Republicans Limited to South, A National Party No More

The Washington Post reports on the Democratic gains in the west, noting changes in attitudes:

Last month’s elections, though, may signal the end of Republican dominance and fierce resistance to many conservation measures. Profound demographic and economic change seems finally to be asserting itself across the region. Westerners cast votes suggesting that the protection of their natural surroundings is not a negotiable condition for living well.

“Self-interest has intersected with reality,” said Limerick, chair of the board of the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “To have open spaces and nice places, people realize, they cannot be a bunch of individuals pursuing self-indulgence. They have to act collectively.”

To that end, much of the West rejected ballot measures that could have shredded state and local land-use rules limiting growth, controlling sprawl and ensuring open space. Voters in Idaho, Washington and California soundly defeated “takings” measures, intended to compensate individual owners whose land is devalued by land-use or zoning laws. Arizona voters approved their law. Courts had earlier tossed out the measures in Montana and Nevada.

At the same time, Democrats consolidated gains from 2004, picking up the governorship in Colorado, a Senate seat in Montana and two House seats in Arizona. Democrats already controlled governor’s seats in Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.

This leaves the Republicans with just the south. The Economist turns Zell Miller’s attack on Democrats against the Republicans, noting that it is now the Republicans who are A National Party No More:

The extent of the southernisation of the Republican Party is astonishing. The party was all but wiped out in its historic base, the north-east. There is now only one Republican in the 22-strong New England House delegation. New Hampshire kicked out its two Republican congressmen (and gave Democrats a majority in both state houses for the first time since 1874). Massachusetts ended 16 years of Republican occupation of the governor’s mansion. Rhode Island decapitated Lincoln Chafee despite his moderate record. New York installed Democrats in every statewide office for the first time since 1938.

The Republicans also suffered big losses in a region that voted solidly for Bush in 2004—the Mountain West. Three Republicans lost house seats. Conrad Burns lost his Senate seat in Montana (59% for Bush in 2004). Democrats now control five of the eight governorships in the region, compared with none in 2000.

The only place where the national tide had little impact was in the South. The Democrats made a few inroads in the periphery—winning a Senate seat in Virginia and House seats in North Carolina, Florida and Texas. But deep southern states such as Georgia and Mississippi remained unchanged. Exit polls showed that only 36% of white voters in the South voted for Democratic House candidates; it was 58% in the north-east.

The problem for the Republicans is that a regional stronghold can become a prison. The South has one of the most distinctive cultures in the United States—far more jingoistic than the rest of the country and far more religious. Fifty-eight per cent of deep southerners identify themselves as either evangelical or born-again compared with a third of non-southerners (the figure in Mississippi is 73%). But for every non-southerner who waxes lyrical about southern charm there are many more who associate the South with racial bigotry and cultural backwardness. The 2006 election—which saw social conservatives such as Rick Santorum and Kenneth Blackwell go down to humiliating defeat—suggests that non-southerners have grown particularly impatient with the South’s brand of in-your-face religiosity.

It would be premature to write off the Republicans, considering how many were doing the same to the Democrats just two years ago. The Republicans still have two potent Presidential candidates between John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, and the party will be less closely tied to Bush’s failures.

While a personality such as these can still win the White House, it will be harder for the Republicans to rebuild as a national party. So far they are showing a tendency to retreat towards their base, which ultimately limits them to the South. Their backwards ideas which are divorced from reality and which have been repudiated by most thinking Americans do not provide a good basis for rebuilding.

15 Comments

  1. 1
    Probus says:

    It is interesting to note that when the dems lost in 2004 many in the party wanted to move to the center. We chose a pro-life leader in the Senate – Sen. Harry Reid. We supported pro-life a candidate like Bob Casey in PA, a pro-gun rights candidate like John Tester in MT, a former repug like Jim Webb in VA and an extremely conservative candidate like Harold Ford in TN who supported Bush’s tax cuts and was pro-gun rights. But the repugs instead of moving away from their extreme right-wing stance on many social and cultural issues they want to move closer to them. Some repugs think they lost not because they were conservative but because they weren’t conservative enough.

  2. 2
    superdestroyer says:

    The Republicans are in the worst possible situation. They are a minority party but any change they make will lose them more votes than it will gain.

    The real question is what will the US be like as a single party state. If the Republicans become a regional party it will lose its financial backing and quicly become irrelevent. However, how does having only one relevent political party affect politics in the US. Does the Democrats become more moderate when conservatives start voting in the Democratic primary. Does corruption and nepotism increase under such a system. Does government become less responsive.

    If you look at the bluest area in the US, the District of Columbia it does not look that great for the US to be a one party state and it looks very unpleasant for the middleclass.

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    suberdestroyer,

    I don’t think the US will become a single party state. Either the Republicans will find a way to get beyond their extremists and recover, a third party will fill the gap, or the Democrats will split.

    Short term we may have an era like the previous one in which Democrats controlled Congress but Republicans often controlled the White House. This can’t continue long term as long as the Republicans are confined to the South as they will stop developing candidates such as ohn McCain and Rudy Giuliani who currently can win nationally.

    If they remain the only party, sooner or later Democrats will splinter. Currently Democrats are united in opposition to what the Republicans have done, but there are differences in views on what to do in the future. This could easily lead to them splitting into two parties.

    Looking at past history of the parties, the most likely possibility is that Repubicans will find a way to recover. They continue to have some advantages such as the equal number of Senators for small states and all the safe districts they have created.

  4. 4
    superdestroyer says:

    The Republicans also have some huge advantages:

    1. Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews just will not vote for Republicans. Since the black and Hispanic populations are growing much faster than whites, the Republicans have to win an increasing share of the white votes with each election. I think the time has come that the Republicans have maxed out the white vote that they will receive.

    2. Third parties are impossible to establish. The Democratic Party have core constiuancies that a third party just does not have.

    3. In states that do not have a functional Republican party like Mass, DC, or VT, the democrats show no signs of spliting. The Democrats have the advantage that as long as each special interest group gets what it wants, the groups go along with each other. The problems will start when the Republicans are not around to moderate the mutual backscratching. Why would any speical interest groups leave the Democrats when it would mean giving up the “goodies” of being in power.

    I live near DC and see what happens when a government is dominated by the Democrats without any real opposition. It is not a very pretty sight.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    Third parties were not successful in the past when they had to compete with both Democrats and Republicans. If the Republicans were to really die out this would leave an opening for a new party to fill the vacuum. The internet would also make it much easier than in the past to organize a new party.

    States which have not historically had a functional Republican party are poor models for what would happen. In most areas a large number of people who voted for Democrats have voted against them in the recent past. Most likely there would be divisions which would lead them to vote for someone else in the future.

    If it is not a pretty site to have the Democrats dominating without real competition, this would just give more reason for some to vote for an alternative in areas where they had choices in the past.

  6. 6
    Nick says:

    Excellent piece Ron. For the record, I wrote a piece at Dem Daily a few months ago that attacked Zell Miller and turned his book title on its head. This peice here is better.

    Frankly, I don’t see the GOP nominating Guliani or Romney (cultural liberals from the NE the nominee of a southernized GOP? Nope, don’t see it. McCain maybe, though my money (at least for the moment) is on Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas. Smooth talker and southerner who’s not part of the “mess in Washington”-could be attractive to the GOP.

    At the same time like you say, don’t write off the GOP. People outside the South are growing tired of the South’s in your face religiosity, but the GOP has been given up for dead before (e.g. after Watergate and Carter’s victory in 1976) and to put things mildly, wasn’t dead.

  7. 7
    Nick says:

    One other thing I would add is economics. Even a middle or working class social conservative can quibble and then some with southern Republicans. Pretend for the moment you make less than 50K (or even 60K), don’t like abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. Still, would you vote for a party whose base is the most anti-union region of the country? The region with the most regressive tax rates, and the worst rated schools? Would you vote for a party whose base region-to quote a southern scholar-“has more poverty and elects more politicans who are oblivious to the needs of the poor”? I know I wouldn’t.

  8. 8
    Nick says:

    Ron

    One thing I keep meaning to praise you for but never do so here it is.

    First, some quick facts.

    While Kerry received a greater percent of the under $50,000 vote than both CLinton and Gore, he received less of the over 50K vote than both Clinton and Gore. While over 50K voters in the South gave Kerry only 33% of the vote, Michiganders (is that the word for people from Michigan? It’s Marylanders out here in MD) of that income group also voted for Bush 55%-44% (I assume you were part of the 44%). Under 50K Michiganders went for Kerry 58%-40%.

    I assume from your posts that you live in Michigan and have a household income over 50K. If so, you did the gutsiest thing a person can do-go against you peers. Without getting into too much detail, I’ve had a number of instances where I went against my peers (and man that ain’t easy to do, they call it peer pressure for a reason).

    As an person who is independent-minded and peer defier, I salute you, sir.
    By the way, today’s NYT hints that Hillary is gonna run. I’m no doctor, but I always had some real questions about HIllarycare even back in 1993-94. I know you’ve criticized Hillarycare in the past. Do you think you could do a post giving specficic reasons and the doctor’s perspective on why Hillary’s plan was bunk? If you have already done so, could I get the link to that post could I have it? Democrats have to know why Hillary is the wrong candidate for Dems on health care. Because frankly, I don’t think Hillary has a prayer of winning the general election if she is the nominee of the party in 2008. I weant John Kerry again, but if I can’t have him Dems, don’t saddle me with Hil.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    Nick,

    You have to keep these statistics in perspective. For any group that one party wins the majority of votes, there is generally a number of people in the same group who went the other direction.

    To really do a detailed post on Hillary Care I’d have to go back thru all the specifics and I’m not sure that is worthwhile as I doubt she will run on that platform. I have mentioned some problems and I’m sure I’ll get into some of the general problems with her plan if she does run.

    I wouldn’t put my money on someone like Giuliani winning the GOP nomination but it is possible that the conservaive candidates could split the vote if none of them dominate, leaving Giuliani looking the strongest. Romney appears to be moving sharply to the right. Giuliani also has the advantage that he might appear to have the best chance to win, and Republicans will not want to be shut out of both Congress and the White House.

  10. 10
    Nick says:

    Ron

    Agree on the statistics, but going against the majority is never easy so my salute remains. Agree about Guliani scenario, but I think conservatives would probably coalesce around a candidate to be the anti-Guliani.

    As for Hillary, if she does run, I agree that she probably won’t run on a health care platform-so does this mean that if she is the nominee Dems will have to give up their commitment to expanding health care or national health insurance? I think it might, given Hillary’s record on this issue.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    I don’t think Hillary would run on her previous plan but that doesn’t mean Democrats will give up health care. It would be hard in the primaries, especially if Kerry is in the race and brings back his health care plan.

    Hillary is obviously in a difficult position on health care. She can’t run on her old plan, which was so bad it cost Democrats control of Congress, but it is also difficult to admit that her major activities in government while Bill was in office was faulty. So far she has stated she will bring back health care but has avoided specifics.

  12. 12
    superdestroyer says:

    No one here has given the tiniest of reasons why the US will not become a one party country dominated by the Democrats. The demographics trends alone mean that by 2040 or so the number of people who will automatically vote Democrat will be over 50%. Also given the current state of campagin finance reform and campaign reform, the Republicans could easily be legislated out of existence by 2112. All the Democrats would need to do is expand McCain-Feingold to limit issue ads at all times and to bring back some form of the Fairness Doctrine. Having the Democrats in control of redistricting in most states gives the Democratic party a chance to eliminate more than 20 Republican Congressman.

    In the future, unlike the past, there will many more negative feed back loops instead of positive feedback loops. There is not a current blue state that the Republicans stand a chance of picking up Congressmen, Senator, or state house reps in. In addition, many states like Colorado, Arizona, and Missouri will quickly shift to blue.

    At the lowest point for the Democratic Party, they still had about half the govenors, over 40 Us Senators and about 45% of the US Congressmen. By 2010, the Democrats can easily have 60 Senators, 2/3 of the Congressmen, and control over 40 statehouse. Such a situation would mean that the US as a whole will operate like DC , Mass., or New Jersey. The problem is that such places are not ver pleasant places to be working class.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    The entire hitory of the two party system argues against the Democrats taking this degree of power. Repeatedly people from one party think this and are quickly shown to be wrong. Republicans were thought to be doomed after the depression and after Watergate. Republicans were speaking of a permanenet majority just two years ago. If things do get off balance the parties are forced to adjust to achieve votes from new sources. One party just cannot maintian univesal support for long, which is the ultimate lesson of what we are seeing in the west. Even in a Republican strong hold such as Kansas, moderate Repubicans are breaking off from the Repubicans and running as Democrats allowing the two party system to recover.

  14. 14
    superdestroyer says:

    Sorry Ron,

    You can cite history but how do the Republicans reestablish some portion of competativeness when the portion of the population that is black or hispanic is growing. The only way that the Reublicans can remain viable in the future is to crack the monolithic voting blocks that are black voters and Hispanic voters.

    The Democrats can maintain overwhelmingly support just like they do in Mass, Conn, DC, Chicago, NYC because they have a totally irrelevent Republican party to run against.

    What position can the Republicans to be competative when the Democrats get a majority of both the Jewish vote (at close to the 90% level) and a majority of the islamic vote.

    Anyone who talked two years ago about Republican dominance just did not understand the Demographic of the situation. Any congressional district that is more than 40% black is an automatc win for the Democrats. The number of those types of district are growing. The Republicans just do not have the 90% bases of support like the Democratic party does.

    Campaign contributions also reinforce the winning Democrats. The Democrats never lost their base of unions and minority contributors but it is easy to see how the Republicans can and will lose business PAC contributions. Also, the Democratic Party can legislate the Republicans and any potential third party out of existence using campaign finance reform and political speech regulation. The tipping point will be when a state like California or Colorado votes to eliminate initiative and referemdum.

    In the long run, anyone interested in politics will decide that they half to be a Democrat. Everyone else will see that nothing can be changed at the ballot box just like DC and Mass.

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:

    You’re assuming a static situation among demographic groups. It is unlikely to turn out that way. It is also unlikley Repubicans will lose business groups as a source of contributions. Many areas which voted Democratic this year due to unusual circumstances could easily go Republican again in the future when Bush and Iraq are no longer hanging over their heads.

Leave a comment