Hold the Hofstadter: Why the GOP Is Winning 2010
Over the last few months, a number of prominent political columnists have pointed to historian and social critic Richard Hofstadter to explain what is happening to the Republican Party. 1964's The Paranoid Style in American Politics and his 1954 essay, "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt," among others, tell us why so many Republicans are lashing out at town halls and tea parties. And because the protesters make a lot of noise, wave disgusting signs and are embraced by a major political party, they get a lot of attention.
Here's the rub: their craziness turns away those who do not already agree with them, and yet the GOP is beginning to pull ahead in the generic congressional ballot match-up. How can this be?
Perhaps it's because while we're all hopped up on Hofstadter and understanding what Sam Tanenhaus defines as The Death of Conservatism, we've forgotten about another important contingent of Americans: low-information 2008 Obama voters.
Like those who took part in Arianna's 'One Year Later' debate last week, the past year has left these people feeling discouraged, apathetic, or worse: betrayed. But unlike news junkies, they don't look at Obama and see someone who misunderstood Washington or has been too accommodating. These people look at Obama and believe he has turned on them.
The latest unemployment rate is 10.2 percent -- a 26-year high. Despite positive numbers in April, a majority of Americans believe we're on the "wrong track." In New Jersey and Virginia, 9 in 10 voters described being worried about the direction of the nation's economy in 2010. Never mind which way they voted -- that's not the point. The point is what they're feeling, and the message is clear: Americans are not confident in our economic recovery.
The economy is the maker or breaker of a successful presidency. We forget (if we ever learned) that inflation is what handcuffed Lyndon Johnson halfway through his term, exposing other vulnerabilities and ultimately toppling him. In a survey of more recent history, John B. Judis displays how clearly the unemployment rate reflects a president's unpopularity in times of boom and bust.
This is what we have been missing. While Republican leaders and mouthpieces are continually setting new standards for outrageousness, the more subtle -- and more damaging -- lies receive less attention. And that is: 'The Democrats' economic recovery has failed. And if it did anything for anyone, it certainly wasn't for people like you.'
Maybe it's time to put down the Hofstadter and pick up the writings of Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. He's the political scientist who, in the 1970s, began writing about the contributor/beneficiary dynamic that led to the collapse of the Democratic coalition. Ladd wrote of how the New Deal majority was put off by the Great Society's focus on the poor, making them feel like "contributors rather than beneficiaries" of government initiative.
It's similar to today, except in our time of bank bailouts-and-bonuses, members of the 2008 Obama coalition believe their money is moving up the financial food-chain instead of down. Ladd also picked up on how voters can be of two minds at once. For example: those in the '70s who believed the government should do more for the poor -- and that government should spend less on welfare. Today, you're likely to find voters who support government action to save the economy (something Republicans opposed, but we'll get back to that), yet believe the government won't save their economy.
Ask a low-information Obama voter if they think people like them benefited from the stimulus program and you're bound to hear a 'no.' And can you blame them? Chances are they haven't been to recovery.gov; they're more likely to have heard TV reports about auto executives or bankers benefiting from government injections.
This is a failure of the Obama administration communicating the good they've done. It's not a pretty job. After all, who wants to boast of 'successfully' holding unemployment down to 10.2 percent?
Republicans should get some credit for discouraging this set of Obama voters, too. They have no other choice but to try to pin bad economic news on Democratic policies. The Republicans voted against economic recovery because they wanted Obama and the Democrats to own it, and once they did that, they were all in. They had to see to it that it failed -- not in reality (they took the funds for their districts); but in the minds of the American people.
So even though the unemployment rate would certainly be worse and GDP would be shrinking like it was at the end of the Bush years instead of growing like it is today, they can't let voters think that. No, look at last Sunday's talk shows and you'll find Michael Steele and Mike Pence arguing the economic recovery program increased the unemployment rate. Believe what you want on whether the stimulus was prudent or not, but to shout that spending billions on public works is "not creating jobs"?
Democrats should and do refute these wild accusations. Unfortunately, it's difficult for them to reserve the brunt of their outrage for lies about the economy when the same Republicans cheer on protesters waving signs equating health care reform with Nazi death camps.
It's an easy score to go after the inflammatory, though it's ultimately misguided. For when ranking voter priorities, who do they punish? The party of twisted sign-wielding protesters? Or the party they trusted to fix the economy and didn't?
That being said, things change. The economy might get better. Republican challengers will be defined. But this backward contributor/beneficiary dynamic is what's sinking the Democrats in 2010. Even if the economy recovers, they risk losing the credit for it unless they focus on making their coalition believe they are the beneficiaries of their economic policies.
Follow John R. Bohrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JRBwrites
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Carl Everett Ladd also wrote insightfully of the way in which most people are torn between self and social concerns. A mature polity would have at least one social democratic political party which squarely and forcefully asserted the compatibility between the two. America now doesn't. It has two major parties, both of which cater to the selfish interests of the well off.
In the long view, the South (and Southern attitudes) have been steadily "rising again" ever since the Civil War. After successfully conspiring to assassinate Lincoln, Southerners soon demolished Reconstruction and instituted Jim Crow, Black Codes and lynching. Super-rich Northerners used the reactionary temper of the times to establish a Gilded Age and acquisitive values uber alles.
Following the Depression enlightenment values held sway during the New Deal through Great Society but Southerners regrouped under Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes. Today the second Reconstruction of the civil rights era has been eviserated almost as thoroughly as the first. And the Gilded Age is back with a vengeance with elites acting to impoverish and immiserate lower eschelons Americans "reverse Robin Hood" style.
The solution prior to the Civil War was the formation a new political party militantly opposed to the expansion of slavery. The solution now is the formation of a new political party militantly committed to stopping -- cold -- any expansion of (already) extreme inequality, and then to rolling it back to tolerable differentials.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
The GOP will likely win seats in 2010 because they are successful with their noise machine screaming the same tired, unrealistic talking points/policies that didn't work during the Bush years (less government, low taxes, low deficit, outlawing abortion, spreading democracy worldwide, yada, yada, yada) versus the weak Democrats who are all over the place with their messaging while daily bashing Obama over the head for perceivably being "weak" or because he's not doing a fast enough jig to their personal tunes. Voters want everything yesterday. Never mind that it took us decades to get to the economic and social mess we're in now.
One man can't solve all of society's monumental problems (economy, healthcare, keeping social issues private and out of politics, unemployent, job creation, etc.) It takes a damn village.
It takes only one man, a man without government incumberance.
there's nobody wining anything. isn't there real news going on.stop making it up
I really wish people would stop talking about who "is" winning 2010.
after an election season where everyone thought Rudy and Hillary were winning until people actually started casting votes, you would think that people would have learned their lessons.
Stop with the horse race stuff, and report things that are actually happening.
If it wasn't for the internet, which has been such a great source of information, Dems wouldn't have won in 2006, and 2008.
It's true that the under and mis-informed have often voted in a manner that has put our country in peril, like in 2004. However, I disagree that things will be so bad in 2010. Too many people, especially younger folks, are too well informed of what's really going on. In only one small example, by next summer, Michael Moore's recent very informative and honest movie will have been on all the heavy rotation cable movie slots. Even though Rethugs will promise more jobs and such, most Americans will know that placing them in power will only prolong the misery of the great overhaul that needs to take place in our government since it's becoming so obvious tha rethugs are corrupt and bought by the corporations..
'The Democrats' economic recovery has failed. And if it did anything for anyone, it certainly wasn't for people like you.'
But, I'm sorry, this is true. This is absolutely true. Investment banks and the Wall Street risk takers are still well-off, and still at it. Still up to the same shennanigans that brought the whole thing down in the first place. Sorry, but health care reform should not have been priority number one. The banking bills, the re-regulation bills, the corrections to the financial industry as overseen by Congress, these are the things that should have followed TARP. Instead, Bush's last terrible program was left to do what it was supposed to: prop up failed greed with taxpayer money. Health care is certainly important, and yes, even important to financial restructuring, but ultimately, the Democrats dropped the ball (and the momentum) by allowing Big Business to take banking reform off the front page while the stories of billion-dollar-bonuses were still headlines. Do you think people would be half as angry if Congress were debating bills that restricted Wall Street thievery instead of this health care fiasco? Absolutely not. Their trust in Obama and the Democrats would be nearly absolute, because of the perception of action and the hope of results. Instead we got a credit card bill that restricts credit rate increases but doesn't apply until the card companies had a chance to jack the rates up before the law took effect.
Republicans inherited an economic surplus and a balanced budget from a Democrat.
8 years as the Majority and they did nothing but support 2 wars with no WMD, tax cuts for the rich who shipped jobs overseas, support deregulation which caused the collapse, and came up with the Bailout so Bush could leave office attempting to preserve his "legacy".
He saddled this country with more burdens than we should have to bear, but still in less than a year of inheriting the Republican mess it gets blamed on the new guy.
How convenient.
With nearly nearly 50% of Republicans in office and less than 30% in the party will claim they are members that means many in elected office won't acknowledge their own party.
The health care hasn't been a fiasco as much as obstructionist when Republicans with no plans or ideas keep voting no, many times publicly stating they didn't even read it. Healthcare will benefit small businesses the most.
Why don't Republicans who believe that private insurance is best cancel their own government policy and go private??
I follow the news, and while I won't be voting GOP anytime soon, not exactly for Obama and the Dems right now either, and like many others wondering why I should support them for any other reason than they (barely) aren't as bad. The economy will turn around, but slower than it should've. Just as with healthcare, despite them actually having mandates (unlike the GOP, who call mandate even when they're vastly unpopular but win with a slight majority against unpopular and do-nothing-Dems who do little to separate themselves from GOP opponents), they let the far-right define the debate, bickering amongst themselves over details while Rome burns. Starting in the middle, but continuing to lean right, calling it compromise when it's more like compromising their (and the majority of Americans') principles for the party-of-no who'll just vote against them anyway, calling them a bunch of -ists anyway (which only proves the far-right doesn't actually know the meaning of those terms, but organizes to throw them around and repeat them endlessly so it becomes the meme). Scratching their heads wondering why it's hard for any of us to want to support them, while the extremists in the far-right define the debate because they're the only ones voting together, and because they are the loudest. Treated as legit by the not-so-liberal-media even though the moderate, and according almost to all polls majority, is much further left.
I agree with the sentiment of this piece to some extent. However I believe the writer may be overestimating the value or accuracy of recent polling showing a democratic slide in 2010. Polls taken many months before the Democratic primaries predicted Hillary Clinton taking the Democratic nomination. Polls also did not predict the extent of Democratic victories in the house and senate elections of 2006 or 2008. It is simply too early to make political decisions based on hypothetical polling and phantom candidates. Also I believe the writer underestimates the intelligence of the voting public. Polling data has consistently shown the majority of voters place the blame for this economic catastrophe where it belongs, on the shoulders of GWB and the Republican policies that got us here. Sure some may be ignorant enough to believe that Obama is to blame for why the worst recession since the Great Depression is somehow not over 10 months into his first term. But they, like us, most likely remember Obama himself saying it would probably get worse before it gets better. It's jumping the gun to say it's over now or the Dems are doing it all wrong. What we really need to do is wait about 3 months and look again. I promise the Republican primaries will put a lot of extreme right wing candidates in the races, and we'll see a REAL implosion on their side.
Some of you are just too naive to believe that you could be the benefitiary of any type of government bailout. Goldman Sach on the other hand is expecting record bonuses to be paid from the billions they made by take the reckless risk with their share of bailout money for which they paid back a tiny fraction as interest to the government. Please people! Wake up already. Like 99.9% of the politians in the country, Obama's priority is and will always be the ones who contributed the largest chunk to his campaign and it it NOT YOU!
The above piece comprises THE best political analysis I've read on Huffington Post. And I'm a regular here. I sincerely hope this piece is read carefully by many strategists in the Democratic Party. The above seems simple. But it kind of is, and yet it is the truth, and an awareness about the low-information voters I believe is the key to preventing too much bloodshed in 2010. It's clearly about improving communication and staying away from the distractions that the teabagging Becks dangle in front of us.
Yes.
i concur completely.
There is a myth that the Republicans are our secret saviors - they aren't.
Are Americans really stupid? I've heard people like Bill Maher say it, but if the Republicans gain power in 2010 I will really believe it.
Bush was elected twice. Do you really even, need to ask the question?
Bush was elected once and appointed once.
nope- voted in once--the second was a scam. he wasn't voted in again. dream on !
The entire population? No but 20% of the population are so dim, they think the sun orbits the earth.
I agree with the author in his description of how much the president has failed in communicating his ACTUAL achievements. He has achieved much considering what he was handed just this last January. More solutions have been applied and yes, more are needed, the problem that this president (and future presidents) face is the difference in lag time between constructive legislation and on the ground effect in this new "news" environment.
What puzzles me about this article is that while the Dems haven't really shaken the ground with their accomplishments the question looms, WHAT HAVE THE REPUBS DONE besides acting like brats? What new measures other than their usual right wing lunacy now boosted with steroids? Just go down the list of standard right wing talking points; cut taxes, fight terrorism, less government, strong military, free market, no abortion, all the same things that bush-boy touted and failed to deliver with repub control of both houses of congress AND the Judicial Branch!
I can't honestly see Americans, even as uninterested as they are, to suddenly jump to their feet and say "I've had enough of what the Democrats have done! I want that stuff the Republicans gave us last time!"
The Democrats control Congress and The White House, what Republicans think or do is of little consequence.
Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" blurred the lines that separate the two parties. Only now have Republicans come realize that trying to be Democrat-Lite is a losing strategy. Given the choice, Democrats would prefer the genuine article, and the Republican base is completely demoralized. I'm suspicious of liberals offering advice to conservatives. I believe that the idea of individual freedom and limited, constitutional government may one again resonate with voters.
No. "This country is going so far to the right that by 2008 you won't recognize it." Karl Rove 2004.
The only way the GOP wins anything is if America collectively forgets the eight years GWB was president.
Thing is though, I think that's what John Bohrer is saying in regards to the low information voter. If America forgets - why did they forget? Why aren't they aware of what they forgot and why aren't the memories replaced with new information? In other words, my question is, why aren't the Democrats pulling out trumpets and lauding whats been avoided, accomplished,in the works in spite of those 8 years and every bit of destruction the current crop of GOP are up to?
The Republicans (and I loathe them) are never shy of tooting their own horns. The Democrats are. The problem is that this isn't a question of tacky. It's not a time for worrying about tacky. It's a question of not being so genteel that the uncouth creeps take advantage and crawl right back in - on the Democrats work.
I think Democrats underestimate Conservatives, that is what always kills them. hubris goeth before a fall
The repubs may win a few seats in 2010 but I don't think it is going to be the landslide that this poll and pundits are projecting. They were embarrassingly wrong about Obama winning in 2008. They all had to eat crow.
Corporate media is spinning the republicans making a come back in 2010 because Obama is not giving them what they want like the repubs have done and will do again. Yes, the insurance companies want the 47 mil new people with govern't subsidies but don't want the public option. They want it all. Oil companies don't want the climate change bill because they have a small role and they want to control it. The repubs will give them all they want just like the two wars and Medicare D. None of which was paid for.
If the corpaorate media reported 'fair and balanced' you would not see a republican anywhere near a microphone talking about the fixing the economy, cut spending and taxes after the disastrous state of affairs they left the country in.
Yes, Obama need a war room to curtail these ball face lies being spread about his administration. He is being too, too nice.
I think you need to let go of the "corporate media" thing. This liberal construction that media outlets are big corporations, and big corporations tend to be conservative, therefore the media are generally conservative, is completely bogus. The monolithic liberal views of the major media outlets, had gone virtually unchallenged until recent times. Their lock-stepped views produced virtual collusion, and profits rolled-in almost automatically. The new media has only now begun to cut into what was once a leftist monopoly. And I wouldn't wager anything of value that Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, or Brian Williams have ever cast a vote for a Republican.
It's no surprise that journalists would be liberal as the truth tends to have a liberal bias, but the myth of the liberal media is still wrong for despite the political leaning of the journalist, the editors and executives still set the agenda and this is why everyday at Murdoch enterprises begins with a memo outlining angle and verbiage. Even if the newscorps weren't big business, which they are, their money comes from advertisers, not viewers (viewers are product not customers) and so the newscorps are beholden to those advertisers which are, you guessed it, big business. In order to keep their customers happy they pander to their interests before their duty to the truth.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
