« The Retro Left | Main | The Great Distractor »

January 06, 2009

Comments

The question is how does the more conservative party (at least during the election season) ever appeal to non-whites versus the party that can more openly pandere to them?

There is no chance that the Republicans will ever be able to appeal to non-whites and thus the real question is what happens to politics in the U.S. after the Repubican party becomes irrelevant.

superdestroyer: and thus the real question is what happens to politics in the U.S. after the Repubican party becomes irrelevant.

We know what happened: Ronald Reagan and both George Bushes got elected President.

The real question is, for how long can the Republican Party keep power in the US after it became irrelevant?

There is no chance that the Republicans will ever be able to appeal to non-whites

Speaking as someone who has done a lot of nonpartisian voter registration of new immigrants, this is extremely oversimplified, to say the least. Many nonwhite immigrants identify with the social conservativism and other values that they identify with the Republican party.

(When doing nonpartisian voter registration, it is unethical for me to offer any opinion or comment on the party that the person chooses to register with. In general, the citizenship ceremonies that I have attended include people from more than 60 countries, and generally break down into roughly 30% Dem, 30% Repub, and 40% independent/no affiliation registrations. And plenty of the independents seem to feel that the Republicans aren't conservative ENOUGH.)

To be fair, the site used to be called thefacebook.com a year or two ago.

Embracing social networking sites isn't going to help much...

Yeah, but if they use the Facebook and do the Twittering AND frequently invoke the name of a certain fella with blue-black hair who walked into the room by the name of...

And plenty of the independents seem to feel that the Republicans aren't conservative ENOUGH.

Probably because they haven't quite grasped yet that the Republican elite sees racism, homophobia, and misogyny as a means of appealing to their base, in order to continue their key policies of making the very rich even richer at the expense of everyone else.

I had some vaguely relevant comments on Erick Erickson's vastly more competent piece about Republicans and technology the other day.

"...and thus the real question is what happens to politics in the U.S. after the Repubican party becomes irrelevant."

Johnny One-Note still has his note. (His answer, of course, for those unfamiliar, is that Teh Brown Hordes Will Take Over Completely, OMG.)

Visitor,

Looking at some polling data, new americans are slightly less liberal than voters from the same ethnic group who have been in the U.S. for an extended period of time. Most non-whites vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party.

Also, new americans may be more socially conservative than urban area whites but those same new Americans never seem to vote based upon their social conservatism but always vote on economic interests.

"Yeah, but if they use the Facebook and do the Twittering AND frequently invoke the name of a certain fella with blue-black hair who walked into the room by the name of..."

The Batman?

Let's not confound the effects of age and race. It's certainly true that racial and ethnic minorities comprise increasingly large percentages of the population, and that much of that growth stems from natural increase. The result is that minorities comprise a greater percentage of the population as you descend down the age brackets. But, if you want to get technical about this, Obama's margin of victory had a lot more to do with his performance among young white voters than among young minority voters.

Every Democratic candidate garners overwhelming support from black voters of all ages. The difference between Obama's support among black votes 18-29 and those older was statistically insignificant. Among black voters, there was no age gap at all. The age gap was certainly present among Hispanic voters - the youngest voters backing Obama 76-19, and the rest something like 62-37. But young Hispanic voters comprised just 3% of the total. Young white voters went for Obama 54-44, while the rest went 57-41 for McCain. And here's the kicker. They account for 11% of total voters. The age gap generated a huge swing in favor of Obama. He picked up roughly 1.5% of the total, and McCain lost 1.4% of the total - a three point swing. It wasn't decisive in the popular vote (Obama would have prevailed 51.4-47.1%) but it made a big difference, particularly in downballot races and marginal districts.

My point is that the GOP would actually do quite well if it could convince young, white voters to vote like their parents. Fully 74% of voters identified themselves to exit pollsters as 'White'; we're going to be a majority-minority nation a long time before we become a majority-minority electorate. The GOP is not doomed because of demographic trends. Black voters may be solidly Democratic, but Hispanic voters are far from locked down, as the last few cycles have shown. What dooms the GOP is its lost generation - never, over the decades for which we have good statistical information, has the cohort of 18-29 year olds broken so decisively in favor of a single party. Never has the gap between young voters and their elders been so large. (It may have been in the late 60s, but that's just before the numbers start.)

The reason I chortle when I read Duncan is that he thinks his problem is purely technological. If only the GOP could spread its message in the fora frequented by youths, he appears to be saying, it could win them back. Not quite. Young people have abandoned the GOP because its policies have foreclosed their economic opportunities. Because it seems narrow-minded and mean-spirited on social issues. Because it is unresponsive to their anxieties and needs. Those are not technical issues that can be resolved through better communication. They are ideological issues that will require deeper change.

So go ahead, Mike. Set up a page on The Facebook, and discover what John McCain realized - it's the message, not the medium.

This shows how totally backward the GOP has the calculation. Assuming most Facebook users are similar to me (and yes, I hereby confess to using Facebook), most are inundated with extremely annoying "Requests" from their various "Friends" that have to be ignored and removed at regular intervals. With few exceptions have I become interested in any causes or movements because a "friend" tried to recruit me.

The reason that Facebook worked for Obama is that people cared about him in the first place. Facebook facilitated connection between supporters and got information out efficiently, but it didn't create the interest. Similarly, there were plenty of pro-McCain (and even more pro-Palin) Facebook functions available for the true believers, but it didn't make any difference in the end because the products in question were so crappy.

Observer: The reason I chortle when I read Duncan is that he thinks his problem is purely technological. If only the GOP could spread its message in the fora frequented by youths, he appears to be saying, it could win them back.

Yes. Compare and contrast with the prevalent Republican thinking that lib'rals are all about an "elite" thinking "they know best". But it appears to escape them that their leaders see themselves as an elite who know better than the general public do what the public actually want.

The idea that 18-29ers looked at Republican policies and did a big "no thanks" *hand gestures like an over-40s person trying to look cool* is clearly beyond them: they know what's good for these people, and by god, they intend to communicate that.

(Realistically, of course, the key factor is being able to spread Republican talking points through the networking sites in the same way as right-wing blogs and mainstream media regurgitate them - so fast and so thoroughly that debunking the lies is always a catchup job.)

AND frequently invoke the name of a certain fella with blue-black hair who walked into the room by the name of..."

The Batman?

No, someone much much more awesome as well as magically powerful.

Also, new americans may be more socially conservative than urban area whites but those same new Americans never seem to vote based upon their social conservatism but always vote on economic interests.

Um, no. Bush and Ken Mehlman were doing some really good outreach to non-white immigrant voters - until the anti-immigration windbag neanderthals started demagoguing against immigrants. New immigrants don't have any more or less reason to vote their economic interests than people who have been here all their lives do - and people who have been here all their lives vote against their economic interests all of the time. But wrapping anti-immigrant demagoguery into their particular brand of social conservatism is a guarantee that the Republicans will push new immigrants out of their party.

If the Republicans could (as a group, not just some individual candidates) lose the xenophobia (and closet racism), they might do quite well across the all racial and ethnic groups.

Their problem isn't that they are the more conservative party (to the extent that conservative and liberal mean anything at the moment). It is that they persist in vigorously driving away any voters who are not white and Christian (preferably Protenstant; more preferably evangelical Portestant), as well as conservative. It is a formula for electoral disaster, and is only going to get worse. But whether the party as a whole can turn that around, without a decade or two in the widlerness, looks questionable at the moment.

I think Observer's statistical point is very important. Young white voters were 11% of the electorate - almost as big a share as all African-American voters. Obama's margin here bodes well.

NonyNony,

Bush and Mehlman were idiots when they proposed illegal alien amnesty. Putting twenty million poor illegal aliens generally from Mexico on the fast track for citizenship was a plan for producing 20 million additional voters. That is one of the reasons that Democrats like Kennedy supported the idea. The false belief that Repubicans can appeal to poor Hispanics is one of the reasons that California has been lost to the Repubican party forever.

Remember, Bush could not even get 50% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. Importing millions of more future Hispanic voters was just one of several methods that the Repubicans had planned on using to commit suicide.

superdestroyer,

Bush's approach to dealing with undocumented immigrants was one of the very few times in the last eight years that he wasn't walking in lockstep with those who have had their ability to think destroyed by Grover Norquist. Republicans can appeal to immigrants, but they have to jettison their commitment to the hate groups who derailed reform.

sd, you keep insisting that ethnicity determines voting.

If you keep thinking that, ethnicity WILL determine voting.

As I mentioned before, Asian Americans were gradually turning Republican in the 1990s...and the Republicans did nothing to take advantage of it. All they had were excuses..."it's tooo HARRRDDD to keep them"...when the fact of the matter was that they totally ignored them.

They should also use more of the rock and roll music in their ads. Provided, of course, the musicians in question let them. On the other hand, "Cat Scratch Fever" would be a great theme for Palin '12.

People will need some time (let's say 4 years) to forget who actually sold them the snake oil (apologies to all honest reptiles) before it can be resold to them in a slightly different package. Experience any cynicism tells me that it will be within our lifetime (including the less than young among us) that a rebranded GOP will rise again using the (implanted) memories that it was all the Dems' fault (and that of a yet to be determined bogeybeing group that will be the target of the inevitable hate).
An alternative would be a splitting of the GOP into a faux-moderate part that will attract short wavelength coloured canines from the Dems and an open whacko part that will temporarily be banished to the fringe until it can patiently undermine the new GOP in a new disguise.
I think it is impossible to get rid of the powerhungry (and usually corrupt) authoritarians for good or for more than just a few years. And the Dems in power will also inevitably be corrupted over time (that's the nature of the beast independent of political leaning).
The question from my liberal point of view is how long that can be postponed and how much damage can be repaired before the wreckers take the reins again (and I would be very surprised, if the Dems manage to keep the WH and both houses of Congress for the next 8 years let alone a sabotage-proof majority).
That's another reason why I think that the crimes of the Bush administration have to be dealt with swiftly and irreversibly or we might have the very same crew in charge (possibly led by Jeb this time) sooner than we might expect.
[insert posting rule violating description of the desirable treatment of them and the Norquist they rode in].

The Phantom?

Young people have abandoned the GOP because its policies have foreclosed their economic opportunities. Because it seems narrow-minded and mean-spirited on social issues. Because it is unresponsive to their anxieties and needs.

And because the GOP is stuck in the past. If the Republicans want to attract younger voters, they need to talk about the issues of today, not about who was right and wrong about Vietnam or what a great guy Ronald Reagan was. Those things are simply irrelevant to most younger voters. The Republicans' reluctance to talk about anything more recent is proof of their irrelevance to younger voters.

It's clearly that vampire guy in this sirupy series of novels so beloved by girls and now turned into a series of movies. It can't possibly be that myopic son of Rudyard Kipling in an earlier role ;-)

roger,

And how are conservatives suppose to appeal to white 20 somethings who lean heavily to Democrats. The Democrats are promising more money for college, more government jobs, and higher taxes on other people. How can anyone who calls themselves a conservative appeal to such a group. Given the stupid policies of the Bush Administration, the Republicans cannot make appeals based upon long term consequences.

The twenty somethings are marrying later, going to college longer, so appeals to parents or private sector employees do not work.

When did Professor Frink announce his candidacy for RNC chairman?

Social conservativism, among many religiously conservative Blacks and Latinos seems to be a “sentiment” and not a hard materialist political position like the distribution of tax money, is. How that tax money is spent, seems to be the biggest priority in Black and Latino communities. The only inroads the Republican Party made among Latino voters were Latino Evangelicals, and that support has been shipped away by the War and anti-immigrant attitude, within Republican circles. The war had a huge effect among Black and Latino Evangelicals. It really made the war supporters looking like fools or liars. Maybe it’s just a phenomenon here in Los Angeles churches, where most of my interviews have taken place.

When you look at the volunteers within abortion and anti-civil rights organizations, they are overwhelmingly white. There has been a shift with middle-class Asian Evangelicals, especially in Northern California, but that may explain class differences being the deciding factor, and not only religion.

P.S.

Shouldn't Facebook be called FaceCRACK or CRACKbook? I have way to much fun on that thing.

They should also use more of the rock and roll music in their ads.

This will get it done.

Thanks-

I think Observer's statistical point is very important. Young white voters were 11% of the electorate - almost as big a share as all African-American voters. Obama's margin here bodes well.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | January 06, 2009 at 11:22 AM

I agree, whites are still calling the shots, on national elections. It may be a while before they could get another born-again Cowboy who could peel votes from the Dems.

"Let's not confound the effects of age and race."

YM "conflate," not "confound."

And superdestroyer is a longtime racist troll; best not to feed him. Besides, he's completely impervious to argument, as has been demonstrated year after year. He just wants to get a chance to eventually work around to his racist trash.

"The Phantom?"

The Batman can so beat the Phantom!

The Republican Party is the Social Democratic Party for certain types of White folks.

superdestroyer, is a hopeless romantic...there has been no great anti-state conservativism, in the United States, it has always been a struggle over who gets more of the pie.

Gary:

Thanks for the correction. Clearly, I need some more caffeine.

someotherdude,

There have been some succcesses with fiscal conservatives such as tax payer bill of rights that tried to limit the ability of government to grow during boom times.

Also, the lowering of top marginal tax rates during the Reagan Administration has to be considered success. I doubt if the marginal tax rates would be as low as they are today if Carter had been re-elected.

At best you can say that campaigning on spending cuts it easy but actually doing them is almost impossible. Thus, the question becomes what is the maximum percentage of the GDP can the government consume and under what conditions.

Reagan used America's military as the biggest welfare program since the New Deal.

Reagan's whole movement was a right-wing view of the State. Which turned out to be right-wing Social Democracy.

The State was made even larger, under the paragon of right-wing social democracy, aka Reagan.

When conservatives get government they make it bigger for certain types of folks while limiting it for other certain types of folks.

Also, the lowering of top marginal tax rates during the Reagan Administration has to be considered success.

Financed through runaway deficit spending and, of course, the largest most regressive tax increase in US history.

Ponies!

"That's another reason why I think that the crimes of the Bush administration have to be dealt with swiftly and irreversibly or we might have the very same crew in charge (possibly led by Jeb this time) sooner than we might expect."

Hartmut: Old man Bush was already talking up Jeb the other day, saying what a great President his oldest son would make. (Palin vs. Bush in the GOP primaries in 2008?)

---

"The Batman can so beat the Phantom!"

Having recently watched the DVD, IronMan really impressed me. Quite a sense of humor, too.

Davebo,

Have you forgotten that every defense spending bill and every tax cut was passed by a House with Democrats in the majority and with Tip O'Neill in charge. The Democrats were happy to go along with tax cuts and increased spending. Of course, having a 70% top tax rate without indexing to inflation was killing middle class Americans.

"Of course, having a 70% top tax rate without indexing to inflation was killing middle class Americans."

Which is why the top tax rate of over 90% led to the Great Depression of the Eisenhower years we all remember and regret so much.

Because, by definition, it's the middle class that gets the top tax rate.

And that conservative, Lyndon Johnson, got it lowered to 77%.

Who can forget history?

Of course, having a 70% top tax rate without indexing to inflation was killing middle class Americans.

The last year we had a top marginal rate of 70% was 1981. In that year, a married couple filing jointly paid that on income above $215,400.00.

In 1981, that was not middle class.

Median household income in 1981 was just under $40K. At that income level, the change in marginal rate from 81 -> 82 was 43% to 39%.

Nice to have, but nothing that would really change anyone's life. Especially since the median household income number itself dropped during the same period.

Reagan's tax cuts got rid of the top marginal rates, but did not significantly change the income cutoffs at which the remaining rates kicked in. The folks who benefited most were folks whose rates were reduced to 50%, which in '82 was anyone making more than $85,600.00.

That's upper middle class now. In '82 it was entry-level rich.

In other words, "middle class" my @ss.

Don't believe me, you can look it up.

Thanks -

Russell's link should go here.

(Leaving out the "http://" prefix causes the Typepad software to break the link; yet another charming facet of Typepad!)

Have you forgotten that every defense spending bill and every tax cut was passed by a House with Democrats in the majority and with Tip O'Neill in charge.

No, I haven't. In fact the House and Senate managed to reduce Reagan's budget request for five annual budgets.

But of course any thinking man blames blacks and hispanics for the federal debt.

The first ten Senate bills, by the way. Yay!

Posted by: superdestroyer | January 06, 2009 at 06:13 PM

No one doubts the Dem’s social democratic impulses. I am challenging the notion that the Republican Party was some sort of pseudo-libertarian defender of conservative government. They were right-wing statists and acted accordingly, although they sure loved the rhetoric of libertarianism.

Russell's link should go here.

Thanks Gary!

They were right-wing statists

Have they changed since then?

Thanks -

Davebo,

Have you forgotten that the Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years on the Reagan Administration.

Also, You may want to look at the California budget to see what happens to a political organization where the percentage of the population that is poor and Hispanic increases at the same time that the percentage of the population that is middle class goes down. You should also look at tax cheating in California. When rates get too high, more people will cheat.

I, for one, happily greet our new Hispanic Overlords.

And superdestroyer should be scared because the America he’s romanticized to himself is going to be radically changed forever.

A falta de pan, las tortas son buenas...

Some food for thought for RNC members thinking about voting for Magic Man Saltsman.

Mind you, any RNC members who think like SD will just be more inclined to support Salty. I guess we'll soon find out just how many of them there are.

There is no chance that the Republicans will ever be able to appeal to non-whites.

Um, not true at all. Black people are among the more religious and socially conservative demographics in this country. Ideas of keeping gov't out of your life and doing for self are pretty mainstream among black people. There is a kind of black conservatism that is actually very similar to what the GOP used to stand for and is actually quite strong among black people. But it's hard to us blacks to overlook the whole racism thing.

Look, blacks don't vote Democrat because they are liberal. Black people are not liberal. Blacks vote Democrat because we think the GOP is racist. There's a big difference. If the GOP had more guys who were willingly to actually talk to black people and address our concerns they could make some headway. For instance, Mike Huckabee is well-liked among important sectors of our community. They are still suspicious of his party, but they like and respect him because he accords us respect and is willing to speak to our concerns. But most right-wing politicians are not like hm, and besides he is not the face of the Republican party. For better or for worse, when many people think "Republican" they think Coulter and Limbaugh. And there's the problem. The simple truth is that if Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs are on your team, then we blacks will autmoatically support the other party---even if we'd rather not. If these guys want to talk about Magic Negroes and our supposedly Angry Black First Lady, then they can forget about our votes.

(I personally would never vote GOP---I am fairly liberal. But my views are very much to the left of mainstream black politics.)

I have to disagree. Social programs do not have the same stigma, among the Black community, as it has among many white conservatives. From what I can gather, the government was at its worse when it was implementing laws to regulate the bodies of Black folks and the government was best when it is assisting the Black community within the swings of the market. That is to say, the Black community seems to have a strong social democratic streak, as do Jews and Latinos.

Social conservativism, as it is seen now, is still another sneaky way to protect white interest. I just do not see an activist community, within the Black community for the religious right, or other like causes. The first wave of poll numbers, concerning the way Blacks voted on Prop 8, was wrong. Most anxieties about civil-rights for gays come from outside of the community and could only be sold to the Black community if it is explained as a way to sue Black churches.

As soon as Mike Huckabee starts talking about dismantling social security, public schools and limiting the role of government, when it comes to grants for minority owned businesses and colleges, he’s not going to win any elections. He’ll still be cute, but that doesn’t win votes.

dragnet,

The Congressional Black Caucus is probably the most the leftist group in Congress. Almost no elected black politicians has shown the least interest in social conservative issues. The demogrpahic data in the black community demonostrates that it does not support social conservative issues. When the illegitimacy rate in the City of Balitmore is close to 90%, there is no reason to believe that blacks are social conservatives.

At best you could argue that blacks are big government libertarians who want the government to supply a large assortment of government benefits and services while asking little (in the form of compliance, tax payment, cooperation with law enforcement, etc) in return.

I doubt that reachiing out to blacks (which of course translates to showing up to black events and pandering) will ever help the Repubicans. President Bush lost more white votes while trying to pander Hispanics on illegal immigration than he could have ever hoped to gain with the pander.

dragnet,

The Congressional Black Caucus is probably the most the leftist group in Congress. Almost no elected black politicians has shown the least interest in social conservative issues. The demogrpahic data in the black community demonostrates that it does not support social conservative issues. When the illegitimacy rate in the City of Balitmore is close to 90%, there is no reason to believe that blacks are social conservatives.

At best you could argue that blacks are big government libertarians who want the government to supply a large assortment of government benefits and services while asking little (in the form of compliance, tax payment, cooperation with law enforcement, etc) in return.

I doubt that reachiing out to blacks (which of course translates to showing up to black events and pandering) will ever help the Repubicans. President Bush lost more white votes while trying to pander Hispanics on illegal immigration than he could have ever hoped to gain with the pander.

According to the largest survey of Asian American voters (by the Asian American Legal and Educational Defense Fund), AAs turned out 3-1 in favor of Obama. First time AA voters split even more starkly, favoring Obama 82-17 percent.

Uh-oh. White folks can't count on Asians at the same rate as Latinos.

I think superdestroyers’ interpretation of the numbers is cute. He’s like the earnest little Boy Scout who believes brown folks love having their land stolen by Europeans and their children taken away by Christian missionaries, and harsh punishments brought upon their elderly, because “the white man always brings civilization and progresses to the darker lands!”

Anyway, considering the rate of pedophilia arrests and the overall degenerate and depraved material being consumed on the internet, which I suspect is targeted to white men, should give ole superdestroyer some pause on the social conservativism of whites.

I think most Blacks, Latinos and Jews just don’t buy the self-righteousness of America’s “conservative” movement. American right-wingers resemble the right-wing statists of Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, and Mussolini’s Italy. That is, there is a religio-ethnic core, which is privileged to leech off the State, while calling outsiders to this tribal core, “undesirables” and “irresponsible” or, superdestryoer’s favorite, I suspect, “lacking in moral rectitude.”

someotherdude,

People keep getting church attendance confused with being social conservative. Whites who attend church regularly are, on average, more socially conservative that non-church going whites. However, the same thing does not apply to blacks or Hispanics. Blacks and Hispanics never vote for candidates based upon social conservative issues. However, they do seem much more likely to vote for referendum and initiatives that have a social conservative leaning.

Blacks and Hispanics pay no attention to social conservative pitches by candidates becuase those groups vote ethnicity first and economics second and never change their votes based upon social conservative issues.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad