GOP sees business vote slipping away

October 2, 2007

For the last several decades, as nearly all political observers know, the two broad coalitions that make up the Republican Party are business interests (tax cuts, minimal regulation, free trade) and social/religious conservatives (anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-church-state separation, pro-gun). The two didn’t necessarily have much in common, but they were under the same GOP tent, and they tried not to step on each other’s toes.

Over the last several years, the business interests started noticing that they were losing. The modern-day Republican Party spent freely, turned huge surpluses into huge deficits, and stopped believing the government should pay its bills. At the same time, the same party shifted its rhetorical focus onto winning elections through social issues.

The obvious effect was driving away younger voters from the GOP, but as Jackie Calmes explained in a front-page WSJ piece today, Republicans are even driving traditional fiscal conservatives away in droves. (the piece is available to non-subscribers)

The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title.

New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party’s identity — what strategists call its “brand.” The votes of many disgruntled fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.

Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don’t share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries.

Some leading conservative voices from this wing of the party have grudgingly acknowledged that the GOP no longer represents their beliefs.

Alan Greenspan told the WSJ, “The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize.” He’s not alone.

Some well-known business leaders have openly changed allegiances. Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive John Mack, formerly a big Bush backer, now supports Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. John Canning Jr., chairman and chief executive of Madison Dearborn Partners, a large private-equity firm, now donates to Democrats after a lifetime as a Republican. Recently, he told one Democratic Party leader: “The Republican Party left me” — a twist on a line Ronald Reagan and his followers used when they abandoned the Democratic Party decades ago to protest its ’60s and ’70s-era liberalism. […]

[P]olling data confirm business support for Republicans is eroding. In the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in September, 37% of professionals and managers identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, down from 44% three years ago.

Calmes’ analysis is very good, and definitely worth reading, but I’d add just one thing — the irony is, if you asked the Dobson/Robertson crowd, they’d say the exact the same thing.

Go into any meeting of a prominent religious right group today and ask about the Republican Party. You’ll see a lot of people rolling their eyes. The religious right provides the party with foot-soldiers on Election Day, but once GOP officials return to work, the movement’s agenda is at the bottom of the priority list. What do social conservatives have to show for the last several years of Republican dominance? On their top issues — abortion, gays, and state-sponsored religion — very few items have been checked off the to-do list.

Worse, they say, arguably the top two GOP presidential candidates for 2008 — Giuliani and Romney — were pro-choice and pro-gay up until a few minutes ago.

So, what we’re left with is a party made up of two disparate coalitions, both of which feel let down, betrayed, and ignored. And oddly enough, I’d go so far as to suggest they’re both largely right, failed by a party that simply forgot how to govern.

It couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate group of people.

Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive John Mack, formerly a big Bush backer, now supports Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

Gee, I wonder why. Not.

IMO we’ve had enough Republicrats, we need a real Democrat, not another triangulator.

  • How can a party that fundamentally does not believe in government ever be expected to govern, let alone to govern responsibly?

  • Wow, you might have a 3-way split of the GOP:

    1. The social conservatives who want to create the Republic of Gilead.

    2. The business-types who want to turn America into a larger version of Dubai.

    and,

    3. The pitiful 28 percenters who still cling to Bush.

  • If the rest of the Democrats follow Obey’s lead (and revisit the hard-to-swallow wisdom of Bill Clinton’s “biggest tax hike in history”), capturing fiscal conservatism would create a worthy permanent Democratic majority (assuming they reverse course on the civil rights bombardment they’ve been accomplices to and resume their tradition of social freedoms.)

    They’ll be as libertarian as I’d need them to be on order to be HAPPY about being a Democrat.

  • I’m hoping that an important reason business is turning away from the Republicans is that maybe business leaders are realizing that despite their bitching about taxes and regulation, that a sound and stable government that exercises reasonable regulation and a just degree of taxation is better for business than a corrupt bunch of politicians selling their votes off to the nearest businessman. Gutting this nation’s economic security through idiotic tax cuts, runaway spending to buy Republican crony votes and disregrading the need to move beyond fossil fuels for a host of good reasons is as bad for their business as it is for the citizens of this nation. Here’s hoping that business is seeing the light and turning away from the right.

  • we need a real Democrat, not another triangulator

    I disagree RacerX. I think we need a triangulator. Triangulation is how we calculate distance and depth. It’s an invaluable skill, and I don’t have a problem with it.

    If you don’t vote for the Dem in the general, you are essentially voting for the Republican. If Obama is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. If HRC is the nominee, I expect the grown-ups here to reciprocate and vote for her. Do not hand this nation back to the Republicans for another four years.

  • I wouldn’t vote for her if you gave me all of her corporate contributions –and that has everything to do with her voting record and stated policy positions.

    Thanks very much Haik, but I’ll exercise my most revered and solemn Constitutional right using my own judgement. To hell with political solidarity.

  • If you don’t vote for the Dem in the general, you are essentially voting for the Republican. -Haik Bedrosian

    I hate this kind of anti-democratic rhetoric with a pasion. A non-vote is not a vote for a Republican or a Democrat. It’s a vote for no one. We have the absolute right as Americans to not cast our vote if no one meets our standards as I plan to do if Hillary is the candidate. I also won’t be voting for a Republican candidate either.

    What I will be voting for when I don’t vote for either is an end to the Iraq war, and probably by November 2008, an end to the Iran war.

    Their blood will not be on my hands, and I won’t vote for anyone from any party who will enable or pursue total war.

    When you put forth this argument, you only show your disdain for the democratic process and the same ‘party before country’ mentality that Democrats accuse Republicans of. Be better than that.

  • I wouldn’t vote for her if you gave me all of her corporate contributions –and that has everything to do with her voting record and stated policy positions.Jkap 8

    So you’d rather have a Republican take the White House, than vote for Hillary Clinton. How noble.

    To hell with political solidarity.

    Translation: To hell with winning, and to hell with the republic itself.

  • Translation: To hell with winning, and to hell with the republic itself. -Haik Bedrosian

    I’d rather have someone who won’t pursue total war policies. You should be ashamed for questioning Jkap’s principles because he doesn’t want to support her. Isn’t this a democracy?

    You’re acting like a bully. Shameful.

    Translation: To hell with winning, and to hell with the republic itself. -Haik Bedrosian

    Is starting a war with Iran winning? What’s this winning you speak of, anyway? I thought we were trying to elect a competent governing body, not a trophy or ring.

    Winning is standing up for the Constitution and the American way, and that means defending the right to vote however someone damned well wants to.

  • Call me cynical but I suspect this isn’t sucessful business critters feeling disillusioned by their party as much as sucessful business critters are dismayed by the candidates.

    They know the GOP doesn’t have a chance in Hell in 2009 so they’re trying to make friends with the Democrats now to ensure their place at the table when such topics as taxes, green house gases and health care come up.

  • Is starting a war with Iran winning?doubtful 12

    You are referring to a vote on a non-binding resolution that has no force of law and costs no money. It doesn’t mean she’ll start a war. It just means she’s triangulating.

    You’re acting like a bully. Shameful.

    You want to give me a tiny break, please? First of all, I’m entitled to my opinion too. Secondly, Jkap can take care of himself. Thirdly- If Obama is so much better, why doesn’t he speak up about all the weirdness and unanswered questions surrounding 9-11? He’s a mainstream Dem, just like HRC and if he loses to her, he will ask you to vote for her, like I am now.

  • Now, I can understand what Haik is driving at—paying whatever price that needs paying to deny the neo-GOP an additional four years with which to rape the Republic—but to employ any coersive means that, in effect, seek to deny any individual of their inherent rights to free expression as guaranteed under the Frist Amendment is, in my opinion, no less a threat to that Amendment than is the current series of actions being committed by the current administration. Or have we so soon forgotten about people being arrested at public events for so little as simply wearing anti-war t-shirts, or having an anti-war bumper sticker?

    People will support Obama, and say to hell with Hillary—not merely because they feel HRC is the lesser qualified, but also on the grounds that she is wholly unqualified.

    Other people will take the opposite stance, preferring Hillary at all costs, and rejecting Obama—even if he is the nominee.

    If there are those who say to so much as one single individual, “You must turn aside from your Constitutionally-guaranteed right to voice your convictions,” then those people should be the front rank in seeking the means with which to form a political coalition between the disparate candidate camps. For if there is this much power and conviction behind each of these two divided camps—Barack’s and Hillary’s—then imagine the massive power that would rise up to support a Clinton-Obama…or Obama-Clinton…ticket……………

  • Everyone talks as if Hillary is already the nominee. I still support Kucinich as he is the only candidate that will bring any real change and is so far ahead of the other candidates on all the issues that the others don’t even compare except by name recgnition.

    I will not vote for a war supporter or for someone I think will support attacking Iran, or who will just be another corporate flunkie. Whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president but I am so tired of voting for the lesser of two evils especially when they are both evil. I will not vote for war no matter who is proposing it.
    This is the only year that dems will win the presidency by default, when “electability” is not an issue…when we don’t have to compromise on getting the best candidate. I still see the bumper stickers I dreamed about and they say..Kucinich/Edwards ’08…the truth ticket…the real change.
    Republicans can pander to Clinton or Obama for favors but they will be in the same boat as the rest of us…bailing out the country from Republican rule.

  • Hillary is just a republican in democrats clothing, she is a huge money slut like all the rest. Obama is the best chance this country has of getting someone level headed into office. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a republican because thats what she is; based on her previous actions. She pushes forward socialist programs to maintain her democratic base but when it comes down to it – shes just a big ole Republocrat!

    go obama in 08

  • Call me cynical but I suspect this isn’t sucessful business critters feeling disillusioned by their party as much as sucessful business critters are dismayed by the candidates.

    They know the GOP doesn’t have a chance in Hell in 2009 so they’re trying to make friends with the Democrats now to ensure their place at the table when such topics as taxes, green house gases and health care come up.

    tAiO

    This is my thought on the matter exactly. The Country Club Republicans know that one of their own has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the White House in 2008. They want someplace to park for four or eight years until they can continue the process of dismantling the federal government. They’ll sit at the table and smile. They’ll do what they can to minimize the damage to their own position. In the mean time their water carriers in the media will be sticking the shiv in the Democrats back.

    Democrats will be wise to try to let them have a seat at the table, in order to keep an eye on them. But never ever think that they can be trusted.

  • Actually, there were three groups in the Repug coalition that Norquist put together: the Gods, the Guns, and the Greeds.

    It is falling apart now. The Greeds are pissed off about gummint spending. The Gods are furious over their pet agenda items failing. But the Guns– the military-industrial complex– and the oil industry which specifically has bankrolled and supports this Bush Junta– is very happy.

    So the modern Repugs are a wannabe military dictatorship focussed on concentrating power and controlling the supplies of oil and keeping prices high, and nothing else.

    Not quite the coalition Norquist held together, anymore.

  • … so the corporatists lose the repubs and what happens one might ask? They already have bought -with the same money I might add- the dems who will do their bidding with as much alacrity as the newts and mccains et al of the g.o.p. The sad part of this story is that it is still news to some of you liberal idiots that pols are bought and paid for before the race begins … I have quat a long time ago -quat: past participle of quit .. instead of saying/writing ‘I have quitted’ I said ‘I quat” … get it goobers?

  • My father is one of those “business republicans” who is disgusted… while I don’t think it’s likely that he’d vote D at all (he’s more likely to register a protest vote), I would be 100% sure that if HRC was the nominee, he’d vote for Dobson himself before he voted for her.

    Every time someone talks up HRC, I remind myself that at least 40% of the country would not vote for her under any circumstance.

    I’m not one of those people myself, but I think we can do better.


  • JKap:Thanks very much Haik, but I’ll exercise my most revered and solemn Constitutional right using my own judgement. To hell with political solidarity.

    As much truth as there is to your idealism, remember that it is just that and that Republicans (whose entire ideology is built on blind obedience and loyalty) will be very happy to know this and hope that there are many more like you.

    Personally, I wish that, instead of casting “100%” of our vote for a single candidate, we could vote on a scale of choices so that our vote isn’t thrown away just because we’re audacious enough to vote for a more “Naderesque” candidate.

  • Pingback: Balloon Juice

    • Comments are closed.