‘A national party no more?’
On our side of the aisle, Dems are expanding the field, committing to a 50-state strategy, and competing — and wining — in states where Republicans have traditionally dominated. On the other side of the aisle, there’s a growing sense that the GOP is becoming a regional power that, as The Economist notes, is “confined to the South.” (via Kevin Drum).
The extent of the southernisation of the Republican Party is astonishing…. The only place where the national tide had little impact was in the South. The Democrats made a few inroads in the periphery — winning a Senate seat in Virginia and House seats in North Carolina, Florida and Texas. But deep southern states such as Georgia and Mississippi remained unchanged. Exit polls showed that only 36% of white voters in the South voted for Democratic House candidates; it was 58% in the north-east.
The problem for the Republicans is that a regional stronghold can become a prison. The South has one of the most distinctive cultures in the United States — far more jingoistic than the rest of the country and far more religious. Fifty-eight per cent of deep southerners identify themselves as either evangelical or born-again compared with a third of non-southerners (the figure in Mississippi is 73%). But for every non-southerner who waxes lyrical about southern charm there are many more who associate the South with racial bigotry and cultural backwardness. The 2006 election — which saw social conservatives such as Rick Santorum and Kenneth Blackwell go down to humiliating defeat — suggests that non-southerners have grown particularly impatient with the South’s brand of in-your-face religiosity.
The Economist added that Republicans may be tempted to “respond to these Democratic advances by retreating to their heartland. The incoming Republican delegation will be more southern and more conservative than ever.” The GOP’s status as a national party would only slip further.
This is not to say that the electoral map is in the Dems’ pocket for the long-term. Indeed, there are notes of caution.
As the article notes, the leading GOP candidates for 2008 all lack southern ties. For that matter, 2006 was just a single cycle, which does not a trend make.
But as Jonathan Singer explained, the Dems are prepared to build on recent successes, and Republicans aren’t sure what to do next.
For many Republicans, in fact, the lesson learned November 7 was not that American voters had rejected the extreme conservative agenda of the GOP but rather that the Republican Party was not conservative enough, bending on issues like spending and immigration.
Again, there is no assurance that the Democratic gains made on November 7 in places like the Mountain West will hold over the course of the next several elections — or even just in 2008. But if history is any indicator, the fact that a number of these previously Republican-leaning states are not only electing Democrats to state-level offices (both for governorships and legislatures) but also sending Democrats to Washington (both Congressmen and Senators) augurs well for the Democratic Party as it attempts to extend the list of states in which it can compete in Presidential elections. And the more the Democrats put the GOP on the defensive in states like Colorado or Arkansas, both of which elected new Democratic governors by wide margins, the more the Republicans will be forced into challenging Democratic strongholds like Oregon or Michigan — neither of which are particularly welcoming of candidates running on a hard-right platform.
Sounds encouraging to me.
“Retreat to the Heartland.” Now, there’s a battle cry for the Republic party I’d put on my bumper.
Nice to hear someone out there echoing my comments here.
I might add: it will be hard for the R’s to avoid reinforcing this narrowness over the next two years because Rove still wants to aim the actions of the presidency at the base.
Soon in 2008 it will be easy for R’s to “mobilize the base”: they’ll be confined to 12 states.
What was that I heard about young people?
If they vote two times in a row for the same party they will tend to vote the party most of the time.
With Boy George II making it clear he’s not getting us out of Iraq just because his party lost, I think there’s a good chance we can repeat our successes in the Mountain West in two years.
And that will nail the Republican’ts into their Southern Coffin.
“For many Republicans, in fact, the lesson learned November 7 was not that American voters had rejected the extreme conservative agenda of the GOP but rather that the Republican Party was not conservative enough, bending on issues like spending and immigration.” - Jonathan Singer
What is confused about this truth (and it is true) is that each faction of the Unholy Alliance that is the Republican’t party means something different by “not being conservative enough”. Some wanted the Republican’ts to outlaw all abortions, sexual freedoms, religious minorities and scientific education. Others simply wanted the Republican’ts to stop spending like a drunken sailor in a strip club.
When you get down to it, it is impossible to create a majority in this country based on the premise of “conservative enough”. The more you push to those extremes the more you lose America. A fluke it was not.
Of course it doesn’t help that the conservatives hired a corrupt, ignorant, and incompetent party to carry out their “policies”.
“Dems are prepared to build on recent successes”
thanks to Dean’s investment in local party building in all states, without regard to their past performance. in other words, Dean refused to let his base geography become a “prison,” and we are now better situated because of it than the Rethugs.
can someone beat Jimmy Carville about the head and shoulders with a rolled-up copy of The Economist?
This is exactly what happened to Canadian Cons when they lost in 1993. They were basically isolated to the West (in many ways, our version of the US South) The Canadian cons lost three more elections till the Centralist Liberals became too corrupt for them to deal with and got a piddling minority government.
They too did the same thing and tried to be more Con than before it didn’t get them anywhere. Only when they moved slightly to the center did they get anywhere. Even now, a lot of folks don’t trust them because of their fringe groups.
It did lead to an amusing moment. When the precursor of the Reform Party (the Western Cons) reformed themselves into the Canadian Alliance to merge with the remains of the Cons, they briefly adopted the name Conservative Reform Alliance Party or CRAP.
“This is not to say that the electoral map is in the Dems’ pocket for the long-term”
I should say not. Democrats have a structural disadvantage because of the rural=Republican advantage. Furthermore, the present districting remains the same until after 2010.
We only won a slight majority in the House and Senate even though the American people despise the President.
Let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. We have long way to go and the American people are still pretty conservative on many issues.
Southern states have elected Democratic governors, senators and congressmen. The last two Democratic presidents were southern governors (and Southern Baptists).
There is no reason that a Democratic presidential candidate couldn’t win in the south.
The Democrats should position themselves as the party for the emphatic “Separation of Church and State.” The argument can be made that the reason religion thrives in this country, as opposed to European countries, for example, is that the state stays out of it. For the Democrats that position further regionalizes and limits the Republicans appeal to the religious fundamentalist south. This is the ultimate result of the Republican “southern strategy,” a party that appeals only to the south, and the Democrats should take advantage of it as a once in a generation opening.
Since Bush and his neo-ninnies brought the glories of civil war to Iraq, why not contemplate a “second civil war” here? Send all the ‘Vangees south; bring the reality-base north—and then simply wait for global warming, hurricane season, and patently-rampant inbreeding to do the rest….
Comment #7 is irrelevant. We don’t need the South. Let them marinade in their own juices and turn themselves into tasty barbecue, or stew themselves into a tasty jambalaya.
We need to understand that there are Southerners and “Southernists,” that there is the South and “Southernism.” Let the Republican have the Southernists and Southernism, the same way they have the Christianists and Christianism (as Andrew Sullivan has defined the difference between theocratic fundamentalism and real Christianity). In fact, the two sets are just about the same.
Tom Schaller pointed out recently:
85% of Democratic gains at all levels in 2006 came outside the South; exit polls show Democrats winning in every region except the South; and the only two Democrats who almost lost House seats despite the blue wave–which means we had to waste resources on defense rather than spending it on offense–were in Georgia.
That’s not to say abandon the South. Far from it. African Americans will still elect some national party representatives due to the Voting Rights Act forcing the Confederates to a few “minority-majority” congressional districts. There are plenty of Southerners (I know a fair number of them) who are solid progressives and who have spent their lives opposing Southernism. We keep building there.
But we no longer need to pander to the South. We can nominate solid progressives - perhaps westerners, mid-westerners, etc. - and get them elected without worrying about pandering to NASCAR and the fascist nationalism of the South that is “Manifest Destiny.”
My great-great-great grandfather, an abolitionist and participant in the founding of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania would be spinning in his grave that his party has been taken over by those he termed The Enemy, but the truth is we can now call the Republicans the Confederate Traitor Party.
The 2006 election — which saw social conservatives such as Rick Santorum and Kenneth Blackwell go down to humiliating defeat — suggests that non-southerners have grown particularly impatient with the South’s brand of in-your-face religiosity.
As a resident of Pa. who was ecstatic to have helped throw Santorum out of office (this is the third time I’ve voted against him which I guess WAS the charm) the sentiment expressed in the post above is exactly the sentiment I heard over the past year from Dems as well as Reps. Santorums’ religious views,which haven’t been in vogue since back around the Salem Witch Trials, were really too extreme for the majority of Pennsylvanians from both parties. Coupled with his stance on Iraq and his blind obedience to the Cowardly Cowboy both of which are losing issues in the state sealed Little Rickys’ fate. He became an embarrassment as a representative of a state that isn’t mired in the stone age.
Yeah, it’s fun to think that the GOP’s policies might be transforming it into a marginalized, provincial irrelevancy. Only trouble is, the bastards still have more money than God. Thirsty as we are, that KoolAid might not be the best thing to swig.
They Should Call Themselves the “Dixie Theocratic Party” Or DTP. (Sounds like the name of an insecticide, actually)
And we should all yell “Y’all Don’t come back now, Ya’hear”
the question that no one is asking is what will be the US look like with only one relevent party. What will the America political process be like with only one functional party. If you look around at the District of Columbia, the City of Chicago, or the State of Mass., it does not bode that well for the US. What will happen to the middle class in the US with the Democrats in total control. If DC or LA is any example, it will disappear.
If no one cannot lower their taxes at the ballot box, will people begin to cheat on their taxes. If people cannot function in the marketplace legally, will the underground economy grow? Will people who are conservative move to the south and liberals move to the Northesat or Northwest.
“the question that no one is asking is what will be the US look like with only one relevent party.” - superdestroyer
The question is why were libertarians and small government conservatives so upset about having Bill Clinton doing good things for this country that they hitched their wagon with the lunatic fringe and now find themselves looking at being the minority party for,
well, forever I suppose if they can’t wrap their head around the fact that their lose 11/7 was not a fluke but a failure of their policies and honesty.
Answer me that SD.
Lance,
I believe that the Republicans are now a complete failure that have no credibilty with the voting public. The Republicans do not have any demographic groups that will support them no matter what like the Democratic Party does so the Republicans are fated to irrelevence.
However, You did not answer the first question. How will the US operate as a single party state? I live near DC which is as close to a single party politcal entity as there is in the US. There first thing to realize that the middle class is almost non-existent in DC. The crime is high, the schools are bad, and the Democratic controlled government cannot even run 911 or emergency medical response with any level of competence. Yet, there is no alternative to the leadership of the established Democratic Party. People who work in downtwon DC commute more than 40 miles one way to avoid the incompetence of the ruling establishment.
Is that why the US has to look foward to? You may also want to look up the white flight from deep blue Los Angeles County, California or the shrinking population of Mass. before you sing the praises of single Party democratic rule
Re: #14-16. DC is an odd entity for many, many reasons so I don’t think what happens there can be extrapolated to other places. However, I do agree that long-term dominance by either party is unhealthy. Corruption and excess are bound to follow — it’s just human nature.
There first thing to realize that the middle class is almost non-existent in DC.
Yes, it is divided between the obscenely rich and the grindingly poor, although on-going gentrification efforts are taking care of the poor folks. And by “taking care” I mean driving out and shoving away.
People who work in downtwon DC commute more than 40 miles one way to avoid the incompetence of the ruling establishment.
Nope. Stop. I call shenanigans and major amounts of bullshit. You know people commute because they can’t afford to live there. As for DC’s 911, yep. And I could make a number of comments about the federal emergency response system as it has been run by the Republican party, but that would be a cheap shot.
the question that no one is asking is what will be the US look like with only one relevent party.
You seem to be assume the Republican Party is dead. Why? And if the GOP is dead, why is the only alternative a single party nation? I assume if one major player goes another party (or perhaps a few) will come in to fill the gap. And what the hell can anyone do about it besides the GOP? Your question is either a rhetorical one or nonsensical one.
And we should all yell “Y’all Don’t come back now, Ya’hear” — George Arnd, @13
Or, as someone else so elegantly expressed it: “don’t let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya”
I guess, worse comes to worst, I could try moving to California…
The Answer is Orange,
The system is set up so that the Democratic and Republicans are the only two parties. If the Republicans fail (as they have in DC) there are insurmountable procedures and regulations that have to be overcome. Also, since blacks, hispanics, and jews are automatic for the Democrats, any third party starts out with a huge handicap.
You should look at why DC is so expensive to live in. It is more than just the cost of housing. There are cheaper houses but they are in high crime neighborhoods. Also, the middle class cannot afford to live in DC because the taxes are extremely high and the schools are so bad that expensive private schools are the only alternative. In many of the close in suburbs, like PG county, Alexandria, and Silver Spring, the public schools are so bad that the white middle class cannot afford to live in those neighborhoods.
“If the Republicans fail (as they have in DC)” - SD
The REpublican’ts haven’t “failed” in DC, they don’t successfully compete in that city because they are a national party with a huge amount of baggage from their “sourthern strategy” which has kept them from appealing to the African-American population of the District.
You suggest there are too many obstecles to a third party taking over from the Republicans as America’s second party. That is not true as far as I can see, as all the legal hoops you mention usually have to be jumped through once and any others can be easily lowered at need (such as the need for a second party).
But to answer your question, I’m sure there a lots of well run Democratically lead states in this country…
… like now a majority of them
….
… so don’t worry so much.
Lance,
T
For a third party of the viable, it has to find 1000’s of candidate to run. A third party usually concentrates on developing a presidential candidate without developing 50 state organizations and without finding enough candidates.
Also, the Democrats start out with virtually all of the black, hispanic, and jewish vote. That leaves a third party trying to appeal to moderate whites. That is the same territory that the Democrats are trying to appeal to. There is no strategy or platform that will allow a third party to appeal to black or hispanics.
A third party starts out with the problem that it cannot get a majority of the votes no matter what it does.
Also, since blacks, hispanics, and jews are automatic for the Democrats, any third party starts out with a huge handicap.
Automatic? That’s crap and you know it.
You should look at why DC is so expensive to live in. It is more than just the cost of housing. There are cheaper houses but they are in high crime neighborhoods.
So houses are expensive in one part of a city and the cheap ones are in the places no one wants to live. Dear me, what a novel phenomenon. How is this different from any other part of the country, regardless of who has been in charge? It is the cost of housing and the demand for housing being greater than the number of units. Oh yes, and DC is expected to help foot the bill for things like presidential inaugurations.
In many of the close in suburbs, like PG county, Alexandria, and Silver Spring, the public schools are so bad that the white middle class cannot afford to live in those neighborhoods.
I see, so it isn’t just DC’s “single party system” that’s the problem its the surrounding ‘burbs. I’ll give you PG county in terms of a crappy school system but Silver Spring and Alexandria (another example of the super rich/super poor area)? Again. Wrong. Entirely different and vastly superior. Also, I note your concern is shifting from “the middle class,” to the white middle class. First off you are again wrong about your demographics. Have you ever been to the places you’re yammering about? Secondly, what’s wrong with an Af-Am middle class?
TAIO,
Blacks have been voting at the 90% level for democrats for over 40 years. There is no way that a third party could expect to receive many votes from blacks. The same goes for Jews. Hispanics vote at an 80% rate for Democrats. They possibly could provide some support for a third party but, again, it is doubtful.
Third parties in this country have traditionally been disgrunteld whites (See Ross Perot or John Anderson).
You should also look up the demographics and performance of T. C. Williams in Alexandria, VA or John Kennedy in Silver Spring. They are not exactly performing at the level expected for the usual suburban high school. I doubt anyone would want to transfer from Walt Whitman or Langley to attend such schools.
I’ve seen the “end” of both parties and they keep on percolating along. I think one reason is that the presidential race is almost always a personality contest and either party can win.
OK superdestroyer, there’s only one type of person who could do what you’re doing, but I won’t call your bluff.
Have some pie?
Considering how much of the GOP is controlled by Southerners or like minded individulals, the party is, for the foreseeable future and barring an even bigger catastrophe, going to continue on with their present course.
I am from NOLA and went to school in Alabama for 4 years, the south feels very put upon after the Recent Unpleasant other wise known as the Civil War. Many still fight it in their own way. They have steeped the GOP and its brand of religosity with their victim/martyr mentality and they revel in it. They will keep it up and drive off the “moderates” or the moderates will be driven out of office. The GOP will be a party of the south and parts of the midwest/west. I sometimes feel that this is their way of getting back what they lost in the War and Reconstruction.