Off the Rails: How the Party of Lincoln Became the Party of Plutocrats

bigstock-Lincoln-Memorial-305498.jpg

For a century now, Republicans have confused being the party of plutocrats with being the party of prosperity. Thus Mitt Romney.

To win back the so-called 47 percent—an insulting description Romney doubled down after the election when he blamed his loss on Obama’s “gifts”—Republican might look farther back, past Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover to their first president, Abraham Lincoln.

Not only did he spring from the ranks of the plebeian, not the preps, but—as Michael Lind points out in What Lincoln Believed—he aimed to both increase opportunity and expand national power. A corporate attorney, he backed railroad interests and their expansion, which paced the nation’s economic ascendancy, but saw this as part of creating greater opportunity, particularly in the West, for the country’s middle and working classes. He also enacted the Homestead Act, which supplied aspiring settlers with a gift: 160 acres of federal land.

Whether or not these acts were populist in their intent, their effects helped people achieve their aspirations. Expansion westward was nothing less than the basis of the American dream, allowing millions, many from land-poor and feudalized Europe, an opportunity to strike out on their own.

This aspirational element should be the centerpiece of the Republican message in this age of growing class bifurcation. The loss of upward mobility long predates President Obama, though it has accelerated under him—with median household incomes down by more than $4,000 since he took office. Even the tepid economy has not done much to improve middle-class fortunes since nearly three-fifths of new jobs are in lower-wage positions.

Without some unforeseen economic rebound, class issues will dominate our politics in the future even more than they do today. To recover, Republicans, now losing consistently (and often deservedly) on cultural issues, need to outmaneuver the Democrats on their ability to provide opportunity and upward mobility to a broad range of Americans.

In his time, Lincoln understood the usefulness of class warfare. Tied to industrial interests, he waged a bloody class war on the slave-owning gentry of the South, a group so detestable it makes today’s Wall Street elites seem almost saintly by comparison. Financiers and industrialists may have supported this brutal war between the states, but it was largely aspiring yeoman farmers, skilled workers, and small merchants—all beneficiaries of Lincoln’s expansive economic vision—who fought it.

In recent decades, Republicans—conscious of their patrician backers—have suppressed thinking about class, often criticizing Democrats for having no such scruples.

This made them unable to turn issues such as the bank bailouts to their favor; Romney, himself an economic royalist, could not bring himself to denounce the administration’s policies that have worked out wonderfully for large banks now enjoying record profits while pummeling the middle class.

In the past, Republican deflected class concerns by focusing on cultural issues, national defense, or ideology—but these tactics have worn themselves out. Of course, some conservatives will blame their defeat on a candidate of uncertain convictions and without commitment to the social regressive policies. Yet evangelicals mounted a record effort to get out the vote; it’s hard to see how Romney would have done better trying to sound more like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

What should concern Republicans was declining turnout in traditionally GOP-leaning suburbs, the very places where middle-class professionals and business owners reside. These voters were not energized by Romney. So even though he improved the GOP’s 2008 vote among the middle class and independents, Romney’s total was about 1,000,000 below that of John McCain. Had Romney equaled McCain’s performance in four states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado), he would have won, rather than losing to a president who received 7 million fewer votes than in the previous election.

Let’s take a measurement of base stagnation: the nation’s population has grown 20 million since George Bush was elected in 2004, but the GOP vote has actually shrunk. This correlates as well with a stunning decline of roughly 8 million white voters compared to 2008. The white population may be getting old, but it’s not dying off that rapidly.

This low turnout is remarkable given how unfavorably Obama is viewed by much of the yeoman class. In fact, as Gallup notes, nearly 60 percent of small-business owners disapprove of Obama. The problem was many simply did not see Romney as a viable—let alone an attractive—alternative. In contrast, the Obama team did a far better job of turning out their base of minority, youth, single and childless women, and union members—an effort that delivered their margin of victory in swing states including Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado.

To change the political dynamic, Republicans need to address class concerns, particularly those of small property owners and aspirant small entrepreneurs. Yet the GOP has no program for this group other than lower taxes and hollow promises to cut the budget (which, of course, they have not done, even when holding both houses of Congress and the presidency). The party’s hodgepodge of corporate managerialism, social regressiveness, and, above all, protection of the plutocratic class is demonstrably not compelling to most Americans.

It’s hard for a Main Street business owner, or sole proprietor working from home, to relate to a plutocrat, like Romney, who pays lower effective tax rates than they do. Outrage against looming tax hikes would be justifiable, if the true motivation were not so plainly to preserve the privileges of the haute bourgeoisie. This is a politically doomed approach; while small business is widely revered by Americans, big business and banks are among the least well-regarded.

Class also would provide a means to define negatively the current regime. Instead of making silly attacks on President Obama as a “socialist,” he would be more accurately portrayed as the tribune of both the crony capitalists on Wall Street or Silicon Valley and of big labor, particularly public-employee unions. Obama should also be toxic to grassroots entrepreneurs, who will bear the brunt of the new regulatory regime, health-care system, higher energy prices, as well as rising income taxes.

Rather than label him as a radical, Republicans should identify him as an avatar of those who are doing best in our concussed economy, and presumably want things to stay that way. His most ardent backers include many of our richest, most celebrated citizens—fabulously wealthy Hollywood types, the Silicon Valley elite as well as those controlling our major media and universities. There’s a reason Obama bested Romney in eight of America’s 10 richest counties.

In Marin County, Calif.—where Obama claimed nearly 75 percent of the vote—expensive energy and higher housing prices represent not a burden but an environmental good, and, when it comes to housing, an economic opportunity for some to benefit from artificial, government-imposed scarcity. Ban new single-family homes, and the value of the existing stock goes up; for the elite investing class, incentives for “green energy” developments offer insider opportunities to enjoy windfall profits at the expense of middle-class-rate payers.

If Wall Street wants to join the “progressive” gentry parade again, as it did in 2008, Republican should encourage them. Being the candidate of the phenomenally unpopular financial overclass may have bought Romney the nomination, but it sealed his fate in the general election.

To reclaim its Lincolnesque transformation, the GOP needs to fundamentally pivot on the role of government. Laissez-faire ideology has its merits, but cannot compete successfully with a population weaned on the welfare state, whose members are keenly attuned to their vulnerability in our volatile era.

By admitting that government is sometimes a necessary partner in nurturing and sometimes financing infrastructure critical for economic expansion, Republicans can offer their own vision of what growth-inducing services such as new roads—as opposed to the increased regulation and transfer payments and pension bloat peddled by Democrats—government can and should provide. This could appeal to Hispanics, Asians, and younger people who would be the prime beneficiaries of tangible investments.

As generational chroniclers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais have suggested, most younger people support government action to solve problems but generally dislike the kind of top-down solutions often supported by Democrats. As these voters age, seek to buy homes and start businesses, they might listen to a sensible alternative that does not seek to enhance the left-wing clerisy’s ambition to control all aspects of their lives.

It’s time for Republicans to break with the traditions of Goldwater, Reagan, and, particularly, Bush and shift to something more akin to the party’s roots in the mid-19th century. This party needs less preaching and libertarian manifestos that essentially defend plutocracy. Instead it’s time to embrace class warfare on today’s gentry, and embrace the aspirations of today’s middle-class. Honest Abe in 2016?

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and contributing editor to the City Journal in New York. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

This piece originally appeared at The Daily Beast.

Lincoln Memorial photo by Bigstock.



















Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Headquartered in Warren,

Headquartered in Warren, Michigan, Brine has been rooted in the game of Lacrosse since 1950. The successor to the original W.H. joe barton kidney stone removal report pdf

Thanks for sharing us this

Thanks for sharing us this steps on how to install and setup New Relic on CentOS and RedHat to use with Drupal. https://www.rebelmouse.com/capturehisheartclairecasey/

A lot of our ideas and

A lot of our ideas and relevant development discussions will be posted here. Two other guys, Pawel Paprota and Kalle Persson, will also be contributing to this blog. how can i get her interested in me

I love this site and stand

I love this site and stand by it.It's a meaningful website to learn something useful which i'm studying for.healthinsurance-n1.com

These both are very popular

These both are very popular politician and have special characteristics which are Got gifted. I am very amused to read this post and amazed how the party of Lincoln Became the Party of Plutocrats. Now it is very easy to arrange your party with http://birthdayplanet.net/ help because you feel tension free after contacting us.

Nice Article

Great Post.. Knowledge is Power..
Free hold condo at kovan area, visit us now!!
Wait is over..
Tembusu Kovan | Tembusu Wingtai | Tembusu Condo

Living among Lush Greenery, near new hillview mrt
skywoods dairy farm | skywoods condo

3mins walk from buangkok mrt, near shopping malls and amenities
jewel buangkok | jewel cdl | cdl buangkok

Whether or not these acts

Whether or not these acts were populist in their intent, their effects helped people achieve their aspirations. New Look Discount Code

Sea Horizon EC is also near

Sea Horizon EC is also near elite schools such as Hai Sing Catholic School and Casuarina Primary School. Dunman Secondary School, Meridian Junior College and Tampines Junior College are also around in the area.
Sea Horizon EC Site Plan

Thanks for this wonderful

Thanks for this wonderful post.Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information.
Find Out More

Thanks for this wonderful

Thanks for this wonderful post.Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information.
Find Out More

Republican might look

Republican might look farther back, past Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover to their first president, Abraham Lincoln. painter new jersey

Kensington Square is a new

Kensington Square is a new and upcoming condominium located in the Bartley area, right next to Bartley MRT. It is within a short drive to Little India, Orchard and city area. With expected completion in mid 2017, it comprises of 141 Residential units and 57 commercial units.
http://kensingtonsq.org

Republican might look

Republican might look farther back, past Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover to their first president, Abraham Lincoln. plumber morristown nj

I really like the dear

I really like the dear information you offer in your articles. I'm able to bookmark your site and show the kids check out up here generally. Im fairly positive theyre likely to be informed a great deal of new stuff here than anyone else.
cell phone spying
clubmz reviews

For a century now,

For a century now, Republicans have confused being the party of plutocrats with being the party of prosperity. sample condolence messages

Future residents will be

Future residents will be able to walk to the existing Bugis MRT. With such a short drive to the city area as well as the orchard and bugis area, entertainment for your love ones and family will come at a stone’s throw away.
Duo

Expansion westward was

Expansion westward was nothing less than the basis of the American dream, allowing millions, many from land-poor and feudalized Europe, an opportunity to strike out on their own. Hamilton Buhl electronics

I just want to let you know

I just want to let you know that I just check out your site and I find it very interesting and informative..
Visit Studio Debonis

Thanks for sharing nice

Thanks for sharing nice information with us. i like your post and all you share with us is uptodate and quite informative, i would like to bookmark the page so i can come here again to read you, as you have done a wonderful job.
revenge of the affiliates review

I love what youve got to

I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?
distance learning courses

Correct

I think Kotkin identifies the issue here quite well in that we are really dealing with an issue of one element in society taking over the political process and realigning it to their interests. Although the GOP is the more evident example of this I think the "liberal establishment" obviously leans in the same direction. One question to keep in the back of your mind is will the Democrats in super majority states like California suffer the same fate? From what I can tell the amount of propaganda and coercion needed to keep the big lie of environmental devastation, sprawl global warming etc... requires a tremendous amount of complicity. I keep wondering at what point people will look at such things and just walk away from them in recognition of their elite centered mentality and their overall uselessness to society. Obviously, this has occurred more with the GOP but I suspect it will also happens with the other side. Ultimately, I do wonder if there will develop a more pragmatic political movement geared towards real solutions rather than just elite serving ideologies...

The Grand Bargain

Ashkenazi Americans for the American people, the American people for Israel!

Off topic, I know, but still a good idea.

Luke Lea

The best we could hope for

If the Democrats cemented their dominance in Congress they could pass real tax reform: treat earned and unearned income equally but make savings tax exempt. Current marginal rates might not even have to rise.

Luke Lea

Best hope for the Republican party?

That the Democrats don't support immigration restriction, not just enforcement, together with amnesty for the 11 million illegals already here. That would cement their dominance for the next generation.

Luke Lea

"the nation’s population has grown 20 million since 2004"

That's part of the problem right there: the supply of labor is outstripping the demand. Of course the plutocrats like that, just as they like Nafta, Gatt, and expansion of WTO to include populous, low-wage countries where they are free to invest.

The plutocrats are not responsible for automation however, the third thing kicking working families in the teeth. They could be blamed for blocking any rational response to it in Congress, however, such as reducing the standard workweek before overtime kicks in. The six hour day would be a boon to working families.

Luke Lea

Upward mobility is not the problem

Upward mobility may or may not be a problem but it is hardly the problem for most Americans. Upward mobility is about "getting ahead" and "equal opportunity," -- of careers open to talent. For most Americans the problem is falling wages and a declining standard of living.

Lincoln the "corporate lawyer"

Small correction: Lincoln was not a "corporate lawyer" in any meaningful sense. He took one case, which was a big one for him, and barely collected the bill (his client tried to cheat him). And it was more about public improvements -- in favor of a bridge over the Mississippi which was opposed by the steamboat special interests -- than doing any special favors for the railroads. It was a matter of the national interest.

Basically, Lincoln took any case that came throgh the door, provided it did not offend his sense of decency. In domestic cases he often tried to talk the parties out of a suit altogether. As for that famous McCormick Reaper case he was third string and Stanton didn't even let him sit down front with the other attorneys.

Luke Lea

The fundamental problem

You ask what the fundamental problem is with our economy. Here is my opinion.

Nothing - nothing at all - in "free market" theory indicates that capital will be well distributed among the people, or distributed in an optimal way. Nor do we have a "free market" economy anyway, as we have a multitude of laws and cultural mores that cause substantial deviations from Econ 101 Chapter 1 theories. Here in the real world, capital tends to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands as time goes by, in just about all countries and economic systems at all times, unless the government engages in deliberate re-distribution of the pattern that the original non-market economy makes, or revolution does so with violence.

For the last three decades, we have chosen to allow capital to accumulate, by lowering taxes dramatically on the wealthy, reducing regulations, and strangling the labor unions. This creates a very disfunctional economy, where there is too much capital chasing far too few real opportunities to invest it. Since American customers are now too poor after thirty years of stagnating wages to buy much of anything, what is a billionaire to do with the money in his bank account? Not invest it in the US! Perhaps abroad, or on commodity or derivative speculation. But not here, as US consumers are already tapped out.

Conservatives need to get over their blind belief that the distribution of wealth that comes out of our non-free-market economy is at all just, fair, or optimal. It is not, and never will be. Believing that it is sacred is your fatal flaw.

Plutocrats and bureaucrats

The element underemphasized in this article is the government ruling class. They are a rich target. I am surprised you did not lump them in with the other plutocrats. I also agree that social issues are a loser. Our moral fiber is bankrupt--it is our biggest problem--but government is not the cure. Spiritual revival is the only solution and that won't come via our politicians.

what do you mean by social regressiveness?

I really enjoy your site, but I disagree with the implicit attitude (correct me if I am wrong) that "social issues" are necessarily irrelevant to the sustainability of a vital social middle class of small enterpreneurs and businessman. For one thing, vibrant families provide the natural breeding ground for small businesses. I come from Italy, which has traditionally a very strong small-business sector which is almost entirely made of family-based (not just individually-based) units. Call me me prejudiced, but I suspect that many of the famous "single-women voters" who voted for Obama are not necessarily the most enterpreneurially-inclined sector of the population. More generally, grassroots economic creativity requires a certain "human type" (able to handle human relationships, emotionally stable, disciplined etc.) which is probably best fostered in a stable affective and psychological environment etc. Once you determine that public policy should privilege no form of "family" as socially most effective and that, for instance, civil marriage should just be some form of state-endorsement of people's long term romantic relationships (which seems to be the "progressive" trend), I honestly think that in the long run you will also undermine the social fabric that supports economic enterpreneurship.

Small Business has been had...

It seemed to me neither Democrats nor Republicans offered the small Main Street business types anything other than continued growth of Wall Street and/or the Government - two different sides of the same crony capitalist coin.

Romney flipped and flopped so many times nobody could believe him and Obama at least tried to appeal to the majority who knows things are not getting better and know we are all being undercut.

As a small Main Street biz type I want to know why my Healthcare Insurance went up 34% for the coming year with the same benefits I had last year? What business can jack rates by 1/3 and still be alive the next year ?

We all know taxes are going up and inflation will soon run rampant eating up the value of savings so what are we to do ? Go buy some farmland, grow our own food and ride it out ?

Off the Rails

First, Mr. Kotkin, I congratulate you for “newgeography.com” as a forum for thoughtful exchange on matters geopolitical. I visit regularly and am seldom disappointed. Second, I have found your recent and prolific writings on the 2012 presidential election to be stimulating. Thank you on both points.

Your current column, “Off the Rails,” seems to me to be another of the “hand wringing” variety by many commentators that might have been justified by a wipe-out election loss (such as that suffered by Goldwater in ’64 or Mondale in ’84), but not by Mr. Romney’s very narrow loss (the narrowness confirmed by your own analysis in the column).

The premise of your column, that Republicans must relearn class warfare, a la Lincoln, to be successful in 2016 rings hollow for me on several counts, but perhaps most notably in this regard: You ding Mr. Romney for his “insulting description” of the “47%” and then his “doubling down” in blaming his loss on Obama’s “gifts” to voters, especially the younger voters. You then go on to favorably cite Lincoln as having “enacted the Homestead Act, which supplied aspiring settlers with a gift: 160 acres of federal land.”

I ask in all sincerity, Mr. Kotkin: Do you really believe the Republicans can credibly run in 2016 on a platform of “out-giving” the Democrats? The loss of support in the Republican base would be catastrophic. Well, they would lose me anyway! LOL!

Romney/Ryan ran a totally positive campaign based on the idea of an “opportunity economy” built on traditional American values of freedom, self-discipline, hard work, innovation, etc., et al. You, of course, state that, “This aspirational element should be the centerpiece of the Republican message in this age of growing class bifurcation.” Amen.

What must change? Advancement of economic literacy. First lesson: There is no free lunch (“gift”). That lesson seems to be in the pipeline. The tuition will be quite high.

(Just a couple of nits: Lincoln, of course, did not “enact” the Homestead Act of 1862; Congress did, and Lincoln signed it. But more substantively, the 160 acres were not a “gift”. From the U.S. Archives, one reads this description of the law and its implementation:

(“The new law established a three-fold homestead acquisition process: filing an application, improving the land, and filing for deed of title. Any U.S. citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S. Government could file an application and lay claim to 160 acres of surveyed Government land. For the next 5 years, the homesteader had to live on the land and improve it by building a 12-by-14 dwelling and growing crops. After 5 years, the homesteader could file for his patent (or deed of title) by submitting proof of residency and the required improvements to a local land office.”

(Compare this “gift” with the relaxation by the Obama Administration of the work requirements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act just prior to the 2012 election. Hmmm.)

And finally, though your column focuses on “class,” I think it worthy of pondering ever so briefly upon another form of “stratification” of the American populace which was so crucial to the outcome of the recent election: Race. The most recent figure I have seen is that President Obama received 93% of the “black” vote. (In scores of precincts, the Romney/Ryan ticket did not receive a single vote.) It seems entirely plausible to me (an old white male Republican, aka, fossil, with a very parochial worldview) that such bloc voting (so decisive in this election) may well have been much more of a sociological phenomenon than a “gifts” phenomenon. I can well imagine that Colin Powell and most other blacks did not wish to see themselves responsible for the electoral defeat of the first black American president, no matter the (possible) economic price. Most of us root for the home team, no matter how well or poorly they play.

Disagree

@ Richard: I couldn't disagree more with your take on this article. In the past I had never voted a straight party ticket either way, but tended to lean heavily towards the Republican side. I even volunteered for a number of Republican candidates (and only one Dem candidate) and had a small blog on a conservative web site. Point being that I was clearly the epitome of the center-right suburbanite that gave the Republican party at least some wins.

This election was different. I voted a straight Democratic ticket this time (in WI, mind you, where Republicans had hopes of both a Romney win and a Thompson senate win). And it wasn't because I thought Obama was an amazing president. It was because the Republican party has become a joke in it's current state. This article was one of the best discussions of exactly why people like me voted Dem that I've seen yet. Jindal is exactly right when he says that the GOP has become the party of "stupid." I have a graduate degree and understand what the definition of socialism is and what it is not. And it is not Obama. All I can think when I hear some right wing blogger ranting about socialism is that the Republican party is just too dumb to agree with anymore. And the idea that government is ALWAYS bad and that's why we should elect you to be in charge of the government? Which rocket-surgeon marketing genius came up with that theory?

If the GOP wants to be taken seriously by people like me again they need to accept that there is a role for government and present solutions to actual problems, not fictional issues like voter fraud. They need to focus on policies that acknowledge that the wealthy have gotten much wealthier while the middle and lower classes have been stagnant or gone backwards and address those issues with market driven solutions. And the GOP needs to put a muzzle on the far right jokers that make then look silly (such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the Creationists, the Tea Party types, etc.). I actually saw an article a while back on Townhall dot com that suggested we should be grateful in some grovelling sycophantic way for companies like Blackwater, US Bank, and Exxon. Really?

Listen to Jindal. Listen to Mr. Kotkin. Listen to David Frum. Or accept your fate as the new whig party. Unfortunately I don't think enough of the base will be willing to consider change and a likely decent showing in the mid-term election of 2014 will convince the GOP to continue as the party of stupid.

Not"Stupid" no one to vote for

DMac8889

The Far Right as you recent Obama admirers call us, aren't stupid, we simply had no one to support. Romney's reason for losing had as much to do with no shows on the RIGHT (though I was ABO), then Obama's total. Obama is playing redistribution, and Romney ran to the Middle (nowhere)using the Left's tactic of personally attacking its enemy the Tea Party. Calling the Tea Party stupid is like referring to a customer who sees nothing on the shelves he likes, so he leaves the store. On the way out you are calling him names.

All I hear from Obama supporters, and if you voted for him, you are a supporter (thus you take the blame for a decade long recession)is envy and wanting of something you didn't earn. TEA Party is not 'against' Gov't, we just believe the Federal Gov't has entered into areas it has no business being involved in, and it remains unlike local Gov't, unaccountable. It is corrupt, and without removing some of its influence will remain so. It is hard for me to accept someone with a right thinking mind would chose Obama over TEA Party thinking, unless your just afraid of being shunned at the work place by people who simply have no clue to what is politically going on around them. Thus an Obama victory.

I'm simply at a loss of anyone who worries about what the rich are doing. They or their parents have managed to work quite hard to gain their position, and for other Americans to think they are entitled what the rich have earned is wrong. This may keep me in the minority, as will the thinking that the Gov't should be more concerned with the LIFE of the unborn, than the circumstances in which a female has found herself being pregnant, I find Abortion abhorrent.

For me this is far from stupid, but if Americans want to go down the road of demanding from others something they didn't earn, not paying anything to the functioning of our federal Gov't, claiming Fairness, then I'll be happy remaining in the minority while others like yourself cross Party lines to dismantle our nation's economy.

Response to "Disagree"

Vigorously stated, vfr800cr250, ... strongly worded ... but, in my opinion, short on specifics which might address the current malaise of the U.S.economy.

(While one may be tempted, as apparently Gov. Jindal was, to resort to pejorative labels, it is unclear to me how this advances constructive exchanges about how we proceed. In the same vein, suggesting that "the GOP needs to put a muzzle on the far right jokers" hints at a limited capacity for rational dialogue. If one is offended by the offerings of the "jokers", don't listen.)

More substantively, you call for the GOP to "address those issues with market driven solutions." Have you a specific example of that type of solution? Romney/Ryan advocated the traditional market driven strategies of private sector saving, innovation, and investment, risk, and reward. President Obama (implicitly) offered his own examples: Solyndra and the GM bailout. Are these examples you would embrace for moving forward?

The 2012 election was close on very clearly drawn issues. Your voting choice largely prevailed, so we shall have full opportunity to see how that set of strategies continues to play out. But I am a bit puzzled by your concluding sentence.... If the GOP "continue[s] as the party of stupid," how is it possible that it will "likely [have a] decent showing in the mid-term election of 2014"? I'm not buying my Whig wig just yet.

Mid-term elections

Sorry if the wording comes across as harsh, I admit that this is a big deal to me. I'd rather be voting Republican (center-right), but these days I'll take center left over hard right any day of the week. I was willing to give Mitt Romney a chance as my knowledge of him was that he was a moderate.

The first big issue I had though was during primary when ALL the candidates said that they wouldn't agree to a deal that included $1 of revenue increases for every $10 in spending cuts. Seriously? Wouldn't any reasonable conservative think that's a great deal? At that point I began to seriously doubt the future of the Republican party.

Then Romney named Paul Ryan as his running mate. How does that help? The only people that like Paul Ryan are the hardcore righties which to me says that those are the folks controlling Romney's candidacy.

Now I was willing to give Romney/Ryan one last chance. As you said, they were proposing some market driven solutions so I was willing to listen. But I couldn't get past the fact that no matter how I looked at the numbers (and read others attempts to make sense of them) I didn't see any way that tax rates could be cut 20%, revenue could stay neutral, military spending could increase and the deficit could be addressed. It was pure fantasy. I'd rather hear that I'm going to pay higher taxes, but real problems will be addressed.

The solutions Romney was proposing weren't the problem, the problem was that he was wrapping them up in a fantasy that any reasonably intelligent person had to doubt.

On the 2014 mid-terms, the Republicans will do alright partly because of gerrymandering, but I would suggest that an even more important factor will be the electorate that shows up to vote. The people that vote in the mid-terms will be older, whiter and more married than those that voted in 2012 or 2008. James Carville wrote a book, 40 More Years, in 2009, predicting 2012 pretty well and dicussing shifting demographics. He very specifically points out in that book that mid-term elections won't follow the same patterns because of the make-up of that electorate.

If Republicans want to prove Mr. Carville wrong, they're going to need to do more than simply communicate better and maybe run an hispanic candidate. Just my two bits.

What does demographics have anything to do with intelligence?

DMac8889

Romney, O'Reilly and others were right that "GIFTS" had much to do with the results of the 2012 Election, but so did ones own ethnic background. Obama divided this nation across ethnic and gender lines to get to apply his Economic philosophy and Social agenda . Many Blacks voted for Obama, not for his economics, not for his stand on Gay Marriage, not for his stand on Abortion, or free contraceptives, or Obamacare, or keeping open borders, but because they felt the pressure from their community to do so. Many Hispanics didn't vote for Obama for Gay Marriage, Abortion, his economy, or Obamacare. Females didn't vote for Obama for his economic philosophy, or Open Borders. Seniors didn't vote for Open Borders, and the Youth didn't vote for Obama's economic policies or Open Borders. Each of these groups voted for their own selfish reasons.

To suggest that Obama now gets free rein on Economic issues, or in fact ANY issues is absurd thinking. Conservatives (Republicans are wishy-washy)can no more change their principles than can they change ethnic identity (regardless of their skin color). If these groups in which the Democrats envelope into their big tent are willing to be selfish to get their "Own", or their "Fair Share", then this country will walk its way down towards internal destruction that so many countries before them have done.

It is not in the control of Conservatives to change such a path, unless they can convince others they are correct. If Carville and so many others concentrate more on political victories than the health of this country, then we will have more of what we are sowing.

Being in a majority that has nothing in common but a President that will gladly hand you your "own" gift while at the expense of the health of the nation's future is not SMART, and for those that claim political victory over a group you consider DUMB, because they don't think like you, is why we have found ourselves in the position we are in.

Romney on the other hand attacking the TEA Party or its very popular leader Sarah Palin was just DUMB. It cost him the election.

MIdterm elections in 2014

Richard, you ask how it is possible to have a decent showing in midterm elections despite continuing as the party of stupid. The answer is the same way D's got a million more votes for Congressional candidates and yet did not take over the House. An extraordinarily successful gerrymandered re-districting in 2010.

MIdterm elections in 2014

Richard, you ask how it is possible to have a decent showing in midterm elections despite continuing as the party of stupid. The answer is the same way D's got a million more votes for Congressional candidates and yet did not take over the House. An extraordinarily successful gerrymandered re-districting in 2010.

Midterm Elections in 2014 - A Reply

Mr. Ledbetter, you are correct in significant part, certainly, but there are a couple of less-obvious points that are highly relevant.

First, the gerrymandering you mention was possible because of sweeping Republican election victories at all levels in 2010, particularly in state legislatures. And the trend continues: North Carolina will have a Republican-controlled legislature (and Republican governor) in 2013 for the first time in over 100 years. The simple explanation is basic citizenship: conservatives vote more consistently in "off-year" elections than do many in the liberal coalition.

Second, (as a conservative who found much to admire in Martin Luther King's stance for a colorblind society, I find the irony of this quite delicious) liberal dogma insists that there be "safe" districts for "minority representation" in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thus, the liberal insistence upon racially gerrymandered districts (always represented by liberal Democrats) is happily embraced by Republican legislatures. Blacks and Latino populations deliver overwhelming majorities (low turn-out or high) in "their" districts, but this has zero impact on neighboring conservative districts.

I would think that Democrats would wise up to this significant problem and seek ways to use their base blocs to leverage competition into traditionally conservative districts .... but I doubt the Members of the House Black Leadership Caucus would take too kindly to that idea. What do you think?

So, the "stupid" party appears to be in pretty good shape for 2014.

MIdterm elections in 2014

You can call me Greg. (Smile) I concur actually. 2014 will be a very difficult election for Dems but not impossible, particularly if Republicans continue with the belief that their political platform is not the problem but that personalities and technical get out the vote efforts were their undoing in 2012.

Political Platform

DMac8889
There is nothing wrong with the TEA Party's platform. Their problem is they want little of what the Federal Gov't is selling, and when the store is being looted by the MOB, there is nothing we can do short of shooting people from stealing. The TEA Party doesn't want to shoot anybody, so we will have to wait until the rest of the country grows up and realize they have to take responsibility for their own lives and stop being envious of people who have worked hard to earn more than they have.

Of course there is no indication this will ever happen, so the children emotionally)we have today will continue to rob from the Children physical) of tomorrow. Obama believes he is doing the Righteous thing (and it is if it is only 3% from the 2%)by redistributing the nation's wealth, however, he is willing to forfeit a generation to do so.

thank you

i enjoyed your comments and even more the work and thought that went into them.

my focus on class, though, will continue. i believe the new struggle that is emerging centers on a rising clerisy --- allied with media and informaton industries --- against the small property owning yeomanry. the more traditional plutocracy was for Romney, and in many ways he epitomized their virtues and deficiencies.

i am an old-style democrat who favors using government when necessary to create an ever-larger property owning class. neither party today has this as its main focus. instead both are neo-feudalist as I will explain in the coming months.

glad you enjoy the site and i look forward to more thoughtful skewering in the future from you.

Joel

I agree with Richard. I like

I agree with Richard. I like your site and your direction. But regarding emulating past winners, I cannot agree. Lincoln and Reagan were originals, not copiers. There was nothing wrong with Romney except what he was beat by: charisma, incumbency, and $6 trillion. Pretty hard to overcome, and he came close. All we need is a whole lot more reckoning from overpromised bills coming due before we pry the requisite number of hearts away from the Alinskyites currently in charge. Yes, collapse, austerity, and conflict a la Greece. I cannot contemplate better messaging and policy to win plurality when the debt is $16 trillion and deficits are 40%. The right way is lower taxes and less government, but as long as the voter can be bought, (s)he will not be seeking the right way. Pain will be a better teacher.