Frum's explanation of why the Republican base isn't growing is not very good. By mixing their social conservatism with their warmongering, the Republicans have shrunk their base to rural areas, the White South, and paleo-con racists, homophobes, and anti-immigration bigots. Consequently, the white suburban vote (in the North), gay voters, and hispanics have fallen into the laps of the Democrats in the same way as the black vote. None of these groups are all that enthusiastic about the Democrats, but they've started voting Democratic because they find the Republicans so repulsive.But it has been apparent for many years that the Democratic base is growing faster than the Republican base. The numbers of the unmarried and the non-churchgoing are growing faster than the numbers of married and church-going Americans. The nonwhite and immigrant population is growing at a faster rate than that of white native-borns. The Democrats are the party of the top and bottom of American society; the Republicans do best in the great American middle, which is losing ground.
Mr. Rove often reminded me of a miner extracting the last nuggets from an exhausted seam. His attempts to prospect a new motherlode have led the Republican party into the immigration debacle.
However, "extracting the last nuggets from an exhausted seam" was a good image for Rove accomplished as a political operative. To me, it took real "consultant genius" on the part of Rove to fit the "compassionate conservatism" brand on George Bush and then sell it around the country in 2000. It took even more ingenuity to rebrand Bush as a right-wing partisan for the 2004 election. Most of us on the left have blamed the Democrats for being weak, feckless, and spineless, but it was more the case that Rove took the political game up another notch and the Democrats couldn't respond in kind. At least at first.
However, things have changed. Because of the general failure of the Bush administration, the Democrats have regained an edge. In fact, it looks like the major Republican candidates for 2008 are in a box where the Republican base is so loyal to the war in Iraq, social conservatism, and confronting the Democrats that the only way to get Republican votes is to promise to "out-Bush" even Bush. But if the GOP wants to promote this view in the general election, they're going to need a bigger genius than Rove.
Posts
16 comments:
You all suck.
Maybe that should be your next post.
"We all suck"
I think the most entertaining thing about this site, is that for a PhD, you have such a childish view of your political opponents, truly a Caric(ature) of some bogeyman Republican that you argue with. Maybe the folks in Morehead are as you describe, but your Caric(atures) do not play well outside of the ivory tower, todd, and timb.
Are you sure that being "political scienc-y" would increase the readership here?
You should give me credit. This is a left-wing site. Much of what differentiates RSI from other left-wing sites is my willingness to acknowledge the real talent of people like Rove, DeLay, Limbaugh, and Coulter.
I never mentioned being political scienc-y, and could care less about your readership.
Since it is a left wing site, that gives you license to lie and distort? So you acknowledge talent in people. Congrats. You still maintain a postiion and description of the Right that flies in the face of reality.
Or, maybe that is alright. We will just use you as the putative face of the Left.
Wisdom, Grasshopper, will come when you recognize your lack of talent.
You see JD, you're doing it again. Just more personal attacks. This is a left-wing site. If the views expressed here offend you so much, why do you bother to read them? I'll bet if you tried really hard you could find something better to do with your time. It is so futile. You will call us liars and distorters of your truth, we will respond and nothing is accomplished except hard feelings between total strangers who are probably all decent people. I'm done for now.
I am responding to what the Professor wrote. I just find it interesting that he prefers to argue against a caric(ature) of the right not supported by reality. If that is fine with you, so be it. It certainly makes it easier to argue when you have already declared yourselves the moral arbiters, and the sole moral position.
What part of what I wrote was not supported by facts?
Actually, Todd, his posting here is a service to Indiana drivers...if he weren't posting he would be denying their injury claims and railing against trial lawyers (they hurt that bones, you know).
Also, Dr. Caric, in your post, you forgot how to mention Frum is a Canadian self-promoting prevaricator who worships the Kagan/Kristol alliance to bring down America.
Off topic and all, have you guys seen Kristol on TV. There's a youtube of him getting shouted down and he is very gracious; he was very funny and, while not honest as close to it as he can get, on the Daily Show; and he is always polite on that Fox Sunday show. Evil, but polite.
All I'm saying, is that akin to what Todd said, his politics are absolutely vile and it's impossible to calculate how much innocent blood he has on his hands, but he seems like a pleasant fellow to have a drink with.
Since most of the time, people tend to vilify villains, I thought I'd mention that Kristol is witty on TV.
bones is supposed to be bonus
timb - Bonus, or lack thereof, cannot be tied to any particular settlement. FWIW, I rarely deny a claim, and cannot remember a time where I did not make even a nominal offer on the ones that I would prefer to deny. I do not rail against trial lawyers, just the ones that pursue frivolous suits. If you consider both of those to be the same group, not much I can do about that.
Ric - What candidate wants to "out-Bush" President Bush? He has been a failure to the social cons, a lead weight to the party as a whole, and his positions on immigration fly in the face of most of the party, if not the country. So, that is not backed by facts.
Want more? By mixing their social conservatism with their warmongering, the Republicans have shrunk their base to rural areas, the White South, and paleo-con racists, homophobes, and anti-immigration bigots
This is nothing other than your assertions and characterizations.
Here's the url for a Matthew Yglesias article on how Giuliani wants to "double-down" on Bush's foreign policy and the GOP pressures to do so.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_giuliani_doctrine.php#more
That's another way to say "Out-Bush Bush."
As for my other assertions, David Frum is a former Bush speechwriter and a neo-con author. He's stating that the GOP base is "white," but that has to mean rural whites and the White South because urban and suburban whites outside the South are trending heavily democratic. He also claims that the GOP race is "religious." But that actually means Protestant given that Catholics, Jews, and Muslims are not part of the GOP base.
It's interesting that you don't make any counter-claims. You could have said that there's a vein of right-wing activism in the conservative talk-show audiences and blogs that isn't captured by me categories. And I would have agree.
But it kind of sad that I have to make conservative arguments for you.
You give me a link to a liberal opinion writer at a liberal magazine as proof of your contention about Republicans? Yet again, something backed by opinion.
Ric, what are the facts behind this doozie?
By mixing their social conservatism with their warmongering, the Republicans have shrunk their base to rural areas, the White South, and paleo-con racists, homophobes, and anti-immigration bigots
In the latest opinion polls, www.pollingreport.com, the general public favors Democrats at a 52 to 31 basis. 31%!!!! That's a shrinking base
smarter dude - How do Congressional Dems approval ratings compare to the Presidents?
Since you like polls so much, I propose that those with the highest approval rating are the only ones allowed to speak.
Post a Comment