Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Posted in
Politics
|
I am far from being a political pundit, but I got very involved in the 2012 election, and I want to share my thoughts on the result.
First, I was amazed by the strength of Obama's victory. He won all the states that he won in 2008 except Indiana and North Carolina. I had been worried that there would be a late surge for Romney, just as there was for Reagan against Carter. There were similarities between this race and the Carter-Reagan race: Obama, because of his incessant attempts to mollify Republicans during his first term, was perceived as a somewhat weak leader, just as Carter was in 1980. But a Romney surge never materialized. Romney's only surge occurred after the first debate, in which Obama was thought to have done poorly, after which it fizzled.
I had also been worried that there would be a racist backlash against Obama. I know from experience that for black people to get respect in this country, they have to be better (i.e., more competent) than whites. I was afraid that the "black experiment" would be over for a lot of white voters and that they would switch back to the white candidate, but that didn't happen. I remembered how David Dinkins, the first black mayor of New York City, lasted only one term. But it seems that for at least some voters, we really are in a post-racial society now. There are still racists among us ("birthers", some working-class whites, some elderly, etc.), but there are enough rational white people that race doesn't matter to a majority of the electorate. I think that's wonderful.
So why did Obama win? I think too many voters recognized that Romney was a self-serving plutocrat (which he was -- his own tax plan would have reduced his own taxes to about 1%). Romney's penchant for flip-flopping and lying didn't help. Also, I think that a lot of voters recognized that Obama was dealt a lousy hand in 2008, and that he needed more time to fix the economy. They also saw that the economy was slowly healing, and they remembered how the Republicans had fought against Obama every step of the way. In addition, Obama is a very decent fellow, which everyone can see (except the most partisan right-wingers, who act as if he is a monster).
The real purpose of this article, though, is to take a look at the future of the Republican party. The Republicans have become very extreme in recent years, supporting a view of government that is more consistent with the year 1912 than 2012. The "Tea Party" is generally blamed for that, but the extremism extends back decades, to Barry Goldwater and before. During this election the Republicans presented themselves as the party of the "job creators". They claimed that taxes had to be reduced on the rich because the rich are the ones who create jobs. That claim wasn't true, of course. As I have said in other articles on this site, tax breaks given to the rich are most likely deposited into the bank or used to buy another Mercedes or take another vacation. It's true that most jobs are created by small businesses, but it's also true that the owners of most small businesses are not rich (except for professionals like doctors and lawyers).
So what arguments are the Republicans going to make going forward? In the past they won elections by appealing to the bigotry of voters on social issues (race, gays, abortion, etc.). Indeed, the entire South, which used to be Democratic, switched to the Republican party because the Democrats started to support civil rights (remember Nixon's "Southern strategy"?). But the electorate is becoming more socially tolerant, so appeals to racism, homophobia, etc., will no longer work. As for abortion, at least one exit poll showed that 58% of voters support abortion on demand.
It appears that the Republicans have no issues any more. The concept of smaller government did not prevail in this election. If it was going to prevail in any election, it would have been this one. Perhaps, at some point in the future when 75% of the nation is using food stamps, it will prevail; but that point may never come, especially as the economy improves.
As I said above, social issues are being taken away from the Republicans. Eventually (soon, hopefully), working-class whites will become more racially tolerant and will stop seeing blacks and Hispanics as competitors. When that happens, working-class whites will gravitate back to the Democratic party because it's the Democrats who truly represent their interests. The Republicans, then, will be left mostly with upper-class whites, who constitute a very small group. (Within every group there are people who are conservative by nature, and they will always be Republicans, but they constitute a minority of most groups.)
Religious people could also remain with the Republicans, but that could change also. Religion cuts across party lines. Both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are deeply religious men (although many people incorrectly think Obama is a Muslim), while John McCain, the Republican candidate in 2008, was not. It could be argued that Romney was more religious than Obama, but then Romney didn't have the right religion, did he? Also, as the percentage of minorities in the population grows, there will be more non-Christians in the country -- Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. -- and they are more likely to vote with the Democrats.
Senior citizens might remain Republican just because people become more conservative as they get older (except me, it seems). But are these groups -- rich white people, devout Christians, and white senior citizens -- enough to provide Republicans with a base? I don't think so.
I haven't yet mentioned that demographics are against the Republicans. Whites now constitute less than 50% of the population, with the percentage of ethnic minorities increasing. That alone explains why, out of the last six presidential elections, the Republican candidate won the popular vote only once. (That would be 2004. In 2000, Bush beat Gore, but Gore won the popular vote.)
So where do the Republicans go from here? Democrats, who in the 1970's were seen as too liberal, have now taken over the middle. On almost every issue -- taxes, creating jobs, foreign policy, preserving the social safety net -- Democrats prevail. So what should the Republicans do? The Republicans need to return to the center. They must disengage from the Tea Partiers, who really belong in their own, small third party. The Republicans need to accept that providing a social safety net is a legitimate role of government (especially since governments all over the world are doing that). Republicans need to stop trying to repeal the New Deal, and they need to accept that business must be regulated. Indeed, it's the lack of regulation that always leads to financial crises, like the Great Depression and the housing/financial crisis of 2008. History shows that business can thrive under regulations. In fact, history shows that the rich can be very rich indeed when they are taxed heavily. And history also shows that the economy does better under Democratic presidents.
Republicans would also have to accept that the environment is important and must be protected. Going back to Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican party has strong environmental roots, so it shouldn't be hard for them to be pro-environment. It was Richard Nixon, a Republican, who created the Environmental Protection Agency. No one -- not private citizens nor businesses -- has the right to pollute the environment. Furthermore, enforcing strong environmental laws does not cost jobs, but often creates them. Protecting the environment is a win-win situation for everyone, including businesses.
In a perfect two-party America, the Republicans would be right of center and the Democrats would be left of center. That way, both parties would be seen as moderate and accessible. Voters wouldn't be afraid to elect Republicans because it wouldn't mean losing their safety net. With both parties being perceived as moderate, voters would feel comfortable voting on the basis of personality. In years in which the voters were feeling angry, voting for the opposing party wouldn't mean changing the entire face of government, as it does now. Governance would remain on an even keel, and the political roller-coaster ride would be over. As a Democrat, I would be happy to see a resurgent Republican party if they were moderate -- and that's saying a lot because I'm a very partisan Democrat.
Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the Senate who lost in 2012, said that his idea of compromise was for the Democrats to agree with the Republicans. That's an attitude prevalent among a lot of right-wing Republicans, but it's not about to happen. The Republicans, however, have a somewhat moderate past. The original Republican party, which put Abraham Lincoln into office, was far more moderate than it is today. Indeed, Ronald Reagan -- the great conservative hero -- was more moderate than today's Republicans are. If the Republican party can return to its moderate roots, it can also return to power.
First, I was amazed by the strength of Obama's victory. He won all the states that he won in 2008 except Indiana and North Carolina. I had been worried that there would be a late surge for Romney, just as there was for Reagan against Carter. There were similarities between this race and the Carter-Reagan race: Obama, because of his incessant attempts to mollify Republicans during his first term, was perceived as a somewhat weak leader, just as Carter was in 1980. But a Romney surge never materialized. Romney's only surge occurred after the first debate, in which Obama was thought to have done poorly, after which it fizzled.
I had also been worried that there would be a racist backlash against Obama. I know from experience that for black people to get respect in this country, they have to be better (i.e., more competent) than whites. I was afraid that the "black experiment" would be over for a lot of white voters and that they would switch back to the white candidate, but that didn't happen. I remembered how David Dinkins, the first black mayor of New York City, lasted only one term. But it seems that for at least some voters, we really are in a post-racial society now. There are still racists among us ("birthers", some working-class whites, some elderly, etc.), but there are enough rational white people that race doesn't matter to a majority of the electorate. I think that's wonderful.
So why did Obama win? I think too many voters recognized that Romney was a self-serving plutocrat (which he was -- his own tax plan would have reduced his own taxes to about 1%). Romney's penchant for flip-flopping and lying didn't help. Also, I think that a lot of voters recognized that Obama was dealt a lousy hand in 2008, and that he needed more time to fix the economy. They also saw that the economy was slowly healing, and they remembered how the Republicans had fought against Obama every step of the way. In addition, Obama is a very decent fellow, which everyone can see (except the most partisan right-wingers, who act as if he is a monster).
The real purpose of this article, though, is to take a look at the future of the Republican party. The Republicans have become very extreme in recent years, supporting a view of government that is more consistent with the year 1912 than 2012. The "Tea Party" is generally blamed for that, but the extremism extends back decades, to Barry Goldwater and before. During this election the Republicans presented themselves as the party of the "job creators". They claimed that taxes had to be reduced on the rich because the rich are the ones who create jobs. That claim wasn't true, of course. As I have said in other articles on this site, tax breaks given to the rich are most likely deposited into the bank or used to buy another Mercedes or take another vacation. It's true that most jobs are created by small businesses, but it's also true that the owners of most small businesses are not rich (except for professionals like doctors and lawyers).
So what arguments are the Republicans going to make going forward? In the past they won elections by appealing to the bigotry of voters on social issues (race, gays, abortion, etc.). Indeed, the entire South, which used to be Democratic, switched to the Republican party because the Democrats started to support civil rights (remember Nixon's "Southern strategy"?). But the electorate is becoming more socially tolerant, so appeals to racism, homophobia, etc., will no longer work. As for abortion, at least one exit poll showed that 58% of voters support abortion on demand.
It appears that the Republicans have no issues any more. The concept of smaller government did not prevail in this election. If it was going to prevail in any election, it would have been this one. Perhaps, at some point in the future when 75% of the nation is using food stamps, it will prevail; but that point may never come, especially as the economy improves.
As I said above, social issues are being taken away from the Republicans. Eventually (soon, hopefully), working-class whites will become more racially tolerant and will stop seeing blacks and Hispanics as competitors. When that happens, working-class whites will gravitate back to the Democratic party because it's the Democrats who truly represent their interests. The Republicans, then, will be left mostly with upper-class whites, who constitute a very small group. (Within every group there are people who are conservative by nature, and they will always be Republicans, but they constitute a minority of most groups.)
Religious people could also remain with the Republicans, but that could change also. Religion cuts across party lines. Both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are deeply religious men (although many people incorrectly think Obama is a Muslim), while John McCain, the Republican candidate in 2008, was not. It could be argued that Romney was more religious than Obama, but then Romney didn't have the right religion, did he? Also, as the percentage of minorities in the population grows, there will be more non-Christians in the country -- Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. -- and they are more likely to vote with the Democrats.
Senior citizens might remain Republican just because people become more conservative as they get older (except me, it seems). But are these groups -- rich white people, devout Christians, and white senior citizens -- enough to provide Republicans with a base? I don't think so.
I haven't yet mentioned that demographics are against the Republicans. Whites now constitute less than 50% of the population, with the percentage of ethnic minorities increasing. That alone explains why, out of the last six presidential elections, the Republican candidate won the popular vote only once. (That would be 2004. In 2000, Bush beat Gore, but Gore won the popular vote.)
So where do the Republicans go from here? Democrats, who in the 1970's were seen as too liberal, have now taken over the middle. On almost every issue -- taxes, creating jobs, foreign policy, preserving the social safety net -- Democrats prevail. So what should the Republicans do? The Republicans need to return to the center. They must disengage from the Tea Partiers, who really belong in their own, small third party. The Republicans need to accept that providing a social safety net is a legitimate role of government (especially since governments all over the world are doing that). Republicans need to stop trying to repeal the New Deal, and they need to accept that business must be regulated. Indeed, it's the lack of regulation that always leads to financial crises, like the Great Depression and the housing/financial crisis of 2008. History shows that business can thrive under regulations. In fact, history shows that the rich can be very rich indeed when they are taxed heavily. And history also shows that the economy does better under Democratic presidents.
Republicans would also have to accept that the environment is important and must be protected. Going back to Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican party has strong environmental roots, so it shouldn't be hard for them to be pro-environment. It was Richard Nixon, a Republican, who created the Environmental Protection Agency. No one -- not private citizens nor businesses -- has the right to pollute the environment. Furthermore, enforcing strong environmental laws does not cost jobs, but often creates them. Protecting the environment is a win-win situation for everyone, including businesses.
In a perfect two-party America, the Republicans would be right of center and the Democrats would be left of center. That way, both parties would be seen as moderate and accessible. Voters wouldn't be afraid to elect Republicans because it wouldn't mean losing their safety net. With both parties being perceived as moderate, voters would feel comfortable voting on the basis of personality. In years in which the voters were feeling angry, voting for the opposing party wouldn't mean changing the entire face of government, as it does now. Governance would remain on an even keel, and the political roller-coaster ride would be over. As a Democrat, I would be happy to see a resurgent Republican party if they were moderate -- and that's saying a lot because I'm a very partisan Democrat.
Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the Senate who lost in 2012, said that his idea of compromise was for the Democrats to agree with the Republicans. That's an attitude prevalent among a lot of right-wing Republicans, but it's not about to happen. The Republicans, however, have a somewhat moderate past. The original Republican party, which put Abraham Lincoln into office, was far more moderate than it is today. Indeed, Ronald Reagan -- the great conservative hero -- was more moderate than today's Republicans are. If the Republican party can return to its moderate roots, it can also return to power.
0 comments:
Post a Comment