Can the GOP Expand Its Demographic Base While Moving Right?

Note: This item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

At the American Prospect site, Paul Waldman's written a good summary of the demographic trends that have largely doomed the Republican Party's ancient strategy of winning national majorities by appealing to the "unpoor, the unblack, and the unyoung." And as Waldman notes, there aren't too many signs that today's Republicans understand that the old strategy won't work anymore.

I'd go a bit further than Waldman, whose main evidence for GOP cluelessness involves the "Barack the Magic Negro" incident. That's bad enough, but there's every indication that Republicans (beyond a few smart but powerless intellectuals like Ross Douthat or David Frum) are thoroughly united in the belief that a more rigorous fidelity to conservative ideology in all its particulars is not only consistent with the party's strategic needs, but is essential to their achievement.

Even RNC Chair candidate Michael Steele, who has consistently condemned Chip Saltsman's tone-deaf racist "jokes" as damaging to the party, still buys into the idea that there's an audience of Democratic and independent--and African-American and Latino--voters who would gravitate to the GOP if they understood how thoroughly the party has resolved to eschew "moderate" heresies. The manifesto for his candidacy is very blunt on this central issue:

Moderates in our party, and liberal elements outside it, have tried to steer this debate toward the suggestion that we need to change our core views, desert our convictions and give up our conservative philosophy. This is nonsense. The country did not become liberal on November 4. In fact, just the reverse is true.

So speaks the "moderate" candidate for RNC chair.

This raises a very simple question: is it possible to be rigorously conservative at this particular moment in history while successfully reaching out to demographic categories of voters who either have always been or are trending in the direction of a firm attachment to the Democratic Party? Or to put it another way, are the attitudes that have repelled, say, minority voters truly detachable from conservative ideology?

In my opinion, the true test of these dubious "move right and win more voters" hypotheses isn't whether Republicans repudiate stupidly racist tactics and messages, but whether they repudiate sophisticated racist tactics and messages that amount to the same thing. And for that reason, it's extremely telling that none of the candidates for RNC chairman, or any other conservative thinker or talker that I've heard, has yet to express any doubts about the demographic impact of the McCain-Palin message down the homestretch of the presidential campaign, which was heavily based on the argument that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party were determined to ruin the country on behalf of its unworthy minority-group constituencies.

Did efforts to promote minority homeownership actually cause the financial crisis? Is a progressive tax code truly "socialist?" Are refundable income tax credits really "welfare?" Is a presumption in favor of the right to vote geniunely "voter fraud?" Are doubts about the Iraq War in fact "treason" or "a failure to support the troops?" Is support for comprehensive immigration reform indeed a matter of subordinating the very idea of citizenship to a crass desire to build a dependent Latino political base? Are women seeking legal abortions carrying out an American Holocaust? Are gays and lesbians determined to destroy the institutions of marriage and family?

All these conservative talking points during the campaign carried all sorts of nasty and exclusive demographic freight, as evidenced by the fact that they were generally delivered by politicians who avoided the more hamhanded "Barack the Magic Negro" types of rhetorical overkill.

This is not to say that conservatives are subjectively racist, homophobic, nativist, or antifeminist. But conservatives need to come to grips with the very real possibility that large elements of their ideology are leading them ineluctably to political appeals that are perceived by people outside their coalition as excluding them or as terribly hostile to their own interests.

All things being equal, it's probably good for the GOP to avoid sounding like Jesse Helms, to express at least occasional contempt for their talk-radio or Fox TV clowns, to recruit candidates who aren't white men, and to do all the other practical things "reformers" are suggesting to improve the party's mechanics and outreach. But all things aren't equal when it comes to what Republicans need in order to break out of their demographic box. "Moving to the right" or even "clearly conveying core conservative values" are basically attractive to the same old coalition that is now failing the GOP. Perhaps more votes can be squeezed out of the old turnip with better technology, more attractive candidates, and a clearer message. And maybe fidelity to what conservatives consider to be the eternal truth of their ideology is worth losing a few more elections.

But the widespread, almost universal conservative search for anything, everything, other than ideology as the source of the GOP's demographic problems could well be a blind spot that keeps them wandering in the wilderness, endlessly looking for more attractive ways to package the same product. It would be nice to see a few more conservatives consider that possibility.

Comments

[Pdubya]

we have a dellusional definition of what is "right" concerning the GOP. Neo-con isn't right, its just the right arm of the statist centrist cabal, called Congress.

"right" used to represent conservatism (save, not waste).
"right" used to represent non-intervention foreign policy, not totalitarianism
"right" used to represent balanced budgets and issuing coin

right used to represent some good things that brought balance to the equation.

and the suggestion is that the GOP is to move further to the left or center? the neo-con GOP exploded in spending, intervention, and have wasted so much. and the DNC let them do it. two wings of the same vulture.

what we need are true conservatives representing the GOP. that said, what we need are true progressives representing the DNC. it is the center that is rotten to the core.

[tommytoons]

Keep moving right GOP, Onward Christian Soliders, go the way of the DODO into extinction!!!!

[mine-forty]

How many elections must they lose before they wake up?

[murderBYzeN]

the republican base always expands automatically when a democrat is running the show...just look at the mess in the senate right now if you need more information

[clearsense]

The titles, conservative and liberal have now simply become names as they do not convey the true heart of the two parties, they are now reversed. The demo's want more of the same; just give 'em more handouts and they'll keep voting left. It is the same song and dance that has been going on for over 30 years, really since the beginning of the depression. The problem is that the Republican party has not promoted the vision of the right for the last 20 years, instead, they have been pretending to be dimocrats, and they have been doing that with gusto! I originally came from an area that is over 50% minority, and I found that for the most part, they wanted what the republican party professed to be, pro-family. In these families, there is a father in the household. They believe that America is a place where you work hard and you reap what you sow. Many of the businesses were owned by immigrant families. They didn't complain that the gov't wasn't giving them enough handouts, they were happy to be allowed to make it on their own, something they cannot do in Mexico or Vietnam. That is what the Republican party was about, and I hope they will return to that ideal. The dimocrats are still tied to the concept that everyone but the uber-wealthy cannot survive without handouts, and that the people cannot make decisions without the help of a fascist-liberal nanny state.

[flossophy]

wait just one sec...

the democrats are big hearted altruistic people with only good intentions. They want nothing more but to help the lesser among us. They would never enact policies which exploit people for their vote. They would never enact policies which create moral hazards from which they could profit from electorally...

They would never want people to become dependent on the state for their well being...

How many Progressives here have actually looked at the track record of their policies? And do you still think these policies actually work to help people or just to cement the Democrats in power?

Everyone's so concerned about the future of the GOP... I think it's the Democrats who should be concerned about their core beliefs (what are they?).

nicely put, clearsense.

[TurnToTheLeft]

What bull! The Republican Party wants to build a wall along the Mexican border in order to keep any non-white immigrants from entering the country. The Republicans were not happy to take the Vietnamese immigrants either. The Republican right wing broadcast immigrant minority hating messages 24/7 (Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Fox and Friends). The Republican Party supports big businesses at the expense of small businesses (Walmart versus every small family run store on Main Street). The Republican Party has had a successful run destroying the American Dream by enabling the ultra-wealthy while selling the myth to the common man that if they join the Republican Party one will become part of the privileged class. How hypocritical of you to use immigrants as an example of people who are in sink with Republican Party values - when in fact The Republican Party has utter contempt immigrant communities and people of color. The Republican Party party supports guns, prisons and more police to solve problems rather than supporting education and birth control which is a far more positive approach to deal with societal problems.

[flossophy]

take a close look, folks... successfully implanted left wing propaganda.

I wonder who's feeding you this irrational bilge, TurnToTheLeft? If you want, I'll respond to every point... but some part of me thinks its useless to do so. You have obviously bought in to this rhetoric, and even if presented with reality, I doubt you would change your mind.

This is important:

There are parallels to the indoctrination going on with the youth in Palestine to the youth in this country. No one is talking about taking anyone's free speech rights away... but this type of rhetoric should be shunned by you Progressives out there. This is irresponsible.

[BlackWidowPilot]

I'm an independent who prefers things factual. Why don't we review the real Bush/GOP "conservative" legacy:

Stealing the 2000 election

The Patriot Act

Preemptive war

Weapons of mass destruction

"Bring "em on"

Troops with no body armor

"Mission Accomplished"

Osama bin Forgotten

Donnie Rumsfeld

Abu Ghraib

Gitmo

Secret renditions

Torture memos

Walter Reed Hospital

"I"m the decider"

"Heck of a job, Brownie"

Valerie Plame

Halliburton

Blackwater

Harriet Miers

Alberto Gonzales

Scooter Libby

Jack Abramoff

Executive privileges

Illegal domestic spying

Signing statements

Fake news releases

Tax cuts for the rich

National debt

Minneapolis bridge collapse

Global warming

Deregulate Wall Street

Bailout Wall Street

29 percent public approval rating (and dropping)

Then there's the actual performance record of the GOP as the self-annointed "party of conservative Christian family values:"

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

Hypocrisy is not a family value, nor Christian virtue.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[hangdogit]

The core principles of Reagan/Bush and their tragic results for the country:

1. A huge military and national "defense" apparatus: an endless and unnecessary war in Iraq; destruction of civil liberties (Guantanomo, torture, eavesdropping, and in general Gulag-like behavior); lowest world respect for US probably ever; terrorists multiplying.

2. Deregulate business: read the headlines (while in the unemployment line or homeless shelter).

3. Cut taxes for the rich and wealth will trickle down: the poor practically written off; the Middle Class joining them; the rich richer than ever (check CEO income and income disparity); staggering national debt, decaying infrastructure, abysmal education system (H1B Visas).

4. "Family values": things like Congress and Jeb Bush trying to exploit the tragic Terry Schiavo story to impose their "family values" on her husband, abortion bombings, hate crimes, abstinence-only and "creationism" education while teen pregnancies soar (See Palin daughter).

5. "Government is not the solution; government is the problem": true under Bush (see Katrina, Iraq, Wall Street).

These types of results have discredited "conservatism," at least as recently practiced -- and were offerred to (and soundly rejected by) the voters in November -- good luck to the GOP with trying to sell this garbage again!

[flossophy]

I love these list rants... so easy to respond to:

1. see my post below. We have a big military because we protect so many nations from aggressors. If we didn't have it, other nations would run roughshod over their neighbors. Civil liberties? do you feel any less free? Obama's here... he'll save our precious liberties (ha!)

2. Deregulate business? it's not about deregulation... it's about GOOD regulation verses BAD. Bush tried to regulate Fannie & Freddie several times... but our altruistic friends, the Democrats blocked it every time. Fast forward to the meltdown.

3. Tax cuts for the rich - Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes... any cut in taxes would OBVIOUSLY go to the higher earners. Abysmal educational system, while we pay the most for it... go point your outrage at the Teachers Union - they're a monopolistic hegemony. They've blocked any meaningful reform and have helped create America's under-class... with staggering drop-out rates. You think Republicans caused this? Think again.

4. Family values... read my post below. Democrats have an abysmal track record with 'family values'

5. OMG... Katrina? The Democrats have run New Orleans for something like 80 years! Look at how 'well-off' it's citizens were. Local government (D) utterly failed (remember the photo of thousands of school buses sitting in a flooded parking lot?). And yet Bush gets the blame on this? pfft.

Conservatives aren't selling you this garbage... the people who told you this bulls*t are.

[lagumbo]

Like PRESIDENT OBAMA has said, they just don't get it.

[RobertHenryEller]

The country is getting older. That usually means the electorate should be getting more conservative. That would also mean a conservative platform might be more viable.

The problem is that with the financial meltdown, and healthcare issues, many of our older citizens are going not only want, but need, more help from the government. That argues against a shift to the right.

If the Republicans hadn't done their part to bankrupt the country with "free-market" capitalism and ill-advised militarism, they might have had a point in pursuing such a strategy.

My advice to individual republicans: Your best bet would be to follow the lead of Ron Paul, who actually has showed great attraction for many of the people who supported Obama. Watch a few re-runs of Bill Maher and Jon Stewart from the election cycle, when Ron Paul was on. Maher, Stewart and their audiences, "rabid" Obama supporters for the most part, loved Ron Paul, one of the most honestly conservative politicians in the US. So: support social and economic policies that really work. Lose the ideology. And play it straight. Americans, want, and need, solutions, as well as honesty and integrity. That's what is selling, and what will sell. It's going to be a long time, if ever, that so many Americans will be doing so well that they will be able to afford to put up with BS.

Don't oppose Obama. Compete with him. Out innovate him, out-serve him. If you can.

[alumtrix]

I really think Republicans can just stand on the sidelines and Obama will eventually shine through. I'm sure you've noticed all the corruption charges surfacing with the dems. I think the phrase "connect the dots" will re-surface in 4 years and Obama will be done. Could be Hillary's turn thogh.

[BigRonW]

I've long held the view that Americans aren't too good at learning from history - especially other people's history. Tony Blair was swept into power in the UK by a landslide general election victory. The Conservative party found itself in EXACTLY the same predicament as the RNC does today. It fell back on dreaming about "the good old days", when Margaret Thatcher was in charge, and hunted around for a new party leader who could replicate Thatcher - and her political theories. They totally ignored the reality that Blair had won precisely because he WASN'T Thatcher. The party lost members by the hatfull... and it was the moderates who were quitting, resulting in a party which drifted slowly around in circles, still looking for "yesterday's leader". A number of new candidates came up for consideration - and were summarily rejected, because they weren't "Thatcherite" enough. They picked leaders who THEY liked, not leaders that the voters would like. (Michael Portillo was probably the "best leader the Tories never had") As a result, they spent a decade out of office and completely unelectable. David Cameron - their new leader - was the first electable choice since Thatcher. he looked like a shoo-in for the next election, but then came the Economic meltdown. Paradoxically, voters seem to prefer Gordon Brown; miserable, but seen as economically competent. You'd think that the RNC might be smart enough to think "Didn't something very similar happen in England, not long back? Maybe we can learn from

[jackwaddington]

There are three major myths surrounding Conservatism, Republicanism and Fascism 1) An expensive defense system to protect The US. (no-one is going to attack The US, 9/11 was merely revenge for the bullying tactics of the US over the years; example Chile and Allende's assassination). 2) Free Market economics is self regulating. (Go no further than this meltdown). 3) Family Values when in actuality the proponents show little or no value in the family (The high divorce rate demonstrates this admirably). Subliminally the American people are beginning to take all this in. Conservatism, Republicanism and Fascism have had their day and it is as dead as Monarchy and the feudal system.

[flossophy]

jackie... a few minor corrections. First of all fascism can be found on the left and the right... history has shown that the left suffers from this disease more frequently.

1) our expensive defense system is to protect ourselves AND our allies (so they don't need large militaries). 9eleven boys probably were motivated by our non-response to multiple previous at-tacks. Thanks, Bill.

2) this meltdown is a product of bad government policy and democrat blocked regulation of FM&FM... not of free markets. You seem to have fallen for the shallow 'blame capitalism first' rhetoric... silly foo.

3) go pound sand at democrat's policies which replaced the African-american father with the State in 60's era policies... the most destructive piece of legislation to come out of washington. Is this family values?

The American people are taking THIS in...

Look at the results of left leaning policies on a society... remarkably it looks more like Feudalism than anything else around. Wake up jack - look around the world.

[jimspy]

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo! I've been saying this ever since November 4th, though not so eloquently. My version was, "It's the Stupid, Stupid!"

[buggedabouttheus]

Can the GOP expand its demographic base while moving right? Yes, if all they want are more flaming nuts and bigots. It seems that they do.

I'm only hoping that the Democrats can hold on to our new members and do right by them and the rest of us too.

[onlinesavant]

"This is not to say that conservatives are subjectively homophobic, racist, nativist, or antifeminist". I beg to differ from the perspective that conservatives may not be directly, BUT, the objectives with which they want to achieve inherently are. Conservatism by it's very definition means to "preserve, or hold back". Why would one want to hold back? To "preserve" one's advantage(s), or at least, one's perception of such. Within this, the question is "What is the harm of progress to a conservative." And therein lies the rub. For gays, minorities, immigrants, or women to "gain", a conservative believes that their advantage will be lost, and so they must advocate for an ideology that does not allow for progress for any of these groups, to the extent that those gain may overtake the conservative's advantage, to occur.

[flossophy]

ironically... conservatives are liberals in the classical sense of the word... promoting more liberty.

the same cannot be said of liberals. go figure.

liberals would rather preserve the status quo... they are the true conservatives.

[goldfox]

If the Republican Party wishes to honestly face the cold hard facts of life, they would realize that a good 10% , if not more, of the McCain/Palin vote would have gone to theDemocrats if their candidate where not a African American. The old and once proud GOP that opposed big government involvement in the individual's life now are the guys who want to tell you who you can marry, how you can or can not practice birth control, what you should or should not believe , and in general impose their will on all citizens. At the same time, the supporters of free market capitalism have degenerated to being the hired hands of the rich and powerful, demanding the right to win all competitions but insisting on government prevention of ever being on the losing end. Hypocrites in the extreme and certainly not representative of the vast majority of Americans.

[gabemill]

Bravo......

[Imperial61]

Bravo to GoldFox as well.The neo-conservative movement(Constant wars abroad,Isreal First)Ruinous finance capital,as opposed to market capital(WallStreet over mainstreet) there 'free trade agenda is merely allowing U'S factorys to move to China.and of course the fundementilist religious groups have marginilized the once proud GOP.This GOP coalition places ideological purity,over practical and responsible governance.Nixon to Reagan to Bush 1 altough conservative,were for the most part practical.The beginning of the end for the GOP was Newt Gingrich,his whole mantra was to turn the middle class against the poor.His crass congress began the GOPs total collapse in the cities,and the Northeast.Bush 's disasterous administra­tion,,almo­st a Cromwellian Puritanical fundementilist dictatorship ruined them nationally.Palin's 'Joe 6pack meets Tammy Faye Baker appeal will isolate them further from moderate voters in the once heavily GOP suburbs.Ronald Reagan built the Republican party a growing national coalition.­Ethnics,La­tinos,Cath­olics,and young people were coming on board.His record was NOT EXTREME,and he had a libertarian and hopeful appeal.Gingrich started to unravel that political mansion.Bush and his followers turned it into a falling down revival tent of religious fanatics and jingoists.

[RobertHenryEller]

Correct, Goldfox.

The real problem of the Republican agenda is that it is categorically dishonest. These people are neither real conservatives or real capitalists. They do not believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, or the sanctity of the voting booth.

These people are strictly for power and privilege for the few, without responsibility or consequence.

Most of them are not even honest about religion. They profess Judeo-Christian ethics, but don't practice them. Neither Jesus, nor Moses, nor Abraham, would recognize them as what they profess to be.

In short, they are frauds. And they are not being shunned for their "values," not will they attract more people by claiming more vehemently to adhere to those values.

What many Americans, many of whom actually do hold and practice these values honestly, have figured out, is that the people on the right screaming the loudest about their "ideals" are phonies.

[flossophy]

wow, RobertHenryEller... someone really pulled the wool over your eyes. Who got to you?

Not one of those assertions are anywhere close to reality.

It's kinda scary that there are millions of you out there who believe the same thing. Someone had to teach you this bile. You think Jesus, Moses or Abraham would condone forcibly taking money from one group of people - to make another group dependent on those who are giving them the money?

and they're doing it in the name of self-aggrandizing altruism? are these 'good' values?