Since the 2008 election, Henry Olsen has been one of the most astute observers of electoral trends. Olsen made the point that if Republicans do not substantially improve their share of the votes among nonwhites, they are going to have to win landslides among white voters. As far as I can tell, Republicans have thrown away the last three years when it comes to crafting an effective message and message delivery strategy geared to Latino voters. I wouldn’t count on Marco Rubio as VP nominee making the biggest difference in the world. When it comes to presidential contests, Republicans probably couldn’t hope to make much headway among African-Americans in 2012 regardless of what they did. But there will be 2016 and gains in later on will be built on investments (in time, energy, message delivery, crafting an issue agenda, etc.) made now. Those investments aren’t being made now of course.
So that leaves Republicans dependent on winning huge margins among white voters in the 2012 presidential race. That isn’t impossible. They could probably win in 2012 with around 60% of the white vote. That is pretty rare in presidential elections (as Olsen points out, Republicans have only matched that twice in recent history – in the 49 state landslide years of 1972 and 1984.) George W. Bush was a pretty good candidate (though it is tough to remember that now) who ran a well organized and funded campaign (including a good get out the vote operation) and won 58% of the white vote. It isn’t impossible for Republicans to get to 60%. Republicans got to the magic 60% in the 2010 elections, but that was with the Democrats holding undivided control of the elected branches of the federal government.
Getting to that 60% in 2012 is going to be tricky. As Olsen points out, “disaffected” swing working-class white voters are different in important ways from committed conservative white voters. Disaffected whites are more leery of cutting social programs and more open to some kind of tax increase (especially on high earners) as part of a budget reducing program. An economic program that reduces the deficit, and improves the conditions for economic growth and that win in 2012 is going to have to reassure these voters.
It doesn’t help that the GOP primary debate is pitched almost entirely to committed conservatives (hey, let’s cut taxes on high earners and corporations and cut entitlement spending so that we can all become entrepreneurs!) rather than to persuadable whites. It makes sense. Strongly committed conservative whites tend to be the primary electorate. The incentives align Republican presidential candidates to short-term gains and long-term self-destruction.
But incentives aren’t destiny. There is no reason that you couldn’t have a Republican candidate who could talk to committed conservatives and persuadables. That is what Reagan did in another context. You could have a candidate that could tell Republican voters that a policy agenda of tax cuts on high earners and tax increases on the working-class is insane (though do it neicely.) And there is no reason why that same candidate can’t explain to working-class voters that cuts to Social Security and Medicare will fall primarily on higher earners and that these cuts will preserve those programs while avoiding tax cuts that will destroy job creation.
Romney is actually trying to court persuadable whites. He isn’t talking about raising taxes on the middle-class or sharply cutting taxes on high earners. His Medicare reform proposal is designed to soothe those who feel most vulnerable. The results of the Ohio public employee collective bargaining referendum indicate that Romney’s instincts to avoid the issue were sound. But, by style and background, Romney might not be the strongest possible Republican candidate to appeal to disaffected working-class swing white voters. As Huckabee pointed out, Romney really does come across like the slick management consultant who comes in, recommends layoffs and walks away telling you that it was for the good of the company that your friends (or you!) lost their jobs. It also doesn’t help that Romney’s past changes of position give him little moral authority to talk turkey to committed conservatives about the limits imposed by political reality. While Romney might not be the ideal Republican candidate in some absolute sense, he has to be compared to his actual Republican opponents. And on that level, he looks, if not good, at least better than the rest.
To really depress you, here is Olsen describing the differences in policy preferences between committed conservative whites and working-class persuadable whites:
“the differences between white working-class independents and the GOP’s conservative base are becoming too substantial to ignore. The GOP base voter believes the deficit is as large a problem as the economy; the white working-class independent does not. The GOP base voter believes cutting entitlements is necessary to cut the deficit and that taxes on the rich should not be raised; the white working-class independent disagrees. The GOP base voter wants to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan; the white working-class independent wants to come home. The GOP base voter scorns Occupy Wall Street; the white working-class independent thinks the Occupiers have something of a point.
In the past, Republican politicians would respond to such differences by avoiding areas of disagreement. But that option is no longer possible. Avoiding the deficit now means America will turn into Italy later. Conservative Republicans need to understand why white working-class independents disagree with them. They need to see if there is a way to bring the white working class on board.”
November 16th, 2011 | 7:12 am
I agree with your dichotomy between the base and white, independent, working class, though these differences are not deal breakers, or at least they haven’t been.
Romney splits the GOP, and badly. In fact it’s third party, Barry wins, time. It shall always and forever be “OBAMNEY CARE,” and I believe he’s added a certain belief in funny (political) science, in his embrace of global warming.
You may be underestimating the antipathy directed toward our president.
November 16th, 2011 | 10:20 am
As regular as a hurricane approaches the east coast and fizzles out, someone gets up on his soapbox to tell Republicans that in order to win in the future they need to “broaden the tent” and advocate/adjust to policies they don’t believe in and present a deceptive public image as a kind of Republican that has little actual representation in the party. All this is framed by the appeal of being politically “practical”.
History, however, is abundantly clear that these “practical Republicans” that are so sure they’ll bring in the votes don’t deliver. They don’t deliver votes, campaign volunteers, and they don’t bring in campaign donations (the money). If these who present themselves as “realistic” fail continually, how “practical” are they really.
Worse, these “practical Republicans” are always a little elusive about exactly what should be said to appeal to Latino Americans. If cornered and forced to be specific, it amounts to voicing concern over illegal immigration while winking the eye at those who favor an unofficial policy for the free flow of illegals across the border with no crackdowns on illegal aliens in the workplace. While this may comfort Latinos (an assumption I doubt very much—a sizable portion of Latinos don’t like illegal immigration any more than conservatives), it is certainly no way to appeal to the “disaffected whites”.
The truth is every time Republicans run solidly conservative candidates with a conservative appeal they win more often than not. The cited example of Reagan’s successful appeals to both committed conservatives and “persuadables” passes over the fact that he was widely identified at the time as a cowboy from the fever swamps of the Right. He did not have the high regard and something short of American sainthood that he does now. If you remember, his election elicited a great deal of resentment and continual outrage as it was said Reagan appealed to racism and the worst in America. “Practical Republicans” who had been in favor of almost anybody who’s name wasn’t Reagan, died of embarrassment every time he spoke. (They hid under their blankets after Reagan’s “evil empire” speech) In reality, Reagan won because he was what he was and had a concise list of what he wanted to accomplish.
Today, the Republican Party can win if it runs its candidates on another short list: 1.) A strong military. 2.) Limited government. 3.) Lower taxes 4.) Cut spending and 5.) Secure the border. It is a message that is short, easily understood, and winning. This is contrast to the “practical Republicans” (and not a few Democrats who offer “friendly advice”) whose approach is to muddy the water and obscure the differences between the two parties in the name of appealed to that mercurial ghost of American politics: the middle voter.
Of course, there is the unspoken issue these “practical Republicans” want the party to fudge on: abortion. Instead of working to shift the political center of gravity toward a more pro-life stance and less toward a policy of unrestricted abortion, they prefer all Republicans go silent on the matter or at least adopt the “personally opposed but…” veneer. As it stands, the Republican Party is the only place where Pro-Life advocates can even get a hearing. What pro-abortion activists would love is for the pro-life cause to be pushed off the political stage—which is what will happen if the “practical Republicans” prevail.
The Republican Party is not your grandfather’s Republican Party. At least since Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party for all intents and purposes has evolved into the conservative party of the United States. The Democrat Party, at the same time, has been evolving into the socialist party of America. To some, the words “conservative” and “socialist” are pejoratives when applied to the two major parties; but there is no reason there shouldn’t be truth in advertizing—that’s what they are. (If Democrats don’t want the “socialist” albatross hanging around their neck, take the clue from what so already many do now: Become the Progressive Party) In any event, the Republican/Conservative Party has no business advocating someone’s else’s agenda. People see through it, don’t like the artificiality, and won’t go for it. The way for Republicans to appeal to non-white and persuadable whites is to be what it is, reach out to them, and persuade them that conservative policies are in their best interest. That requires real work—but its honest work
November 16th, 2011 | 5:08 pm
“Conservative Republicans need to understand why white working-class independents disagree with them.” Maybe they simply disagree with the CRs because the CRs are wrong about nearly everything. :-)
November 16th, 2011 | 7:50 pm
Bob, Obama’s RCP approval rating average is around 45% and (if I remembr the personal approval numbers) even a larger fraction of the population likes him. The swing voters think Obama is a good guy who is mostly failing on the economy but aren’t at all sure the Republicans would do any better. They are gettable, but not to be taken for granted. People with “antipathy” for Obama are a minority and don’t get any more votes than anyone else.
Mick, only the last paragraph is really responsive. It could be a standard “my real Reagan conservative is better than your RINO” press release from some campaign? What campaign? It doesn’t matter since at that level of abstraction we’re mostly talking about branding. It could have easily been released by the Romney, Huckabee, or McCain campaigns in 2008 to explain why the other two campaigns are phony Republican RINOs betraying the legacy of Reagan etc. But to get more specific as it relates to our present circumstances:
1. Did Reagan ever run for President on a platform of sharp entitlement cuts, high earner tax cuts and high earner tax increases?
2. Reagan, even the first time he ran for President, had a record of winning over large populations of swing voters in a state that Goldwater had lost by miles in 1964. So the quality of their candidate and the ability to pitch their message to swing voters matters. Being “solidly conservative” isn’t hardly enough. It matters if it is Sharron Angle or Marco Rubio.
3. “Of course, there is the unspoken issue these “practical Republicans” want the party to fudge on: abortion.” ???? Sorry. I’m pro-life (and not in the Cain “It’s none of the government’s business” type of pro-life), and want the same from the Republican presidential nominee.
4. You’re right that winning over persuadable voters is going to be real and honest work. Honest work would include looking at the (revenue neutral) Ryan budget and figuring out how an agenda of tax cuts + strong military + spending cuts would impact the budget (especially Medicare.) At least Ron Paul had the honesty to point out that sharp tax cuts + near-term budget balancing meant gutting the military. Honest work means crafting an agenda of entitlment reform that has a chance of gaining and sustaining majority support even after the discussion had moved past generalities about “spending cuts” and into explaining how much less this or that old person is going to be getting.
So yeah, it is honest work (and Paul Ryan – and too few others – is doing it.) The thing is, there are Republican presidential candidates that I wouldn’t trust to do honest anything.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact