Beyond Tuesday's Results, Republicans Facing Long-Term Decline
As commentators seem ready to over-interpret tomorrow's election results in three jurisdictions, they should instead consider how four long-term trends show the GOP engaged in political slow-motion suicide. The party that politically prospered over the decades because of flags and faith is now increasingly becoming the extreme and the Democrats the mainstream.
The elections tomorrow in New Jersey, Virginia and New York's 23rd appear likely to turn primarily on off-year turnouts and local lineups -- and in any event, so few contests aren't statistically very predictive of anything. On the other hand, when big ideological ideas crash into a wall called reality, voters eventually notice.
And Republican ideas on economics, health care and war have not just been disproven but discredited.
Economics
As goes the GDP, so often goes presidential elections. But the Great Recession of the past year was something far deeper than the normal fluctuation of the business cycle.
Aaron Sorkin's Too Big To Fail and James Stewart's recent piece in the New Yorker showed how close we came to a depression-level meltdown. This past century's second worst economy is rightly associated with the Bush-Cheney administration -- if they maintain that they deserve credit for no terrorist attacks since 9/11 (which conveniently forgets who was president on 9/11) then it logically follows that they deserve the blame for an economy in free-fall on their watch. As bad sub-prime mortgages and investment banks gambling with other people's money were eroding the economy, the Bush Team continued their ritual attacks on big government regulation, which was precisely what was needed to detect and avoid the problem. Indeed, in a Fox News poll last month about which president was "more responsible for the current state of the economy," respondents said Bush over Obama by 58% to 18%.
The GDP has risen 3.5% in the third quarter because, most economists agree, Obama's stimulus program helped replace disappearing business and consumer spending. So while the Republicans complain only about the rising deficit (which was 3.1% of the GDP in 1985 versus 1.2% now), who do you suppose will get and deserve the credit when the economy revives and unemployment finally falls? The Obama-Keynes policies will not simply be the rooster taking credit for the dawn but a strategy that indeed did rescue the economy. On the other hand, Bush's indifference to growing income inequality and excessive executive compensation -- and his we're-all-in-this-alone philosophy, in the phrase of Senator Dick Durbin -- will not be fondly remembered by a public angry at Wall Street.
Trend one: economic failure will be associated with Republicans and economic growth with Democrats.
Health Care
Universal health care policies in Canada are so popular and successful that they rank with the Mounties as part of the social fabric. In the U.S. since Medicare and Medicaid a half century ago, our health care system has been half government-financed, yet Ronald Reagan never did anything to roll back such socialized medicine. So while the final health care reform law is in sight but not yet determined, it seems likely that it too will be end up as popular and as hard to repeal.
Recall that the reason William Kristol famously wrote in his 1993 memorandum that Republicans had to oppose Clinton's health reforms was not because they wouldn't work but because they might ... and lock in Democratic majority status for years to come. Ditto "Obamacare," which is now an epithet but will likely become a medal.
Of course, the GOP can't admit such a motive, so they talk about how it'll increase taxes and create "death panels," which are patently false, and prattle on about how the House bill is 1990 pages. Really? The problem is the length of a bill rather than preexisting conditions denying someone health insurance or health care costs being responsible for half of personal bankruptcies in America?
True, in a poll last week, Americans were divided 45%-45% over Obama health care proposals, but at the same time only 20% approved of Republican approaches. Presumably, if health care reform succeeds as well as, say, Medicare and Medicaid, these numbers will change to the GOP's disadvantage.
Trend two: while Republicans will be associated with expensive health care provided by big insurance companies, Democrats will be associated with affordable and accessible health care for all.
War
Every president takes an oath to protect and defend the United States, but after Iraq that no longer will mean trillion dollar preemptive wars against countries that never attacked us.
While the Obama policy and end game in Afghanistan is still murky, it's clear that Bush-Cheney will be forever associated with the "fiasco" of Iraq. As our troop presence there winds down significantly starting in the summer of 2010, voters will rightly associate that war with W. and our exit with Obama, who opposed it from the start and who ran against it when he defeated the pro-war McCain.
And I suspect that Obama's silent tribute to those coming home to Dover Air Force base will be as remembered as long as Bush and the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
While the public initially favored the Iraq invasion and occupation, albeit based on falsehoods about WMD and a Saddam-al Qaeda link, voters now by 2-1 say the war wasn't worth the cost.
Trend three: Republicans will be seen as the party of wars of choice while Democrats as the party associated instead with diplomacy first.
Demography
From The Emerging Democratic Majority by John Judas and Ruy Teixeira in 2004 to Ron Brownstein's analyses now, population trends indicate that Obama's big electoral win -- with a margin three times the size of Bush's -- was more a harbinger than an aberration.
It's not clear how a party that is anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-science (Terry Schiavo, global warming) -- and with not one black senator or congressperson -- can win elections in a country with more black, Latino, Asian, college-educated and younger voters. The majority of Republican senators who voted against Sonia Sotomayor did not help themselves become a majority party.
Already, the suburban and professional districts enjoying the largest population growths are increasingly Democratic. McCain got the same percentage of the white vote as Reagan, except it was of a far smaller universe. In 2008 a quarter of the voters were non-white, by mid-century it will approach half.
Trend four: Republicans will be limited to its smaller white, Southern base while Democrats can build enduring majorities based on new and growing populations.
Last week the same William Kristol in an op-ed in the Washington Post and George Will on ABC's This Week showed more numeracy than accuracy when they said that 40% of Americans called themselves "conservative" while only 20% said "liberal." That's accurate as far as it goes, which is not that far. For on issue after issue -- consumer regulation, the environment, health care -- voters choose Democratic policies over Republican ones. Actually, other than the deficit, it's hard to think of any issue where Republicans have the more popular policy. Which perhaps explains another number -- only 17% of American self-identify as Republicans, according to the most recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll.
This is not to predict the demise of a party 150 years old. Only its decline. There's still perhaps 35%-40% of Americans who continue to accept fundamentalist, small government, anti-tax, man-walked-with-dinosaurs appeals. But it's not a majority and it's shrinking. And with leading spokespeople like Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back, there's little reason to see a reversal of this political descent.
Whatever happens in New Jersey, Virginia and New York on Tuesday, these four trends are millstones around the neck of a already minority party. If, as is probable, the economy recovers smartly, health care gets enacted and works, wars wind down and birth rates continue, imagine Democrats over coming decades asking voters, especially independent voters, "Want to go back to the Bush years of no-growth, of war, and of bankruptcies because of skyrocketing health care costs?"
Joe Scarborough: Election Night Preview: GDP Trumps Gay Marriage
All the president's men know that a Republican sweep in New Jersey and Virginia will strike fear in the hearts of those swing state Democrats who now hold the future of health care in their sweaty moderate hands.
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
"There's still perhaps 35%-40% of Americans who continue to accept fundamentalist, small government, anti-tax, man-walked-with-dinosaurs appeals. But it's not a majority and it's shrinking. And with leading spokespeople like Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back, there's little reason to see a reversal of this political descent."
The 35%-40% the author refers to are, quite literally, on the wrong side of evolution. Most of them are old so they will soon disappear as a natural course of events but, more importantly, the only ideological mates they can attract are people who are congenitally ignorant and spiritually bereft. Such matings do not result in the fittest of offspring. The far right, because its existence depends on the acceptance of both ideas and ideals that are irrational and immoral can not survive in a world that continues to evolve into a more rational and moral place.
I am 63 considered myself somewhat of a conservative and have never been politically active in my life but I will do anything in my power to see every Republican voted out of office. It is beyond obvious that there primary concern is protecting their corporate buddies at any cost. I have never seen so much arrogance and hypocrisy from one group of people in my life. It just saddens me that more democrats don't stand up and call them out on their lies and the fact that they will put the interest of Corporate America above all else.
1993 memorandum that Republicans had to oppose Clinton's health reforms was not because they wouldn't work but because they might ... and lock in Democratic majority status for years to come. Ditto "Obamacare," which is now an epithet but will likely become a medal.
Exactly. If he wins this, we all win. Besides dependancy on foreign oil, the biggest drag on our economy is the cost of health care. If you look at it correctly, health care has effectively increased the tax "cost of health care" by 6 percent. Repugs are always talking about how taxes are a drag on the economy. Well any cost increase relative to inflation acts the same way. If we reduce the cost of health care, then we release this drag.
Then if we can switch more and more to an non oil based economy, we can eliminate another 5% drag. That would be as if all americans received an 11% tax cut.
We won't even talk about the net trade balance effect.
It is imperative that all Democrats encourage a Palin/Huckabee ticket for 2012
America desperately needs to laugh loud and long. History needs a little levity also.
Go Palin! You tell us Huckabee...laughter
I like Palin/Cheney better than Palin/Huckabee. Cheney has eight years experience dealing with a special needs president.
Canadian Universal Healthcare is the single most popular thing ANY level of government (we have four) does here. It vastly outranks the mounties, who have minimal presence in Canada's two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec.
In the popularity stakes, UH's rival in our affections is something like the game of hockey, not the mounties.
Same goes for any 'western' country with universal health care. There is not one single Euro-JAC country that wants to adopt the US system.
Yet reform in the US is bad...
All true. And I would add a fifth point -- the Republican party is no longer a credible standard bearer for the cause of fiscal conservatism. Given the complete lack of resistance to the out-of-control deficit spending during the W's administration, it is impossible to take Republicans seriously now when they argue against Democratic initiaitives based upon their financial impact.
The Republican party has become almost completely devoid of a mission, meaning or vision. Where is their thought leadership on any important issue of the day? It seems like obstructionism is all they have left to offer.
I have been a republican party member since the day I registered to vote, but frankly I am now embarrassed to admit it. There is nothing left in the Republican party for me to embrace. I hope that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their ilk do succeed in pushing out all of the moderates and polarizing the party to the far right. Then the moderates can form a new party in the center and leave the GOP to wither and die.
Good riddance to Conservatism!
Modern conservatism was formed to fight against the Enlightenment and democracy.
that worked OK till the internet made the Big Lies far more difficult to maintain.
now that the GOP is dying, we need to rid the democratic party of the Blue dogs and DLC conservatives.
Thanks Mr. Green for good article. This republican (conservative) party is all mouth, bullying all the time like middle-schoolers without a credible plan in their pea brains. Just listen to them, what do they say - no taxes, more wars. That is the sum of their game plan. Unfortunately, the 24/7 cable stations vent their talking point ad nausea-um without any responsibility of showing how these clowns screwed things up. All the media want is a fight, and they make up stuff to get a fight. Look at FOX news where the conflict starts on their opinion shows like Beck, Hannity then shows up during their news hours as hot breaking news. They are the clever, deceptive ones.
The repubs think they are going to sweep in like they did in 1994, or pull a Reagan in 1981 and 1984. I think not this time. People know who got this country in the shape it's in today. President Clinton left Bush 43 w a surplus, what did Bush leave Obama - 1.4 T deficit, two wars. Give me a break...
Tomorrow's election will tell the tale but I think your's is wishful thinking. People know that Bush and the Republicans bear responsibility for the troubles we are now facing but they have nearly equal trepidation about the solutions offered so far by Obama & the Democrats. Long term electoral success will follow the Dems if what they do actually works. If things worsen, they'd better prepare to duck and cover.
I believe most people are sick to death of the Repugs--- a party which cannot tell the truth, which is based on resentment, anger, and white privilege. Anything is better than being ruled by such people. Tomorrow will not "tell the tale" if the Repugs manage to pull off a victory or two. These are special circumstances which won't be repeated around the nation in 2010.
What about Barney frank, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and Sheila Jackson Lee saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in fine shape, and even going so far as to accuse people of racism for looking into the financial health of both of those entities? Wasn't that in an R controlled congress?They somehow orchestrated the whole thing, while the D's were trying to warn us all I suppose.........
Yeah the economic problems we face weren't caused by the republican ideology that unregulated free markets work best and these corporations are so trustworthy they can police themselves. Nobody is saying the Democrats are blameless but don't pretend that it was their policies that led us to where we are. The democrats are guilty of not doing more to stop it.
The Democrats did NOTHING! As did the Republicans! Together they joined in and allowed a Sopprano-like economic 'hit' that screwed us all admirably.
Just like the repubs polled are not identifying themselves as Republicans because they voted repubs Bush and Cheney into office that nearly destroyed the U.S. and are justifiably ashamed for it, this kabuki dance is nothing more than the GOP trying to win back their disillusioned voters, opening a pathway by renaming their candidates as "Conservative", a label that's nostalgic and friendlier than "republican" these days.
Hoffman is just another GOP repub and he will carry on the same-o same-o failed policies of republicans.
The only change here is the label.
I don't know everything, and sometimes I don't know anything, but here is what I think. When ordinary Americans turn off their TVs and computers and start actually being involved in the political process, starting at the local level with either of the two major parties or by starting a third(and maybe fourth and fifth) and when they start thinking for themselves and quit letting pundits and bloggers on either side do their thinking, and when each of us begins to police our OWN parties and not worry so much about making the other side look bad and more about our own side actually being the better party, that is when this country will change for the better, but not until then.
Your suggestions would be a decided improvement but for the sake of your better health, please don't hold your breath on any of this.
This misses the big picture - and the important meaning of the Hoffman campaign.
Americans are becoming unhappy - and maybe even disgusted - with both political parties as they stand now. The professional politicians that have come to dominate both sides have proven that they are the worst possible people to run a country.
Americans are less likely to identify themselves with any party. The only growing group is "independents". People want to find elected leaders that are real, trustworthy, and believe in traditional liberty. They don't want government controlled by big business, but they also don't want their lives controlled by big government. The actual change is coming and it could come very quickly if we learn from NY 23rd.
Nice try to spin this week's news as a positive for the Dems, though!
The real problem is lobbyists, on both sides. Unless changes are made, our government will continue to be corrupt.
The conservative supreme court is going to make this problem worse if they overturn corporate financing. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/corporate-money-in-electi_b_342482.html?show_comment_id=33819363#comment_33819363
Absolutely correct, we are becoming disgusted with both parties. I am a registered Republican and I am disgusted with my party, and have called the RNC several times and told them so, and why. However, I certainly don't see the Democrats as the answer either. There needs to be a party for people in the center, and right now there isn't one. If a viable third party ever emerges it will be one geared toward the center(the majority of Americans) that has social values a little more to the right of the Dems,and an attitude toward big business a little left of the GOP.
Therein lies the problem...your definition of center is different than mine, and mine is different than someone else's and so on and so on....I agree we need another party...I don't think these politicians should be able to get so comfortable...maybe term limits for them? I don't know...I also believe that lobbyists are the root of all that is evil, and we need to change the way money flows in to all three branches of government. However, I think Katrina was a perfect example of why no matter what you think of government, be it too big, or too small, it doesn't matter...what does matter is competance...and if the people elect people like bush or palin, you will not be getting anything close to competence.
The social issue will soon be taking even more of back seat to public safety and the economy.
Hoffman is going to follow the republicans when it comes to policy. Simply because you call him a conservative instead of a republican doesn't make him any different. The spin is simple you can't say the republicans aren't moving farther right after the presidential election they claimed they weren't conservative enough this may work in areas that are very conservative. However as you correctly pointed out independents are the group growing and republicans have had a hard time appealing to this group which indicates trouble in the long run for republicans.
I don't agree. Independents vote for whatever they think is best for themselves (maybe the country) at any given moment. Right now, most independents are showing a strong tendency toward more "conservative" viewpoints of the government and culture and life in general. There are several recent polls that show this. This would make them just as likely to vote for a "republican" as any other candidate.
We have the best government that money can buy.
From your lips to God's ear.
Conservatism will always be around. It helps sell advertising, partners with big business, and gives lip service to the sanctimonious.
More likely the Afghanistan war will edge toward Viet Nam status over time, unemployment will become the big media talking point and Obama will have to deal with a divided house and senate after midterm elections. The Census trends will not be sufficiently changed to avoid gerrymandering in the next redistricing period. The Grumpy Oldmen Party will continue on.
My theory, Mark, and I call it "mine" because I've not heard it publicly stated, is that the Bush administration allowed the mortgage crisis to unfold because it made it look as if "the tax cuts for the wealth" was actually working as an economic aide.
Cheers!
Green is wrong about 2, and probably 3, of the 4, - and the 4th may not matter in the final analysis:
ECONOMY: Obama promised to fix it and his solutions will not work. Only the expansion of free
enterprise can help but his insistence on governmental & taxational enlargement along
with over regulation beyond what is needed to insure financial institutional honesty will
weaken, not strengthen, our economy. If things get worse people will see this failure as
his and that judgment will be correct.
HEALTH CARE: Too expensive now without the honest promise of affordability in the future. They'll
pass something and it will not only not improve the system, but it will weaken it. He
and his party will own this and what they've done will prove to be a colossal
misadventure.
WAR: It is his to try to win or allow us to lose. If we fight and win (sadly, a word Obama isn't
enamored with when it comes to military conflict) it will be his victory. If he insists we sneak out
of Afghanistan with our tail between our legs, al Qaida will then be the winner. Didn't he say
something like this one is the 'Good War'? A loss could be catastrophic. His decision here
is still up in the air, but I strongly suspect he'll compromise us into defeat.
DEMOGRAPHY: Green's right about this one structurally - but only if Obama and the Dems are
reasonably successful. That remains to be seen.
There is no such thing as "free enterprise." Why?
Well, try to imagine enterprise without the commons: imagine no public roads to get to the consumer or the product to the market, imagine no public educated workforce for the producer to employ, imagine no public police force to protect the market from crime, imagine no public court system to insure that contracts are fair and fulfilled, imagine no public military to protect the market from foreign raiders, and finally imagine no public financial system for the market to use in trading goods and services.
Free enterprise is a myth. The market must be protected and regulated by government to simply exist. So the real question is what kind of protection and regulation is best for the society.
Who said anything about eliminating government altogether? The services you specify are sensible public responsibilities. Of course protection of the nation's population and it's economy are necessary ingredients. If you think free enterpirse is a myth then, by your comment, you must think freedom itself is as well. I'll take a good dose of relative freedom and relative free enterprise anytime over too much restriction. Wouldn't you?
How can you be so wrong on so many things, and still want to post on HP? Redstate seems more your speed.
The only thing wrong with the stimulus was that it was not big enough, and had too many tax cuts for businesses.
With the public option, there will finally be competitiveness in the insurance markets. Failure is what we have now: the most expensive health care in the world, which gets us Number 37 in outcomes.
War? 4,356 US dead in Iraq, 911 US dead in Afghanistan. What is there to "win"?
Fortunately, it is the republican demographic that is eroding.
Have a good day. But spend it on RedState.
Time will eventually tell which of the two of us is ultimately right. I'm still not betting on you.
And I post here because I enjoy the give and take of the inevitable disagreement. If I spoke just to those who are consistently like minded, what could be learned?
What is the point of having comments and discussions here on HP if it's just everyone who thinks like you do agreeing with each other all day long?
If we are going to get anywhere in this country, we have to stop trying to hide from the other point of view(s) out there. That's one of the problems with our culture: everyone has their own sources of information and it is pre-programmed with their own prejudice.
Even a remarkably informed person like you might still be able to learn something!
All these problems you point out could have been taken care of when republicans controlled the government the had no solutions then and they have none now.
You are right - and they deserve condemnation for looking the other way, and sometimes even joining in, while that disasterous fire was being stoked.
ECONOMY: Sweden had a very similar credit crunch driven economic crisis in the early 90's. They solved it quickly and efficiently by heavy Government involvement.
HEALTH CARE: republicans oppose anything but maintaining a status quo for a failing system.
WAR: The rest of the world already thinks the US lost since in seven years they couldn't defeat a bunch of cave-dwellers. Besides traditional warfare can not defeat radical organizations. Who else is left to "lose face" to? The question for Obama is 'should I continue to let Americans die for a lost cause or should I try to save their lives'.
I don't agree a 100% with Green, but he is far more spot on than you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
