This is an op-ed piece written by a cat on another board I frequent. Its long so colon alert but I feel its an insightfull look into events of the last 40 years.
(This op piece by me is an analysis of the politics and not the right v wrong dichotomy of those politics. In the United States, we have a 2 party system that has evolved since the times of Thomas Jefferson, and it fascinates me. This is my take on its history since the 1960's and how it seems to be undergoing it's first transformational change since 1968.)
In 1964, Barry Goldwater tried to win as the Republican candidate for President by enacting a strategy of divide and conquer. As usual, race and social viewpoints played a major part that Richard Nixon and the GOP would ultimately take advantage of.
While Adlai Stephenson lost convincingly to a war hero Republican in 1952 in Dwight Eisenhower, it was still accepted since the days of FDR esp that there were 4 political blocs, with two of them to compete for in national elections, esp after WWII. The first two were liberal Democrats vs Conservative Republicans. There were 2 large and specific voting blocs that often would sway these elections back then that Dems and Repubs would go after. Southern Democrats, liberals who were really socially Conservative but believed in bigger government, esp since they benefitted from the FDR sponsered New Deal during the 1930's, and Liberal northeastern Republicans, who were in actuality social liberals but believed in smaller government.
This kind of socio-geographic dichotemy continued as a result of the events of the Civil War and the resulting fight for civil rights in the South. Typically, liberal Democrats would chastise (and thus alienate) Southern Democrats for their segregation policies regarding African Americans. As always, politicians running for President had to be careful around both of these groups, Democrats in particular. The ripest fruit for Republicans to go after were these conservative (and white) Southern Democrats, because their passion was about, well, power. That is what elections are all about.
Depending on the mood of the country, one or both of these groups could sway a Presidential election. Stephenson had no chance against Eisenhower as both of these swing groups (Liberal NE Republicans and Southern Conservative Democrats) voted in droves for Eisenhower.
After Kennedy won a bitter primary battle in 1960, he needed a southern Democrat to carry the South. Enter Lyndon Johnson stage left. In the 1960 election, Nixon lost an incredibly close election, largely based on this new technology called TV making JFK more accesible and Presidential. (it is entirely possible and conceded by many historians that the debates essentially lost the election of 1960 for Nixon...)
The GOP sent Nixon into exile for 8 years and embraced the radical talking Goldwater, who was the first Republican to try the Southern Strategy by appealing to the social values of Southern Democrats. His strategy ultimately became what we now know as the GOP Conservative playbook. Alas, the GOP were caught in the Riptide of JFK's assasination, and running against a Southern Democrat in 1964, LBJ, and it really gave the GOP no chance that year. LBJ seized on JFK's popularity, and painted Goldwater as someone who was looking to take away the benefits of the NEW Deal of the 1930's. (which he was)
Prophetically, LBJ knew that the civil rights act of 1964 would chase the South to the GOP. Not that he cared. He was the President, and as it turned out, didn't want two terms. All of this brings us to the election of 1968.
Nixon looked at the politics of 1964 and saw that Goldwater was onto something. For sure, southern WHITE Democrats were worried that they were going to be targeted. Their values were questioned and defeated by the Civil Rights act of 1964. White Democratic southern men felt betrayed and embarrassed by the Democratic party. Suddenly, although they weren't for smaller government, they didn't care. They found refuge in a Republican party that would welcome and even promote their values.
The Democrats made strategic errors. First of all, while the African American population would as a bloc, and vote Democrat for at least a generation, they were still a minority. The numbers were still with white men in the South, and with those numbers, the ability to sway and win elections. These white Democrats, feeling betrayed and insulted by the Democrats, were courted by the GOP, and esp Nixon, who didn't make a big deal about race. He changed that radioactive word to "values". Values voting was now given a viable new life, thanks to the social wars of the 1960's. Democrats may have won the elections of the 1960's but they lost the next two decades politically. Values became the code word in the south for "people who think like we do." The Democrats, in a real act of political hubris (which could very well have been unavoidable) pretty much had to paint these Dixiecrats as ignorant bigots. After a while, they seemed to give up on them all together. The GOP saw this, and courted them on the social values vote.
For the next 6 presidential elections until 1992, the GOP won all but one. The only one they lost in that time was because of Watergate and fighting against a Southern Democrat got enough votes for the Dems to win in 1976. (Hey Jimmy Carter, hows the peanut farming?)
The Reagan revoultion that started in 1976 with his failed primary run became a reality in 1980. Reagan courted the religious right like no Republican since Goldwater had. (Nixon was in actuallity way more moderate and suspicious of the religious right. His being paranoid of everyone probably had a lot to do with that...) The South in particular were courted by Reagan. After 1980, The Christian Coalition, founded by Pat Robertson and subsequently run (very well) by Ralph Reed kept Christian social values voting as a viable way to win national elections. In 1988, George H W Bush won on Reagans coattails, but started what would be a habit for all the Bush's, courting the right, only to disappoint them.
In 1992, Bill Clinton, perhaps the most astute politician since Nixon, understood that to win nationally, the Democrats had to go a bit more to the right, esp on economic issues. ("Its about the economy stupid") Clinton sensed some changes in the air, and actually trumpeted succesfully some GOP planks, such as tax breaks and smaller government, plus he was the first Democrat who actually spoke of dismantelling some government programs. This moderate approach won him two straight Presidential elections.
Meanwhile, seeing that the Democrats were moving toward the center, the GOP made the strategic decision to go further right. (see: 1994 midterms, "Contract with America" by N Gingrich). Suddenly, party loyalty was made the over arching principle above pragmatic politics. Gridlock over principles and values became the way to show who was right and who was wrong. The GOP definitely underestimated Clinton, but knew that the right guy with the right strategy could win after Clinton left the scene.
Hi George Bush. (and Karl Rove, the spawn of Lee Atwater). By (over) promising Christian voters, the Bushies won two elections, while the GOP continued to enjoy majorities in both houses of Congress until 2006. However, we now know that the Christian right has been very disappointed by Bush for a lack of follow through on his promises to them, which is why we have seen the rise of the likes of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement.
In short, we are where we are all because over 40 years ago, the GOP courted these values voters more and more on social, Christian values. Today, that legacy is found in the Tea Party movement and the likes of Palin. And Joe the Plummer....
But 40 years is a long time, and the large bloc of these voters are older, already dead, and thus, the landscape is changing. Essentially, the numbers that win elections on this strategy no longer exist.
It was too hard to see at the time what voting an African American with a Muslim name really said about America. But essentially in my view, it is this: The idea that the South is still a safe bastion for the Republican social voter strategy is now outdated for this simple reason: America's (moderate) values have now changed.
Voters are now younger, and have been exposed to non Christian religions. 9/11 and the events thereafter, forced people to learn about people of other religions, something that ultimately worked against the Republicans. They learned the difference between extremists and moderate Islams, which also forced a recognition of the same dichotemy within their own Christian religion. They have been exposed to the gay and lesbian community. And guess what? America is still here. We didn't blow up. People are more accepting of others, even if they are still uncomfortable with certain "lifestyle" issues. They understand that while they are important to them, social values shouldn't be the biggest consideration in electing Presidents and senators and congressman.
The GOP is slowly having it dawn on them that while white Christians may care, they are now a minority, social voters that is. The Tea Party is loud, but the simple fact is, the numbers aren't there. Moderates are turned off by them. They may sympatize with their arguements, but hardly identify themselves with them.
It's human nature to be the last to see a winning strategy is no longer viable. The fact is, the social voting strategy has given the GOP a dearth of ideas that they can now offer. They are for smaller government, but how and why. After cutting taxes for coroporate America for over 30 years, only to have these companies send the economy into the shitter, what good are more tax breaks for corporate American when they have been so irresponsible in an unprecedented age of high profits, low taxes and deregulation?
In short, it is fair to say that supply side economics hasn't worked. That means that like the Democrats had to do with FDR, the GOP must jettison their hero, Ronald Reagan, and reinvent themselves.
One thing is for certain, the voting blocs of the South and the Northeast have changed so much, that the GOP must now adapt. I predict that won't happen until 2014 at the earliest.
These things are cyclical you know.
Moderates are waiting to see who comes and gets them.
