The (Finally) Emerging Republican Majority

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/27/03 | Fred Barnes

[Pokey78]

Fred ping.

[untenured]

Just as a thought experiment, suppose the GOP had for seven years or so the sort of dominance in DC that the Democrats had when LBJ was in power -- RINO-proof majorities in both houses, the White House, the ability to reshape the Supreme Court. What would they do? How, a decade later, would the country be different?

[Torie]

Far too much emphasis the weight has been put on the recall election, as some harbinger of a reallignment. There was a slow and steady realignment from about 1977 on, that slowly made the GOP into a parity party from a minority party. The Burnham hypothesis based on about 4 data points (an absudly small statistical sample), or realligning elections, really did not pan out.

In any event, the whole schematic is dated. The allignments are driven these days by style and what superficial cultural issues are in play, and just how the somewhat economically pressed Anglo lower middle class vote goes, which is cross conflicted by a host of issues. The idea that there will be a stable majority party holding sway is profoundly silly. It is unlikely to happen, particularly since with modern communications and focus groups and pollings, the parties, and more to the point, political entreprenuers, can tack with considerably more accuracy and boatloads of more media money, towards trying to garner the vital swing voters.

Thus I suspects public squares like FR will be endlessly fascinating until sometime after I depart this mortal coil.

[Petronski]

If there has been a realignment, it is because conservatives have continued to talk about what they want and for what the stand, while liberals have become more and more shrill, more dependant on the smear, more likely to demonize--and each escalation of this pettiness has made them even less credible.

[kylaka]

I remember another book with that title. The author made a convincing argument. Then along came Nixon, who not only established the EPA to pacify the left, but then allowed the label of corrupt party to be pasted on Republicans for nearly a generation.

[pawdoggie]

Gee, Fred better not tell Dickie Morris. He thinks there's an inevitable swing to the Rats coming (due to increased "Hispanic" immigration, more professional women in the work force, declining White birth rate, phases of the moon, etc). Under Dick's theory, the GOP better move heavily left real soon, and attack Iran. Morris has become Cicero of our time in demanding the immediate sacking of Teheran.

[Torie]

Try again:

Far too much emphasis and weight has been put on the recall election, as some harbinger of a realignment. There was a slow and steady realignment from about 1977 on, that slowly made the GOP into a parity party from a minority party. There was no seismic event, Reagan to the contrary notwithstanding, although Reagan was a factor. The Burnham hypothesis based on about 4 data points (an absurdly small statistical sample), on realigning elections as some political harbinger, that occurred about every 30 to 40 years or so, really did not pan out.

In any event, the whole schematic is dated. The alignments are driven these days by style and what superficial cultural issues are in play, and just how the somewhat economically pressed Anglo lower middle class vote goes, which is cross conflicted by a host of issues. The idea that there will be a stable majority party holding sway is profoundly silly. It is unlikely to happen, particularly since with modern communications and focus groups and pollings, the parties, and more to the point, political entreprenuers, can tack with considerably more accuracy and with boatloads of more money for the media, towards trying to garner the vital swing voters.

Thus I suspects public squares like FR will be endlessly fascinating until sometime after I depart this

[goldstategop]

We'll find out next year if Fred Barnes' theory holds up. I think that in liberal states, the GOP can competitive if it grabs conservatives who are moderate to liberal on cultural issues. The Democrats don't have any one to make social conservatives feel welcome in their party. The Republicans have figured how to occupy the center and advance conservative principles without looking like they want to tell people what to do in their bedrooms or being hung up on gays. We've moved past that. Give us 40 years in power and the country will be a lot different than it is today.

[Pubbie]

"Rats coming (due to increased "Hispanic" immigration, more professional women in the work force, declining White birth rate, phases of the moon, etc)."

Russian and Ukrainian immigrants vote 80% Republican.

If the US allows only 20 million Russian and Ukrainian immigrants into the US over 10 years, then that will COMPLETELY offset the growth of the Hispanic population (30% of which will come from Illegal Immigrants who can't vote).

[Doctor Stochastic]

Probably grow government at an even bigger rate than now.

[untenured]

Republicans have figured how to occupy the center and advance conservative principles without looking like they want to tell people what to do in their bedrooms or being hung up on gays. We've moved past that. Give us 40 years in power and the country will be a lot different than it is today.

Can you talk with any confidence about particulars? Do you think much of current federal spending (which I'm guessing is between 25 and 30% of GDP, much of it for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) will be gone? What will the relationship between the federal government and the states be? Will Roe v. Wade still be the law of the land? I offer these up only as examples; any insights would be useful.

What are the "conservative principles" to which a meaningfully empowered GOP would be most devoted? It's never been seen in my lifetime, so it's worth thinking about what, in detail, it would mean.

[goldstategop]

Reducing taxes, pruning back government regulations, and making America more pro-life. We didn't get to our statist society over night. We have to be incremental and work as long and hard to achieve our objectives as the Democrats did to attain theirs. And we're just getting started.

[Torie]

Yep, the smallest government per experience comes from the GOP controlling the legislature, and the Dems controlling the presidency. But smaller government, is not really what most voters care about. Indeed, it is not what I primarily care about, and I admit it (what I care about, and why, and when, is beyond the scope here). You know that, and I know that. It is an abstract idea, without meaning that translates into the average voter's life. They are more micro than macro, particularly when it comes to state and local elections, and to a lessor extent federal elections, and lessor still, but still important, presidential elections.

[Fledermaus]

And the left has stuck to nothing but old, tired and worn out ideas from the 1940's and 1960's. More and more voters know these universal, one size fits all, top down controlled government programs do not work.

When the GOP forced Clinton to sign welfare reform in 1996 after he vetoed two previous bills (the first he called too draconian, the second he just babbled nonsense about and the third, which was closer to the first, he finally signed) voters could see that the old government model was wrong. Report after report they read of women being forced to quit school or lose welfare money or stop running a small business like braiding hair or lose all welfare money, etc. (But of course, after whining about welfare reform and focusing their entire 1996 convention around "fixing reform", the Dems took credit for it's success)

So now these voters are usually more receptible to listen to new ideas about Socical Security, Medicare, etc. This is why, in my opinion, the one size fits all, universal, top down underestimated prescription drug program isn't still the #1 topic of the day. You can't get lower middle class and poor voters to care about a program when they are told billionares over the age of 67 would also get free drugs.

Why the Dems just don't allow the free market reforms the GOP wants and means test the prescription drugs is silly to me. They can claim credit with the Republicans and show bipartisanship. But instead, they stick to the old 1965 Medicare model.

My father is 68 and a lifelong Democrat (he did vote for Nixon in 1972 though) and does not and will not participate in Medicare. He would rather work 32-35 hours a week to get health coverage for him and my mom. This cuts into his measly Soc Sec money thanks to Bill Clinton's 1993 tax bill and since my mom never worked much she doesn't get hardly any. And he knows the premiums charged for Medicare Part B are ungodly.

When I talk to him about privatization and free market reforms, he's all for the ideas and wish he had those options. So now, even though he's getting out voted living in Portland, OR, he'll more than likely vote GOP.

My mom is a lost cause! lol She still thinks Soc Sec should be paying her $1,500 a month or more and all of her health insurance even though she hardly worked outside the home!

[Doctor Stochastic]

As long as the GOP promises a bit more safety, free schooling, free old age care, and free prescription drugs, they can stay the majority. Saving Medicare, Social Security, and providing money for schools and health care is the key to majority status.

[Fledermaus]

It's more like 19%-20% of GDP.

[Wilhelm Tell]

Schwarzenegger's prominence makes it okay for voters who are moderate-to-liberal on cultural issues but conservative on taxes and spending to be Republican.

So it is somehow an improvement that the new Republicans can run an intrusive, power-mad welfare state more efficiently than the Democrats can? I am tired of politicians who only argue about which one of them can afford to place the most chains around my neck. A case in point, I would love it if the Republicans would fight hard to put good judges in office rather than mumble about how "compassionate" they are (too compassionate to put up a fight). There are too many so-called conservatives who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. A fundamental problem is that Democrat leaders at the national level know what they believe in -- a watered-down version of Marxism. Some Republican leaders don't seem to know what they believe in.

[Pubbie]

"But smaller government, is not really what most voters care about."

The overall idea is abstract, but smaller government is the basis for a multitude of ideas that increasingly appealing to the Whites such as Lower Taxes, less business regulations etc...

So far the White Population is becoming more and more Conservative with every passing decade.

The only problem for the GOP is the growth of the Hispanic population, but as I said, if you bring in 20 million Russians and Ukrainians that waters down the potency of the Hispanic vote even assuming Hispanic immigration and birthrates stay at abnormally high levels (And that is a very BIG if.)

[supercat]

Yep, the smallest government per experience comes from the GOP controlling the legislature, and the Dems controlling the presidency.

If the Republicans had the brains to point out that Clinton's "accomplishments" were the product of a Republican Congress, they would have made huge gains in 1996. Unfortunately, they decided instead to blast themselves in the feet by supporting that loser Dole.