Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com has taken my idea and done it one better, plotting self-reported partisan identification not just for the six surveys that I identified earlier, but for all national polls since September 1, 2008 that have published such data.
Mark's chart shows less of a decline in Republican party identification than mine did -- perhaps three points since Election Day, and no visible decrease since Inauguration Day.
More data is almost always better, and this is probably no exception. The one modification I might suggest is to limit the analysis to surveys that are published on a regular basis, such that trendlines are easier to derive. The eleven national surveys that have at least five observations in Mark's dataset are: Rasmussen, NBC/WSJ, Diageo/Hotline, CBS/NYT, Democracy Corps, ABC/Post, FOX, Gallup, Pew, AP-GfK and Ipsos. If we limit the analysis to these organizations only, we see what looks like a hybrid between Mark's chart and my original, with a slightly more noticable decline by Republicans since Election Day and a slightly larger increase by independents:
While these numbers aren't good for Republicans, I have somewhat more question now about whether this is a new phenomenon, or this is the continued manifestation of the same phenomenon -- the broad distaste for the Republican Party that we have been observing since at least mid-2006. If the "true" number of Republicans is about 25 percent, then surveys that end up on the low side of the margin of error, or which have Democratic-leaning house effects, are not infrequently going to show "shockingly" low numbers of Republicans, such as 21 percent, 20 percent, or even 18 percent. On the other hand, other regularly-published national surveys show the Republicans' numbers in the high 20's or low 30's.
It's probably also the case that whether Republican party identification is in fact continuing to decline or merely flatlining at a low number is somewhat immaterial from the standpoint of the party's strategy. If only a quarter or so of the country identifies itself as Republican by the time we get to November 2010, the Democrats will probably gain another couple of seats in the Senate (principally because of the numerous retirements from Republican incumbents), while maintaining a large enough majority in the House to essentially give them carte blanche -- they will also have the White House through at least January, 2013, of course. Partisan identification ebbs and flows -- it does so more than many Democrats, who have recently had the better of things, would like to acknowledge. But the ebbs and flows can sometimes be years or even decades long and the GOP probably needs a better strategy than doing the same old thing and merely hoping for a reversal of momentum.
5.02.2009
The Republican Party ID Decline, Revisited
@ 8:02 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments
First
I think the trends matter more than the absolute numbers. The fact that the numbers of self-identified Republicans has gone down is bad news for them, unquestionably, as it shows people who previously identified with their "brand" no longer feel the same way. But the Democrats have almost always held a voter ID advantage - every year except 2002, in fact (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/data-party-identification.html).
This means that a majority of self-described "independents" have, historically, been conservative but have not identified themselves with the Republican party. On the one hand, this is good news, as it means that Republicans can look to the fact that a large number of reliable Republicans have never identified themselves as such, thus deflating their numbers in trends like the one you post.
On the other hand, when you look at the polling of independents, and their support for Obama as well as generic Democrats (at least relative to generic Republicans)...you can't see anything but cause for concern there.
It really depends on whether the direction of the party is controlled by the 25% who self-identify as Republican. If the Republican party continues to shut out everything except the conservative echo chamber, then they're not going to get back those newly self-identified independents---not for party identification or even for "hold-your-nose" votes.
"If we limit the analysis to these organizations only, we see what looks like a hybrid between Mark's chart and my original, with a slightly more noticable decline by Republicans since Election Day and a slightly larger increase by independents"
...also a more noticable decline in democratic identification. Do we just not want to talk about that?
@rdweber:
The differences in party identification between the two charts are as follows:
Democrats: 0.7% less in second chart
Republicans: 1.5% less in second chart
Independents: 1.9% more in second chart
The appearance of a decline in Democratic identification in the second chart is amplified by the rise in the Independent line to meet it.
I think the big concern for the Republican party here is that whatever taint the public had associated with George Bush has seemed to rub off on them.
Last year and during the election Republicans in Congress could blame much of their problems on Bush and hope to plant the seeds for an eventual turnaround by distancing themselves from Bush policies.
But that Bush taint should be wearing off at least a little by now. He's gone and, according to the GOP, we've got the great socialist in office now -- but still zero rebound. And given that Obama is having to enact some controversial programs, there ought to be at least some rebound.
The fact that the GOP continues to decline in the absence of Bush implies that they've inherited the animosity that much of America held for the former president.
I wonder what would happen if some conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans get together and form the American equivalent of Kadima. Who would suffer most from that move, Republicans, Democrats or the new party?
Yesterday Jeb Bush announced that he would be working to restore the Republican Party. Is this his way of annoucing he will be running for President?
I think the basic point that Nate makes -- that for this kind of study it's important to use survey organizations that have done surveys at many points in time only -- is quite valid.
Jeez—I just watched Mitch McConnell trying to scare the electorate with dire predictions about what might happen now that the filibuster is no longer part of the GOP arsenal.
The only people who could possibly take McConnell seriously are people just like him; ancient, tottering, clueless as to anything that has happened in the world in the past thirty years.
The faces of the GOP: Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh. Hope they’re happy with them.
janebse…
If Jeb Bush tries to run for president he needs to be hounded at every turn with questions like—
♦ Do you believe in evolution?
♦ Do you believe that “Intelligent Design” should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution?
♦ Are you a Christian, and do you believe in the literal, word-for-word truth of the Bible?
Just those three questions, and his inability to answer them without alienating both the wingnuts in his party and the moderates among the electorate, should pretty well finish off his campaign before it even starts.
nonogra: Viagra for those ninety and up.
There something more important going on that's not captured by these charts. Democrats are gradually replacing older Democrats who didn't vote reliably for the party's candidates with new Democrats who do.
The rebranding effort, led by Jeb "Please let me be President, I'll change my last name if you want me to" Bush, has begun.
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/newsroom/2009/04/national-council-for-a-new-america-formed.html
The platform is.. Economics, Healthcare, Education, Energy, and (lastly?!?!) Defense.
Nothing about pleasing the religious troglodytes, killing abortion doctors, hanging blacks or shooting gays, or seceding from the U.S.
I'm guessing this won't get much support in what's left of the Republican Party.
Ambi Valent: Given the current analysis - I'd say Democrats lose more, in the sense that they lose more of their membership. Part of the reason why Democrats have been so ascendant is that they've not only held the left, they've also held the center. In a way, I think they're kind of like Labor and Kadima combined. You're essentially proposing that Kadima break away from the coalition here.
And since "Republican moderate" is fast becoming an anachronism (or an oxymoron), they actually lose less from a centrist party ascending.
Of course, in the long run, I think everyone wins - somehow, I think a party of Olympia Snowes, Arlen Specters, Ben Nelsons, and - yes - even Joe Liebermans would elevate the discourse further than the party of Mitch McConnells, John Cornyns, Jim DeMints, and Jim Bunnings.
William Ockham: I don't think the Democrats are doing that. I think the Republicans are.
Keep in mind - I was 10 when Newt signed the "Contract with America." I was 14 when the Republicans in Congress decided that a blowjob (okay, lying about a blowjob on the stand) was a high crime worthy of removing the President from office. And I was in preschool when Jesse Jackson was being taken seriously as a candidate for the Presidency.
One caveat is, I'm black - so I'm pretty much SUPPOSED to vote for the Democrat, statistically. (And I do, in fact.) But I think that - given what the Republicans have done in my first six years of voting eligibility and immediately prior to that - they haven't really done much of anything to make them look attractive, unless you're into unbridled greed, ineptitude, and a lowering of the political discourse in this country.
Now, this is all PeteKent-level tl;dr (I still don't know how he manages to Twitter - he's never made a post here shorter than 140 PARAGRAPHS, let alone 140 characters), so I'll summarize it:
1) Dems would lose more from a centrist party, but I think on the whole it'd be a good thing.
2) I think we're "loyal" Dems because the Republican control of the federal government for the past 14 years has been so inept. In other words - I'd say that many voters are not so much "with" the Democrats as they are "against" the Republicans.
I think Nate is right about party affiliation ebbing and flowing and that sometimes those cycles can last decades. I think it would be a safe assumption that the US has been in a conservative/Republican phase for at least three decades. Since I was able to vote the US has had 20 years of a Republican president with only 8 years of a Democratic one.
The Democratic era of the last century peaked with the landslide victory of LBJ. The pendulum has been swinging towards the right ever since. It is only natural that the pendulum will start swinging back in the other direction. While W didn't win by a landslide like Johnson did Bush did have fairly early in his presidency landslide approval ratings (due to some extent to 9-11). For a good majority of his presidency Bush/Cheney ruled the White House and the Republicans ruled both houses of Congress. Even the 2006 election had a nearly evenly split Senate. So in some ways you could say that the Bush years were a Republican lead government in full flower like LBJ ruled the "Great Society."
The question becomes in our modern fast-paced age does the cycle of Democratic and progressive thught hold sway. I can't answer that but I would bet money it will be more than 2 years or even 4. If Obama is a one term or a two term president and then the WH switches back to the GOP then the pendulum hasn't stop swinging to the right. If that's the case then it scares me to think how much more the GOP will have to fuck up the country to get it to swing back!
@dre:
I agree with your comment that if the GOP wins the White House in 2012, then the pendulum swing to the right has not yet stopped. I don't see the Republicans changing that much in the next 3-4 years.
I would say that the crystal ball for a GOP resurgence in 2016 is less clear. It is possible that the Republicans may be able to reformulate themselves in 7-8 years, electing someone more like Eisenhower by that time. That would signify a stoppage in the rightward swing of the pendulum.
I do not think that partisan identification makes much difference. Political parties have always needed to attract many non-affiliated voters, and that is still the case today.
I'd say the rightward swing stopped in 2006. Clinton was a Democrat, but more importantly, he was a New Democrat, which meant that he was fiscally centrist and he often pandered to the Republican narrative about "big government." Obama, on the other hand, ran openly on government solutions for many of the country's most intractable problems, and he didn't apologize for it and he didn't hedge his language, and he won a (relative) landslide victory. The Republicans didn't just call him the candidate of big government; they called him a socialist and worse, and none of it worked. If that isn't a sign that the Reagan Era is over, I don't know what is.
2006 was significant because it signaled a the beginning of a very large and sweeping wave of disillusionment and dissatisfaction with Republican policies, setting the stage for Obama's victory. I'm not one of those people who thinks that the GOP is doomed, I think we'll probably see the Republicans rebound in Congress starting in 2012, but I do think the fundamental assumptions are changing, and campaigns will change as a result, maybe becoming more about elites versus non-elites than about government versus anti-government.
I don't think the GOP is doomed. Their basic ideas have floated around in America since before the beginning. Think Thomas Jefferson, independent farmers, individual responsibility, small gov't, etc... And those ideas came from early 18th century thought. It's the democrats who have newer ideas - big government, social justice ideas originated after the civil war and took hold around 1900.
Parties change, but sometimes it takes them a while to figure it out that they need to change their message. I think the republicans today are very similar to the democrats from the turn of the twentieth century. William Jennings Bryan ran for president and lost three times, 1896, 1900, 1908. 1896 was pretty close, but each time after that the democrats suffered worse beatings, mostly because they campaigned on the issue of free coinage of silver. This issue was popular with a declining segment of the country (poor southern and plains farmers), but they didn't change for fear of losing their "base." Woodrow Wilson finally changed the tune in 1912 and was successful.
Republicans seem to be in a similar conundrum today. The demographic trends are against them, but their issues are non-negotiable for the supporters that remain. It'll be interesting to see if they change their tune before their coalition really begins to decline in number.
Aaron1982 said...
Woodrow Wilson finally changed the tune in 1912 and was successful.
Wilson did 'change the tune' in 1912, but that was not the reason he won the election (actually only the Electoral College).
The results of the 1912 election were:
Wilson/Marshall (Democratic Party): 41.84% (435 EC votes)
Roosevelt/Johnson (Progressive Party): 27.40% (88 EC votes)
Taft/Butler (Republican Party): 23.17% (8 EC votes)
Debs/Seidel (Socialist Party): 5.99% (0 EC votes)
Chafin/Watkins (Prohibition): 1.38% (0 EC votes)
If Roosevelt had not run, it is almost certain that Taft would have run a much closer race, or possibly even won, in 1912.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
From the CNN/Political Ticker:
Bob Barr: GOP in ‘very deep trouble’.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/02/bob-barr-gop-in-%E2%80%98very-deep-trouble%E2%80%99
From the article:
Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr said Saturday it’s hard to “overestimate the damage” that’s been inflicted on the Republican Party — not only with this week's defection of Sen. Arlen Specter, but also the “lack of any coherent philosophy, vision or leadership."
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
A three point change is almost identical to the democratic loss that happened early in the Bush administration.
To continue a debate from an earlier thread - here is evidence that the "divide" on Obama (e.g. republicans hate him more than normal and dems love him more) is wrong and that he is loved/hated just like any president back to Eisenhower (namely the party in power loves their pres the other hates him):
http://www.brookings.edu/governance/govwatch/presidential_approval/presidential_approval_2009.aspx
The other caveat to the Pollster data is the short time frame - I would love see this through the Bush administration.
Answered my own question! Here is the long term trend in Party ID and we are right at the edges of the distribution - but not really outside it yet. If the repubs fall farther, they may fall below historic lows and historic party ID differential:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118084/Democrats-Maintain-Seven-Point-Advantage-Party.aspx
The real question is how many are "real" democrats. We all know that states like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Mississippi have large numbers of Dino's. They only support the state Democratic party, not the national one. Based on population estimates I would say this knocks about 2% of the Dem line, and adds 2% to the GOP line.
The "problem" in politics is that republican votes tend to be more loyal them Democratic ones. The truly great phenom is that Obama is getting +92% ratings of Democrats. That means he is winning over Clinton Democrats in states like WV, MO, and Arkansas. There is no other way to be rated that high without doing so.
Bottom line, Obama if this continues picks up 2 of the 6 North/South border states, and hold NC in the next election. The Democratic party will pick up some seats but no the amount this large a gap would suggest because of the Dixiecrat gap. Blame it on the WESP (White Evangelical Southern Protestant) Democrats.
One other point. The real problem the Republicans have is that their supporters are contained in two (3?)regions. The Bible and Mormon belts (Southern states, Plains, Upper Rockies).
But in the south the GOP can't blow Democrats out of the water like Dems can in New England. Because of Southern minorities, blacks, Latinos in TX and increasingly non-Cuban Latinos in FL and GA and NC, and finally Asians (VA and TX), Democrats have a higher floor. The GOP can never get much above 2/3 of the Southern House seats, while Democrats can (and did) wipe all republicans from New England. The GOP's social conservatism is about to start endangering them in California's inland empire. Their immigration stance hurts them in the SouthWest, while the MidWest continues to be a battle ground (de-unionization battle conservatism turning off moderates).
@dre7861:
The Democratic era of the last century peaked with the landslide victory of LBJ. The pendulum has been swinging towards the right ever since...
If Obama is a one term or a two term president and then the WH switches back to the GOP then the pendulum hasn't stop swinging to the right.
Dre,
This is inconsistent. If the Dems hit their high-water mark in '64, then Carter's victory in '76 didn't represent a swing of the pendulum back toward the Left. Similarly, if a GOOPer manages to take the White House in '16, that won't necessarily show that the right is still the dominant ideology in the USA.
(Twenty-eighth!)
I am still continually amazed at the numbers of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people who still believe that the Republican Party is the party of limited-government. While they continue to make that claim, they have been the most egregious adherents to enriching federal government power in living memory. When in power they have spent more and more frivolously than a welfare queen crack whore with a stolen credit card looking for her next hit. Federal civilian employment went up significantly during the Reagan/Bush I years, dropped sharply in Clinton's first two years (when he had a Democratic majority in Congress), dropped to a lesser extent for the next six years, only to start going back up again with Bush II (with a Republican majority in Congress). The Bush administration, particularly when Josh Ashcroft was AG, ruthlessly trampled over states that did not toe the federal GOP's ideological and theological line.
The only reason they're going back to their limited-government line now is because they're not the ones in power. If they ever get back in power you can be sure that they will return to their frivolous spending ways.
@brown
I think we'll probably see the Republicans rebound in Congress starting in 2012, but I do think the fundamental assumptions are changing, and campaigns will change as a result, maybe becoming more about elites versus non-elites than about government versus anti-government.McCain et al tried to stick the "elitist" tag on Obama in 2008 and it fell off quite handily. If a war vet and a someone playing the bumpkin card can't get that to stick on a Harvard lawyer, how the hell do you expect others to pull it off?
I too expect the GOP will get a bit of a bounce 2012, depending on economic conditions. That really is their only hope, huge inflation or if we haven't significantly shook off the crappiness of this low point.
Keep in mind that in some parts of the country, parts that are particularly red at the national level, that they didn't come down like the rest of the country. As well whenever you get a sizable party based swing there are a number of real shysters that come for the ride. As we've seen in Idaho and LA Senate Rep in 2008, shysters are not immune to causing a party flip even in the safest of seats. So you'll get some flip back.
But really we are talking about bouncing off the bottom of still being a national party. Talk about dead cat bounce.
It is going to take time, a lot of time, to try put back together what they had. It took nearly 2 decades here after a full split. They are still at each others throats intermittently because a body from the past, named Schreiber, keeps floating to the surface. It involves allegations of improprieties of a former, but still living, PC Prime Minister. You have two camps, those eternally loyal to him and those that despise him.
The ghosts of the Bush & Cheney administration aren't likely to disappear any faster.
As others have pointed out, geographic distribution matters. That 20% is NOT 20% nationwide. It's a substantial higher % in the South and Mormon Belt and *lower* elsewhere.
Electorally, this is disastrous for the Republicans - Texas is big; GA and NC aren't small - the rest of the southern states (Florida doesn't count as southern in this as so many other things - the panhandle is, Orlando and south is something different) are electoral small change.
A prolbem I see with these last trend line analyses is the data are too limited. My admittedly non-scientific take is that political party power tends to run in approximately 20-year cycles, ending when the elctorate gets fed up with the institutional complacency and sense of personal entitlement to office that denotes a political party too long in power. Please note that this "throw the bums out" practice showed up during the first Adams administration, repeated itself with the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson's rural democrats, and has continued ever since. Further, these shifts are not exactly every 20 years, and have led to the simultaneous extinction and and creation of political parties in the US. Note the demise of the Federalists and the rise of the Whigs, also the demise of the Whigs and the beginnings of the Republican Party in the 19th century. The major 20th century change has been that the two major parties have "evolved" from within, with minority political philosophies becoming the dominant voice of an existing party, without forming a new political party. (BTW, anyone picked up on the low level rumbling against some of the Obama tax cuts? I've seen a couple of items pointing out that the mechanism of the personal stimulus tax reduction will result in some ugly surprises for jointly filing taxpayers come April '10 and April '12)
Pragmatus said...
♦ Do you believe that “Intelligent Design” should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution?
Call it what it is. It's creationism. It's religious dogma. It has no place in any science class anywhere.
One more thought on party identification -- has anyone controlled party ID for local, state, and national scope?
I would expect that if you apply a finer degree of scoping and look at things more closely - rather than the top-line national ID, you'll see a somewhat more vibrant Republican party, but that in many areas, local Republicans are pragmatically adapting to conditions on the ground, moving leftward toward the center as necessary.
Ultimately the disease of the Republican party is becoming as much one about excessive top-down message discipline, and what happens when that machinery gets taken over by, well, tone-deaf ideological morons, as well as the actual rejection of the Republican ideas per se.
The Democrats had to go through an extensive process of re-invention with old-style machine Democrats, DLC types, and the new DFA netroots folks learning how to coexist in productive, if uneasy synthesis.
Something like that is going to have to happen with the Republicans as well, and the hard-core ideologues are going to have to make way for pragmatists interested in winning elections in less right-leaning areas of the country (like, you know, most of it)
They were all just RINOs anyway! Good riddance!
Nate,
I have to wonder about the inclusion of Rasmussen in this analysis. To my knowledge they are the only national pollster who actually weights their results by Party Identification. And given that, the Party ID for the Rasmussen polls alone is a flat 33% throughout the period.
Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that Rasmussen's strategy is basically to act as a GOP house organ except when an election is around the corner and the need to establish some credibility is facing the firm.
Matt - You accused me of being inconsistent because I didn't take into account the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. While I did not allude to President's Carter's one term I did state that if Obama is a one-term or two term President then the pendulum is still swinging to the right. Remember that Nixon won the 72 election by a landslide. Carter won by a narrow margin (50.1 percent to 48.0 percent) against the man who pardoned Nixon. The next election Carter lost to Reagan in a big electorial college victory and a 50.7% to 41% popular vote. With all due respect to President Carter but his one term presidency was more of an aberration then a trend; more of a reaction against Watergate. While I normally hate dealing in 'What If' worlds but if Watergate had never happened I think the chances that Carter would have been elected are not that great.
Of course I know Republicans are saying the same thing about the Obama's presidency, that it is just a reaction to the Recession, Iraq and Bush/Cheney. For all we know they could be right (although I certainly hope not) but only time will tell. But notice during this period of the pendulum swinging to the right the two aberrations during this time would be Carter and Clinton. Both men were from the power base of the Republican party - the South and particulary the Deep South. Both were faily conservative Democrats (with all due respect to another man I admire but let's face it a lot of the financial regulations that caused our economic collapse were signed into law under Clinton - of course he had a Republican Congress too). If you look back over the Carter and Clinton presidencies I think you would be hard pressed to find any sweeping progressive changes to the very fabric of American life like you do under the presidencies of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. In fact part of Clinton's appeal is that he co-opted a lot of the GOP's ideas, such as the 'End of Big Government.' Look at the trajectory of the Republican Presidents during this time frame - Believe it or not but Nixon was a rather moderate Republican, Reagan was more conservative, Bush the First was more conservative still and then we have Bush the Second, who is the epitome of GOP values and beliefs. Being Uber-Religious, Uber-Hawkish, Uber-Authoritarian, Uber-Isolationist, and Uber-Big Business (to name a few) Bush the Second was the Republican movement in full flower.
Matt, perhaps my use of the pendulum as an metaphor is faulty. I don't want to suggest that the political movements are smooth flowing like the swing of a pendulum. Events like the Carter and Clinton elections (like the Eisenhowe presidency and the GOP gains in Congress during the last terms of FDR for the last Democratic swing) might be called hiccups but I prefer to think of them as 'braking moments' - like with the swing of a pendulum there are forces at work that assures the it wouldn't swing so far and so fast that it 'flies off the handle' and that are the forces that assures the pendulum will sw8ing back. It's kind of very Tao philosophy of Yin/Yang in that in the spring flowers lie the seeds of Winter snowflakes. I will dig myself into an even deeper metaphorical hole and say that I view American politics as a very slow pendulum on the back of a very slow tortoise moving across a plain. When the status quo has held supreme for a long time and the views of one voting block have held sway over others then American votes Democrat/Progressive to break open the log jam. But on the other hand when change is happening to fast or Americans feel that too much has taken place then they vote Republican as a brake to that change. But the fact remains that during those swings the turtle has moved forward - the swing back to conservative will be nowhere near the conservative we think of now while the swing forward will be in ways that even the most progressive, including me, can't begin to fathom. When I read the comments of general public political forums I still see the shrill voices of the Republicans but what I am amazed at is the majority of calls for a move back to the center, which is by its very definition a swing towards the left. A pendulum is a pendulum and it won't stop at the center but keep moving forward. If Obama is the transistional leader that we think he is - and there are a lot of indications that he is - then if he only accomplishes half of what he has set out to do then he will have transformed the American way of life. If the Democratic/Progressive swing lasts for 20-40 years (and that does not exclude possible GOP gains in either House or even Republican presidents or two) the country, and even the Republicans holding on to the tail of the turtle will have moved forward. I like to imagine 60-70 years in the future when the pendulum has swung all the way left and back all the way right when American is poised to elect it's first Gay President - the Joe the Computer Hacker will be trying to whip up the crowd by saying the Democratic nominee wears a dress and would be a pussy on Defense.
Mike said...
Pragmatus said...
♦ Do you believe that “Intelligent Design” should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution?
Call it what it is. It's creationism. It's religious dogma. It has no place in any science class anywhere.
Of course it is creationism, and creationists form the backbone of the GOP. At one GOP debate during the 2008 cycle, all of the then-candidates were asked if they believed in evolutoin, and, weasels that they are, all said they didn't.
That's why Bush needs to be hounded on topics like this. This type of question reveals perfectly the willingness of the GOP to compromise on anything for the purpose of getting in power.
I have to admit to an ulterior motive however. I have sworn—
NO
MORE
BUSHES
EVER
I have to say that having watched Ed Gillespie and Joe Scarborough on Meet The Press today, I don't get a feeling that the GOP understands what the issue is. I think Scarborough speaks some sense about the GOP but I think that there is a tendency for Republicans to be in denial at the moment I feel. Either denial or just complete confusion. Its no wonder that not so many ordinary people identify with the Republican Party if it can't figure out what its own identity is.
I think the GOP is going to have to figure out that at least in some places for instance pro abortion candidates are perfectly acceptable, or GOP candidates that aren't negative towards gay rights are perfectly acceptable.
The party of no has to become something more positive, something more welcoming.
Pragmatus said... "At one GOP debate during the 2008 cycle, all of the then-candidates were asked if they believed in evolutoin, and, weasels that they are, all said they didn't."
Reference? or are you just making this up Pragmatus? I found what I think you're referring to, a question where McCain was asked if he believed in evolution, and he said yes. Then the other nine were asked if they didn't, and only three raised their hands. It's the third video down on http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/1st_republican_debate_of_2008_-_video_transcripts_reax/. I don't know the leaning of the site, but it's a direct source (video) that I'm referring to.
So, are you calling seven of the ten GOP candidates weasels for something you want to believe happened, but didn't in reality? If you have another source (from another debate or whatever), please share it.
> I think the GOP is going to have to figure out that at least in some places for instance pro abortion candidates are perfectly acceptable
Simply being agnostic about abortion on the legislative front is enough. However you feel about abortion at a personal level, not wanting to pursue legislation or policies to enforce the reduction of abortions. A more libertarian view that makes the Big Tent of Freedom something other than complete bullshit spin. Cue Rick Sanchez's "fre-eeedom?").
But you know and I know that isn't going to happen anytime soon since that is the exact sort of thing that gets McCain branded a "liberal" and prompts people to ask Arlen Specter to take Sen. McCain and his daughter with him on the way out of the GOP.
@Lord Calvert "I am still continually amazed at the numbers of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people who still believe that the Republican Party is the party of limited-government....The only reason they're going back to their limited-government line now is because they're not the ones in power. If they ever get back in power you can be sure that they will return to their frivolous spending ways."The key point is that it is the Republicans that even express limited government as a value. It is distressingly likely that if they return to power soon they will go back to their frivolous spending and bailing out ways, but it is certain the Democrats will do so if they are in power.
On a related point, the recent Texas school board creationism kerfluffle saw seven "intelligent design" Republicans against three Republican and four Democrats on the side of evolution. Someone like me and those three are still Republicans by virtue of holding a philosophy incompatible with any accepted under the Democratic party, even if we agree more with the average Democrat than the average Republican or vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans.
markymark wrote:
"I think Scarborough speaks some sense about the GOP but I think that there is a tendency for Republicans to be in denial at the moment I feel. Either denial or just complete confusion. Its no wonder that not so many ordinary people identify with the Republican Party if it can't figure out what its own identity is."
A lot of the rank-and-file is genuinely confused, I think.
They live in "red" states where the Republican Party is still dominant, and that dominance is unquestioned. They have a nice, closed social sphere that is self-selected to insulate against contrary political opinion. They have carefully selected media exposure that tends to tell them that everything they believe in is identical to the views of the majority.
They simply do not see the nation changing around them. That's why they find stories of ACORN "stealing the election" plausible. What other explanation could there be?
This base can hold their current territory at least until 2012, but moving outside of that swath will be increasingly difficult - particularly as that base ages and dies.
Applying "red" state rhetoric in "purple" states will just make Republicans look more out-of-touch. Yet that seems to be the path the GOP is taking.
In short, the base generally does not tend to see the crisis facing it on the national level, and tends to view the solution as simply shouting louder - and mostly to each other.
@Brian
Have you ever heard of a libertarian socialist? Yes, they do exist. Although a relatively rare breed in "pure" form, it is a largely coherent position (as coherent is hippies can get ;) ). You do have to be careful about how much you link libertarian with "conservatism". Especially when you then try to use that measure of "conservatism" to line up with Republican or Democratic parties.
If you find yourself agreeing with the average Democrat more than the average Republican you might want to rethink just how incompatible your philosophy is with the Democratic Party. ;)
The GOP is in a trough, no doubt, but the problem with these analyses is that they assume party ID and election results somehow reflect broad changes in the public's political positions. In fact, two other factors are far more important: events, and boredom. The latter is highly underrated as a factor in elections, and should continue to help the Dems for some time, I would think. But events probably won't. Bush's problem was not that he was too conservative in a country swinging "leftward". His problem was a mismanaged war, a mismanaged national disaster, and a bad economy/budget policy. Events will probably prove the eventual undoing of the Democratic hegemony. I'm putting my money on inflation. But it may be a double dip recession, unemployment at 10% into next year, or higher taxes (cap and trade?), or - God forbid - a homeland security failure. Any number of things could drive Obama's popularity down 20 points in a matter of months. Bush's decisiveness and confidence became arrogance and stupidity real fast. Obama's studied thoughtfulness and hyperbolic sense of his own dignity could quickly become moral preening.
@Dwight,
Libertarian socialism is actually quite common, at least as common as the right-leaning property-rights libertarianism that has co-opted the term in America. In Europe, a "libertarian" generally means a libertarian socialist. (And oddly enough, when they say "liberal" they generally mean "neoliberal", which is basically an American libertarian, except more practical and less prone to kooky conspiracy theories and Ayn Rand.) In America, the closest term would be "anarchist", and I'm sure Brian has heard of anarchists before.
'Bush's problem was not that he was too conservative in a country swinging "leftward".'
@Jeff,
Momentous events do hold the power to sway elections and even hijack long term pendulum swings - but you're either being too pessimistic (if you're a Democrat) or engaging in tortured wishful thinking (if you're a Republican) if you think there are no genuine pro-Democratic ideological shifts occurring at least right now. If what you say were actually correct, then the movement away from the GOP and toward the Dems should have been uniform. After all, "boredom" and awareness of "events" affect pretty much everyone equally, with small variations. That is not what we're seeing. Instead, young voters shifted much more than old, certain states more than others, certain counties more than others. People from Arkansas are just as prone to "boredom" as people from Virginia. Yet one went one way - strongly, relative to the last election - while the other went the other way. A 60-year old early retired tradesman from Pennsylvania's interior is aware of the same "events" - Iraq, Katrina, the housing bubble collapse- as his 30-year old, college-educated Bluetooth-wearing compatriot out in Philly's suburbs. Yet the two aren't reacting the same way politically. Think about why this would be so, and then you'll grasp why an "ideological shift" in the broad electorate can be said to be happening. But I do have this feeling that you have an inkling, and are merely in denial about it.
> Libertarian socialism is actually quite common, at least as common as the right-leaning property-rights libertarianism that has co-opted the term in America.
I think you and I are saying similar things. Both are relatively rare in pure form. ;) The "strong military" is actually something that I think of as a bit of an oddball aberration.
They also share some common policy ground on things such as "globalisation". Hardly surprising given their key shared preference for many small/individual organizations rather than large ones.
BTW tangoclose, while I generally agree with what you say to Jeff, I would like to point out that for a few reasons that people in some parts of the country are less aware of the economic problem. At least less aware in an immediate impact that they can see right in front of them every day because the impact has not been spread evenly across the country.
"Well somebody told us Wall Street fell. But we were so poor that we couldn't tell." - Alabama, Song Of The South
Way back when (late 70s) I did a research project on party idenfication and general knowledge of current events. Striking result was the difference between "Independent but leaning" (either Dem or Rep) and "Independent, no inclination." The "independent but leaning" scored way higher on knowledge than those picking a party, the "independent, no inclination" way lower. Which makes perfect sense. And of course voting behavior is very different. But ever since, I've had a hard time knowing what to make of any trends in party identification without knowing the breakdown of the indeps between those categories.
Brian said: The key point is that it is the Republicans that even express limited government as a value. It is distressingly likely that if they return to power soon they will go back to their frivolous spending and bailing out ways, but it is certain the Democrats will do so if they are in power.
I am skeptical of that although it certainly appears so because of the current economic climate. Having both the previous Republican president and the Republican nominee support corporate bailouts during the campaign gave the movement a great deal of bi-partisan legitimacy it might not have otherwise had.
The last time we had a Democrat in the White House with a Democratic majority in congress (1993-1994), federal spending and civilian employment was slashed radically. Even after the Republicans took control of congress in 1995, overall spending and employment continued to drop but at a significantly lower rate than it did the previous two years. Only when the combination of Republican President/Congress established itself in 2001 did federal spending and employment begin to rise again. It is going to take some time before we start getting figures to confirm exactly what is happening in 2009.
I think it is naive to hope that the GOP is dead, just as it is naive to hope that Obama's election means racism is gone. I wish both were true, but they aren't.
Obama won, and dissatisfaction with the GOP is high, because people got sick of Bush, the war, and the recession. Not because people have shifted away from conservatism in general, or woken up to the autocratic/theocratic leanings of the neo-Republicans. Not because socialism suddenly emerged from the territory of the unthinkable and re-entered mainstream political discourse. America is still one of the most conservative, anti-progressive, anti-left of all "developed" nations, and I can't conceive of it changing fundamentally any time this century.
Post a Comment