borders is to change America’s demographics to reverse the Reagan Revolution. Plain and simple. There will be a backlash from the demographics that elected Reagan, but they are about 10 percent fewer than they were 25 years ago, and shrinking. There is one last chance to save America while we conservatives can still muster a majority, but we better make the most of it, or it will be a short counter-revolution, kind of like California’s brief Republican legislature in 1995 that lasted about 15 minutes.

[RED SOUTH]

Last surveyed , America has become more conservative. The split bewtween conservative and moderate vs. liberal is almost 80/20. McCain blew the election. The media loved the dream of the first black man in the White House. Obama spent 600 million , unprecedented. Obama ran center left , Clinton style and ran on tax cuts.

The country has snapped out of the fog as Obama has proven to be a far leftist. Time is running out for them.

[Anima Mundi]

I have been thinking of a reframing. Instead of being against big government or for small/less government, what about being FOR “LOcAL” government? Localists? Just a thought.

[brushcop]

Instead of being against big government or for small/less government, what about being FOR “LOcAL” government? Localists? Just a thought.

That's the idea behing a Federal Republic but what we have to do is get back to the Constitution, support it, believe in it and ENFORCE it as it was intended. It's the law of the land. The pols must be made to obey it or face the consequences.

But investigations need to be conducted NOW, indictments MUST be served and the process begun or it's not worth the beautiful parchment it's written on.

[brushcop]

behing=behind *sheesh* sometimes I wonder...

[Aquabird]

Liberals like to chant “Demographics! Demographics! Demographics!” because they know they are losing the current argument and want to feel that whatever happens, demographics will hatch more liberals. James Carville even wrote a book called 40 Years of Liberal Rule.

The big problem is that demographics is actually about birth rate. If you talk about demographics and do not talk about birth rates, then you aren’t talking demographics. You are talking about ‘segmentation’ instead.

This is why the Catholic Church chooses its battles over anything that touches the birth rate. Abortion, contraception, and anything that leads to no children are opposed because the Church’s long time goal is to let other Churches shrivel and die out due to having no children. This has worked for thousands of years.

Ideas and values are passed primarily from parent to child. This is why Radical Feminism has never become popularized because they do not have children or believe in having children.

In America, one side believes in abortion and generally a less children and even depopulation. The other side opposes abortion, believes in having children. Which side has a demographic future? You betcha.

One thing all the demographic talkers always do is that lump hispanics as a race. Hispanics are not a race. If Hispanics are a race, then being Irish would be a race. They are Spanish descendants after all. Sure, there is native American blood in them, but there is also Native American blood in all Americans. I live in Texas and witness George W. Bush winning the majority of the Hispanic vote down here. In California, Hispanics voted against gay marriage. If anything, Hispanics remind me more of the old Democrats of the 1930s. They are economically poor, but they do not tolerate sissies. Hispanics are not going to be anything like the New England liberals.

Historically, the party in decline occupies New England. Now, this might be because New England is the most European part of America. But whatever the case, political parties go to New England to die. Federalist Party. Whigs. When FDR was winning election after election, Republicans occupied a few New England states. In 2008, all of the House Republicans in New England got wiped out. This is why it is destiny for the RINOs to die and for conservatives to take over the party. This is what 2010 will be about. It may not produce the majorities that 1994 made, but it will be a more substantive win because the RINOs will be made extinct.

But regardless, anyone who lumps Hispanic as a Race is a political hack and isn’t serious about demographics. Hispanics are members of the White Race. They speak a White language (Spanish), and they have a White religion (Catholic HQ in Italy).

All the talk about 2010 and who is running in 2012 is illustrative where the people are going. People like to look at a rising sun, not a setting sun. The chattering about 2012 and 2010 everywhere tells me that the liberal sun is setting and in decline. The political cycle’s pendulum is swinging back.

[misterrob]

No chance of that happening. The country is not majority conservative in its beliefs.

[Major Matt Mason]

What good will it do, if all leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be undone?

Technically speaking, there is no reason that bad legislation can't be undone. The problem is political will, or lack thereof, which has historically been the case for those that masquerade as Republicans. The moderates claim to be fiscally conservative, but I've seen very little evidence of this trait in their deeds. So, until they walk the walk, reversing some of the damage done to this country during the Obama years will be nearly impossible (unless conservatives truly take over the GOP, of course).

[neverdem]

Is Obama Becoming a Joke?

BOB HERBERT: Does Obama Get It?

The Lion King in Winter (NY Times rips Charlie Rangel a new one!)

Qom Known Since 2006 Remember that 2007 NIE?

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[sport]

Where?

[Clintonfatigued]

The electorate of 2010 won’t be the same electorate as it was in 2008. But it’s important to remember, it won’t be the same electorate as it was in 1994.

Overall, a pretty good analysis on how to appeal to suburban voters.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks neverdem.

[Clemenza]

Populism is very UN-conservative. It is a mobocratic movement that threatens constitutionalism. Besides, can there REALLY be a political movement that truly captures "the will of the majority?"

Remember, half the population has an IQ south of 100...

[The Mayor]

Bingo! That is exactly what we need and what this country was supposed to be. Problem is, getting it back.

[Defiant]

You are excessively optimistic. There is a reason that liberals have taken over the key institutions of society, and that is to break down our people, change them, mold them, make them able to accept homosexuals, fear masculinity, tear apart the family, release feminism on society, diminish religion as an influence, etc. We are operating on the capital, both financial and societal, of past generations of Americans, but we are rapidly squandering that capital.

The populace, now that the WW2 generation is nearly gone, is less conservative than it was 25 years ago. Reagan won with 70 percent of the white vote. He wouldn't get that high a percentage now, and whites are much fewer than they were. We have been closely split between Republican and Dem for about 10 years, as we all know, but adding 20 million Mexicans to the mix, together with the Dems' proficiency as vote-stealers, will be more than enough to gain the votes to swing the difference in dozens of districts, and many states. Then, with the high birth rate of immigrants, and the new dem voters will continue to grow more rapidly than GOP voters, and there are too many of them to assimilate them so that they might become GOP voters.

Immigration is the whole ball of wax. Fail to stop the reform bill, fail to kick out the illegals, and soon enough, it won't matter what we do in 2010.

[Defiant]

anyone who lumps Hispanic as a Race is a political hack and isn’t serious about demographics.

Who did that? I know I didn't. Cubans are great Americans. Cubans are also, by definition, not illegal aliens, because once they get here, they are allowed to stay here.

Whoever thinks 20 million illegal alien Mexicans have any chance of voting for conservatives at a more than 3 percent rate is a hack.

[hinckley buzzard]

I can picture an ad with Rip Van Winkle waking after a twenty year nap. "Wazzat?" He asks a passerby, "The gubbermint owns GM and Chrysler now? And all the banks and insurance companies? And makes you pay double for electricity? Won't let you burn coal? And tells you what kind of lightbulb to put in your house? And punishes you with a fine of thousands of dollars if you don't buy their gubbermint-approved health insurance? What the H happened to my country?"

I think a "smaller, less threatening government" platform could work.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Delacon]

 

Technically speaking, there is no reason that bad legislation can't be undone. The problem is political will, or lack thereof, which has historically been the case for those that masquerade as Republicans. The moderates claim to be fiscally conservative, but I've seen very little evidence of this trait in their deeds. So, until they walk the walk, reversing some of the damage done to this country during the Obama years will be nearly impossible (unless conservatives truly take over the GOP, of course).

Read this article and let me know if you still think conservative majorities in congress and the white house at the same time would even be able to undo what this congress and Obama wish to achieve (remember no amount of conservative influence in the halls of power has yet put a dent in social security or medicare since their inception). Yes we had success reforming welfare but only because its beneficiaries made up a select small and un politically powerful group. Once a policy becomes universal like healthcare, then either no one who opposes those policies can get elected, or those that do get elected back away from any attempt to reform them. Hell even conservatives are supporting hands off Medicare to beat Obama over the head.  

No turning back from Obamacare

Even a watered-down version of Obama's plan would shift the country permanently to the left.

Mark Steyn

Syndicated columnist

Comments 67| 53

My conservative friends – and even a few media liberals – are agreed: The bloom is off the Obama rose. He's not the Obamessiah, just another 50 percent president. He tried to do too much too fast, and his numbers are sinking. The Europeanization of health care is dead. Fuhgeddabouddit.

I wouldn't be so sure. President Barack Obama has no choice but to move fast, in part because the image he presented during the campaign – a post-partisan, post-racial, post-anything-unpleasant-and-controversial pragmatic centrist – was a total crock. He has a vast transformative domestic agenda and, because most of its elements are not terribly popular, he has to accomplish it at speed or he won't get it done at all.

Health care "reform"? As we've seen this past week in the House of Representatives, put not your trust in "Blue Dog Democrats." And, as we'll no doubt see in the weeks ahead in the Senate, put not your trust in "moderate Republicans" whose urge to "reach across the aisle" is so reflexive it ought to be covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The president needs to get something passed. Anything. The details don't matter. Once it's in place, health care "reform" can be re-reformed endlessly. Indeed, you'll be surprised how little else we talk about. So, for example, public funding for abortions can be discarded now, and written in – as it surely will be by some judge – down the road. What matters is to ram it through, get it done, pass it now – in whatever form.

If this seems a perverse obsession for a nation with a weak economy, rising unemployment and a war on two fronts, it has a very sound strategic logic behind it. As I wrote in National Review a week or two back, health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. That's its attraction for an ambitious president: It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists – to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular.

That's not why it's tanking in the polls, of course. It's floundering because Obama sold it initially on the basis of "controlling costs," and then the Congressional Budget Office let the cat out of the bag and pointed out that, au contraire, it would cost $1.6 trillion, and therefore either add to an unsustainable deficit, or require massive tax increases, or (more likely) both.

All of which is true. But to object to the governmentalization of health care on that basis implicitly concedes the argument that, if we could figure out a way to bring the price down, it would be fine and dandy. Right now, there are a lot of wonkish and utilitarian objections to what the Democrats want to do, and they're gaining traction. In The American Spectator, Brandon Crocker points out that this is exactly the way things went over Hillarycare in 1993: Americans took against the plan on practical grounds but not against the underlying principle. "Since we did not win that philosophical argument in 1993," Mr. Crocker writes, "we now have to fight the same battle today." And, if we win on utilitarian grounds today, we'll have to fight it again in 10 years, five years, maybe less – until something passes, and then everything changes, forever: As the IRA famously taunted Margaret Thatcher, we only have to get lucky once; you have to be lucky every day.

On the price tag: It's often argued that, as a proportion of GDP, America spends more on health care than countries with government medical systems. But, as a point of fact, "America" doesn't spend anything on health care: Hundreds of millions of people make hundreds of millions of individual decisions about what they're going to spend on health care. Whereas up north a handful of bureaucrats determine what Canada will spend on health care – and that's that: Health care is a government budget item. If Joe Hoser in Moose Jaw wants to increase Canada's health care spending by $500 drawn from his savings account, he can't: The law prevents it. Unless, as many Canadians do, he drives south and spends it in a U.S. hospital for treatment he can't get in a timely manner in his own country.

You can make the "controlling costs" argument about anything: After all, it's no surprise that millions of free people freely choosing how they spend their own money will spend it in different ways than government bureaucrats would be willing to license on their behalf. America spends more per capita on food than Zimbabwe. America spends more on vacations than North Korea. America spends more on lap-dancing than Saudi Arabia (well, officially). Canada spends more per capita on doughnuts than America, and, given comparative girths, Canucks are clearly not getting as much bang for the buck. Why doesn't Ottawa introduce a National Doughnut Licensing Agency? You'd still see your general dispenser for simple procedures like a lightly sugared cruller but he'd refer you to a specialist if you needed, say, a maple-frosted custard, and it would only be a six-month wait, at the end of which you'd receive a stale cinnamon roll. Under government regulation, eventually every doughnut would be all hole and no doughnut, and the problem would be solved. Even if the hole costs $1.6 trillion.

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

That's the argument that needs to be won. And, if you think I'm being frivolous in positing bureaucratic regulation of doughnuts and vacations, consider that under the all-purpose umbrellas of "health" and "the environment," governments of supposedly free nations are increasingly comfortable straying into areas of diet and leisure. Last year, a British bill attempted to ban Tony the Tiger, longtime pitchman for Frosties, from children's TV because of his malign influence on young persons. Why not just ban Frosties? Or permit it by prescription only? Or make kids stand outside on the sidewalk to eat it? It was also proposed – by the Conservative Party, alas – that, in the interests of saving the planet, each citizen should be permitted to fly a certain number of miles a year, after which he would be subject to punitive eco-surtaxes. Isn't restricting freedom of movement kind of, you know … totalitarian?

Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks – drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

Government health care would be wrong even if it "controlled costs." It's a liberty issue. I'd rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.