Why the attitude? Do you want to alienate voters? Do you like to reward those who will never vote for the GOP based on social issues? The professional class of voters have shifted to the Democratic party in the last 15 years, look at how NJ used to be GOP leaning and now is fairly solidly Democratic, same with Long Island. The GOPs bast chance at counter acting this is getting the votes of socially conservative working class voters, but as more of them are economically displaced, they will vote Democratic.
In my state of Ohio, I have seen this, the professional classes has trended towrds Democrats, and the working class who do not care for social liberalism are economically insecure, and they are fustrated that nothing is being done to stop the export of jobs and stop the importation of cheap labor.
well put.
I am on long island, and that is exactly the trend. The professionals now work in essentially non-productive industries - they make their money off "the system", and seek those in government who will keep feeding that system. Anyone who talks about tort reform, or litigation reform to lower insurance rates, or medical savings accounts, or accountability from wall street - isn't going to play too well here.
I have always felt that if there is a "hidden" vote in this 2004 election that will break against Bush - this is where it is coming from. But then again, Kerry has been so inept at framing even the simplest argument here, that it probably will not materialize.
Why the attitude? Do you want to alienate voters? Do you like to reward those who will never vote for the GOP based on social issues? The professional class of voters have shifted to the Democratic party in the last 15 years, look at how NJ used to be GOP leaning and now is fairly solidly Democratic, same with Long Island.
In our two party system both parties reinvent themselves to get to the magical 50%+1 needed to win. The Dems have moved to the left on social issues in a big way in the last 50 years. In doing so they have picked up a bunch of professional voters for whom taxes are less important than gay rights, abortion rights and other stuff that motivates lefties.
The GOP has not stood still. Look that the party Reagan was part of. Nelson Rockefeller, a liberal, was one of the main players. Nixon proposed guaranteed annual incomes. Liberal compared to most GOPers today, on both social issues and economic ones.
It's interesting that neither party has really had a strong economic message. Both support internationalization and free trade, but wobble when it suits them. Clinton had 'balance the budget' as a theme but that was to co-opt the Perot vote and also because his advisors told him he couldn't have prosperity any other way. (Carvelle: "In my next life I want to come back as the bond market" quip)
At the end of the day the GOP is not important to most voters, some issues are. If jobs becomes the top issue then the Dems, with at least the ability to talk about unions, protectionism and other economic issues that normal people can relate to will probably become the majority party.
Right now the GOP runs on social issues and free trade, but it's an uneasy alliance. Many WSJ reading free traders could care less about gun rights or abortion. Many fundamentalists are only semi-sympathetic to free trade concepts. As long as they are employed it seems reasonable. Let their job be outsourced and suddenly it will not be as attractive.
I've seen dozens of friends in the computer industry go from big free trade advocates (when it was GM's jobs going to Mexico) to Perot-like protectionists (when its H1-Bs and outsourcing to India) .
Buchanan was the only recent national Republican candidate who attempted to meld populist economic notions with conservative social issues. He failed, in part because he was an imperfect vehicle for his message, in part because the Free Traders had better arguments, in part due to timing (we'd just won the cold war, not exactly the time to propose trade-unioninsm as a solution).
What is scary is to consider what happens if Kerry loses, Bush goes on to a second feeble term with continuing downsizing.
At that point you have set the stage for a true leftist Democratic candidate, far to the left of Kerry, to run and win. Inevitably GOP voting social conservatives will be screwed in the process.
The GOPs bast chance at counter acting this is getting the votes of socially conservative working class voters, but as more of them are economically displaced, they will vote Democratic.
So you say. But what is important to the leaders of the Republican party. A tricky question. My guess is that the Free Trade part of their platform is the key and the support for social conservatism is a tool to get elected. Look at the total lack of support for immigration control. When Free Trade ideology bumps up against Social Conservative values (stop the invasion, support our language and culture, don't let the SW turn into Mexico Norte) the Free Trade side wins.
An alternate strategy for the GOP is to make "small government, low taxes" their theme and embrace a more liberal social policy, dropping anti-abortion and pro-gun positions. This is probably a more likely route to majority status (ie: win soccer mom votes) then a fair-trade Buchananist approach. (You think the mainstream media is hostile to Bush!! Imagine a Buchanan or Buchananite candidate!!)
People like Bush and Kerry adopt whatever policies their handlers tell them to to 'drive wedges' 'split the vote' and 'triangulate'. Bush's thin majority last time and squeaky close polls after four years may indicate that the free trade / conservative values coalition is no longer a majority. Don't expect to see more candidates running on it if he loses. Something new will be tired (as Clinton dropped the left-economics to put his coalition into power in 1992)
What's important to you? If you want trade issues addressed Gephardt was probably the best candidate. I wanted him to win the Dem nomination because I wanted a debate on these issues. If your top issue is immigration you have no candidate. Even in the primarey season.