One of the reasons I dislike the agenda of "progressive Rebublicans" so much is because current Democratic power in Washington is mostly "of the moment." Americans demonstrated Bush-fatigue by the end of 2008. Partly due to the fading urgency of September 11, but also weariness from the costly price of defending against radical Islam, Barack Obama was able to combine demands for change with an undeniable charisma to win the presidency.
Still, what we saw was a classic short-term swing to the party out of power. The Democratic victory fell well short of a long-lasting partisan realignment in the electorate. As I've noted many times here, Republicans may very well be consigned to a couple of electoral cycles in the minority. The party will work on reorganization and rejuvenation, while the Democrats build a record of big government overreach. Thus, to hear people like David Frum, Meghan McCain, Christine Whitman, and now Colin Powell argue that GOP needs to "move to the center" and compromise bedrock conservative principles makes little sense. The chatter among these "establishment" Republicans simply feeds into the Democratic meme that leftist philosophy forms the natural ideological framework for the coming decade of 21st century politics.
Thus I got kick out of Gary Andres' new piece at the Weekly Standard, "The Center-Right Trap: The Limits of Ideology in Politics."
Citing political scientist James Stimson and data from the American National Election Studies, Andres notes that "Republicans did not lose the 2008 election because they were out of step ideologically with average Americans." The argument, based on solid research, which won't make (empirically-minded) folks on the left very happy (like Chris Bowers and David Sirota). The key theme Andres stresses is that most Americans are mostly non-ideological in orientation, and the key goal for each party is to consolidate the hardline activists at the base while expanding appeal to the roughly 20 percent or so of the electorate who make "electoral decisions based on criteria other than just ideology":
So tell that to the next pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, or pro-amnesty Republican who tells you that the GOP is too conservative.The way to victory for both parties seems pretty clear. It's about winning on the margin and realizing Americans are not homogeneous in the way they conceptualize politics. So the key is to retain and mobilize those who agree and think ideologically, and persuade enough of the rest. But who are those people? Here again Stimson has an interesting take. He calls them the "scorekeepers." He doesn't conjecture about the exact size of the group, but it's probably 20 percent of voters--clearly enough to swing any election. They don't ask if a politician's or party's views are "correct." They ask, "Will they do a good job?"
These are the voters Republicans lost in droves in the last two cycles. Thinking that winning them back means simply "moving to the center" is a prescription for more electoral failure.
9 comments:
John McCain was a moderate and look how well he did.
Thanks Shoprat!
Don't you think that ideologically rigid positions on topics like abortion and same-sex marriage alienate this 20%? These are, after all, issues that resonate mostly among base voters. Most Americans not named Donald Douglas or Amanda Marcotte probably don't care very much about what we call state-sponsored unions between homosexuals.
If you think elections turn on "good job" perceptions, then we probably have seen a realignment unless Obama makes a mess of things (mostly economic and security things).
The Monkey Cage makes it difficult to find archives, but if the post you link to is an indicator, it looks like Mr. Sides omits demographic shifts as a variable with respect to realignement of political parties.
By that I mean that political parties have to find new voters to replace old ones, and getting them early helps. So demographic changes matter.
This means that some adjustment of GOP style, culture, and policy prescriptions may be necessary to attract the voters who will join the adult citizen ranks over the next few years. Sticking with such current conservative methods as demonization of opponents and out groups, framing of collective action as coercion of free riders, and insistence on the importance of (perceived as irrelevant) traditions like marriage may bring back some current voters at the margins. It probably won't draw enough of today's younger and more diverse populations who hold updated lifestyle and social organization norms.
To be sure, Americans want results. But they want results within a policy range that avoids extremes, defined as normatively acceptable. Since norms change, political parties have to change as well.
A definition helps, here, by the way. I would not call a shift in popularity a realignment. Parties realign when coalitions change. (e.g., the Democratic Party shift from a coalition of white southerners and western hawks to one of coastal liberals and blacks). By this definition we may be seeing one, as the coalition between religious conservatives and corporatists breaks against the corporate need to reach growing consumer groups with alternative lifestyles.
And by the way, John McCain was a moderate who kowtowed to the most ideologically rigid GOP groups, especially with his Sarah Palin pick.
McCain was the only Republican with a chance, but he had one because he alone in the GOP could sell himself as competent but not ideological.
He lost when he became ideologically more rigid.
Amazing, Donald: great minds do think alike. You posted your article at 7:43 PM and I post one very much along the same lines at 7:45 PM. Mine is called "The Death of the Republican Party Has Been Greatly Exaggerated." I also oppose the "moderation" of the GOP.
R. Stanton, when the GOP stopped being the GOP look what happened in 2006 and 2008. Every time we move left we get our asses kicked. When we are true to our convictions we do well.
Vegas Art Guy: In what way, exactly, did the GOP move left?
R. Stanton Scott,
I hate to break it to you, but the GOP started its leftward lurch before Ronald Reagan had even left office.
When the GOP runs conservatives, they win.
When they run RINOs, they lose.
GWB barely eked out victories in 2000 and 2004, but I am guessing that had far more to do with his goofy opponents than his so-called "conservatism."
-Dave
I'd still like to know: in what way, exactly, did the GOP move left? VegasArtGuy? Dave?
Bush arguably squeaked out a win in 2000 because he successfully characterized himself as a "compassionate conservative." That is, he moved left.
Post a Comment