If Reagan Democrats existed, they’re gone for good

May 26, 2008

We’ve been hearing for about a generation now about “Reagan Democrats” — white, working-class voters who voted Republican in the 1980s, and who pundits believe Democrats have to get back if they hope to be competitive on the national level again. (That the Democratic candidate has won more votes than the Republican candidate in three of the last four presidential campaign does not seem to affect this analysis.)

With this in mind, Ezra Klein had a great item yesterday about the myth of Reagan Democrats, and the futility of chasing ghosts.

Recent political history often seems startlingly immediate, its effects rippling easily into the present (as evidence, I’m spending the week reading a history of Nixon’s election.) But it’s worth remembering that Reagan was elected almost three decades ago. He won California, New York, Massachusetts, and even Vermont. Reagan Democrats were hardly the problem. It was Reagan Country. The sort of vote he put together was unique to that moment, that candidate, and those circumstances.

The electorate, its composition and universe of possible winning coalitions, is quite different now. Many, many Democratic pundits and strategists connect their party’s decline to Reagan’s win, so a tremendous amount of mental energy is expended theorizing how they can take back what he wrested from them, and which candidates can win back “the Reagan Democrats.”

But the battle isn’t to reconstruct the coalition that was dominant in the 1980s. It’s to envision and form the majority that will endure for the next ten years.

I’ve long hoped astute observations like this one are obvious to the party and the chattering class, but recent discussions lead me to think everyone needs to take Ezra’s reminder very seriously.

Digby, adding to Ezra’s piece, offered a real gem:

People who drifted to Reagan in 1980 were driven by nationalism and animus toward social change. While they may have been sympathetic to equal rights in the abstract, things started to get dicey when their own lives were impacted by busing and housing integration and women’s rights. They made themselves heard by voting with the guy who ran as the one who would “make the country proud again,” which they interpreted to mean he would make the country like it used to be.

After the smoke had cleared a few of them drifted back when a less charismatic Republican took office and a few more when the Democrats offered up Bill Clinton in 1992. But those who’ve stayed until now have stayed because they found they felt extremely comfortable in modern Republican tribal culture and they aren’t likely to leave short of a cataclysmic 1932-style realignment

Up until quite recently, it was understood that a new Democratic majority was going to be built upon the base of African Americans, unions and liberals, then capturing the hugely important growing Latino bloc while getting out the liberal youth vote (particularly young, single women.) Of course the Democratic party (the party of unions, fergawdsake) cares about the working class voter and need to get some slice of that demographic to win, but the focus would be on working class women who have been far more willing to swing Democratic than the majority of (white, non-union) working class men have been in recent years — and have proven so in this primary campaign.

The modern winning coalition for Democrats isn’t put together by getting the Reagan Democrats back. They’re long gone. But every damned election we have to obsess over getting the votes of a bunch of true blue Republican men like they’re the holy grail. They’re welcome to come over, of course, but after 30 years of pandering there’s no reason to believe they’re ever going to do it.

Any questions?

Thankfully – because the vast majority of Americans want to see change, the Democratic Party does not have to pander to the most ignorant, racist voters. This is the voting block that enabled dur chimpfurher to steal 2 elections.

The Democratic Party is at a cross-roads – we can be the party of endless triangulation and racists or we can be progressive – can’t be both.

We tried the triangulation & racist thing – didn’t work, did it.

  • In November, we need to work to oust all the bush-dog dems too – don’t need them and they have enabled the chimp each step of the way – even tacitly condoning election fraud.

  • Another thing we need to do is stop buying into the meme “Liberal = Bad”. We are doing it again, you know. Look at how quickly we run from the comment “Barack is the most liberal…etc. etc.”. How ’bout we answer with our own question, which is “We’ve had eight years of conservative, so what’s wrong with liberal?”
    I’m liberal, and I’m proud.

  • Over simple analysis – much verbage, little substance at digby, but if it trips your trigger…

    The reagan turncoats were the folks that never forgave the Democratic Party for ushering in action on civil rights. Talk all the platitudes you want about “morning in America” – all empty rhetoric.

    It was about a segregated America where the most uneducated whites felt entitled and that others would “know their place.”

  • The term “liberal” has been demonized for years – sure, we should take that back, but will need to win some elections to do that and get some things done.

    What we call progressive ideals is not important right now – perhaps best to pound that fact that self-proclaimed conservatives have had their way. Do you feel better off?

    America wants change – let’s give it to them and not worry what it is called.

  • Ronald Reagan transformed the American political landscape. There’s no doubt about that. But the transformation ultimately was bad for the country. Hopefully, there is not doubt about that either – at least among Democrats.

    But what is never mentioned is that Reagan won in 1980 against a very unpopular president.

    Jimmy Carter is the only honest man to serve as president in my lifetime (born when JFK was president). His service to the country after he left office has continued to prove that he is the kind of political leader that the founding fathers envisioned.

    Unfortunately, he wasn’t a very good president. That’s not completely his fault. Being an honest man, I don’t think he ever really understood how he was undercut by members of his own party. The economy was in shambles after Nixon (and Ford) era price controls. The Arab nations in OPEC woke up and recognized the tremendous leverage they had on the U.S. But the nail in the coffin of Carter’s presidency was when a country with a 3000 year history finally threw off the last shackles of European colonial control.

    Reagan won in 1980 because he offered a hopeful vision of a strong America. He won re-election in 1984 because the Democratic candidate (Carter’s VP Walter Mondale) came from a time of division and partisanship. Oh, and Mondale’ main argument seemed to be that it was “his turn”.

    I’ve over-simplified. But basically I’m arguing that Carter wasn’t as bad as everyone thought and Reagan wasn’t as great. Reagan was the right man at the right time, but his legacy of the last 30 years is much more negative than positive.

    I think Barck Obama can win an overwhelming victory in November. The tone of his message is the same as Reagan’s – “Yes we can!” America can be stronger, fairer and safer.

  • little bear said:
    The term “liberal” has been demonized for years – sure, we should take that back, but will need to win some elections to do that and get some things done.

    Every Democrat needs to read John Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the New York Liberal Party:
    http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

    Obama could read the speech almost word-for-word because it still rings true today.

    “And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.”

  • Any analysis of reagan needs to acknowledge that he pandered to the ignorant Appalachian crowd that kkkarl rove and shillary proclaim to be the key to victory.

    That will not be true in 2008 – those folks are not important, if they vote against their economic interests it won’t matter, and they are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of America anyhow.

  • SteveT – #7 – excellent analysis.

    The “Reagan Democrats” I know are now known as “Right Wing Movement Conservatives” and there is nothing the Democrats can do to get them back. It’s time to forget them.

  • little bear at #2 says: “In November, we need to work to oust all the bush-dog dems too” – couldn’t agree more, but it won’t happen if we wait until November – gotta get ’em in the primaries by running better Democrats against them. Hook up with VoteBlue or similar organizations that are trying to funnel our money and energy to just such candidates.

  • Considering what is at stake (the last two presidential elections should make that absolutely clear) its still shocking to me that voter turnout is so low. Even when there is a higher than normal turnout, its still nowhere near what it should be. How many more elections do we really have to endure where the “Reagan Democrats” are debated and discussed and courted and flattered as though those are the only voters who matter? I was watching the primary returns on MSNBC and someone mentioned Obama easily winning Oregon which is almost all white and has a large “workingclass” population. Pat Buchanan begaun bellowing, “I don’t care about Oregon! Oregon doesn’t matter. He Lost Kentucky!” Let’s be honest, “Reagan Democrat” has become a genteel term for the low-lieing fruit Hillary Clinton was picking in West Virginia and Kentucky. I can’t help but think the constant pandering to this group has the effect of turning off a large part of the voting population. Barack Obama’s fundraising success and the new voters he has turned out is noteworthy. IF he wins in November (and I think he will) it will be in many ways, despite the “Reagan Democrats.” And that will be a worthwhile turn of events.

  • But, but, but…

    The point is correct that we will never “get” the Reagan Democrats. BUT, and it’s the one insight that I will give Rove, that isn’t what you have to do. Like Bush 04 with Hispanics and Jews, the idea isn’t to “get” or “win” the group. Rather, the idea is to do just a little better than expected with each particular group: a percentage point here, two points there. Shave a little slice off your opponent’s expected margin here, shave a little slice there–pretty soon, like with Everett Dirksen and millions, you’ve really got something.

    Why can’t Obama start doing town halls in union halls, giving more speeches at union conventions, sending the message that he isn’t all arugula, and is, on a policy and personal basis, working class friendly? That involves no sacrifice of principles or other constituencies or anything else bad.

  • The question for this election is how many people will vote against their own self-interest just because one candidate hates more of the same things they do? I do believe in the arguments that others have put forth that Republicans represented a bulwark against cultural and social change that some felt would undermine their status in society. Whether that was the Archie Bunker segment of society concerned about the increasing power of women or whites fearing that blacks might become their social and economic equals. This election it’s immigrants and Muslims. Last election gays and terrorists.

    But instead of preserving a social status quo, Republicans stole from the insecure Americans that supported them by creating a class warfare instead, killing off the middle class that so many of these “Reagan Democrats” felt they were a part of. The “Barack is a Muslim” lies and racial fears are the last vestige Republicans have to hold on to power against a candidate who threatens to reverse the battles won by the wealthy over the rest of American society. Too bad we have to experience such a severe economic collapse for so many Americans to realize that Republicans are not looking out for them at all.

  • One of Reagan’s legacies is that he made racism not unfashionable. The double-negative construction is awkward, but more accurate.

    In the 1970s civil rights was progressing and opposition was decreasing. Many people resented affirmative action and forced busing, but they were hesitant to speak up. It’s not that racism was eliminated, it was just . . . not what the fashionable people did.

    Then came Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, using racist code words like “quotas” and “welfare queens”. Suddenly, it was acceptable again to tell racist jokes and express resentment over “racial quotas”. After all, who is more fashionable than the people in the White House?

    The way Democrats need to deal with the “hard working Americans, white Americans” (who, by the way, will vote for a white woman over a black man but who will vote for a senile, war-mongering white man over a white woman) is to make racism socially unacceptable again.

    First, instead of waiting for the Democratic convention to introduce his life story (which is traditional) Barack Obama needs to start now. Every time Obama speaks, he needs to introduce himself this way:

    My name is Barack Hussein Obama. The name ‘Hussein’ means beautiful one. Like all mothers, mine is biased. So I’ll let you decide how accurate that is.

    Of course, my mother couldn’t know what my middle name would mean to people 40 years later. But back in the 1920s I bet quite a few mothers who named their children ‘Adolf’ had no idea what they were doing to their children.

    Obama needs to tell about his Kenyan father, who left when he was two. He needs to talk about his Christian upbringing, and his 20 years at Trinity United Church, but using humor by saying, “but you may already have heard something about that.”

    Second, I believe the majority of the 11 percent who say Obama is secretly a Muslim or those who cite Jeremiah Wright are just looking for any excuse to not vote for a popular black man. The proper response to someone who says they think Obama is a Muslim is to ask, “Are you that fucking stupid!?” The way to get rid of racists is to shame them into going away.

    The third thing the Democrats have to do is get Clinton off the stage. Her justification for continuing her campaign is that she can get the racists to vote for her. This is simply legitimizing racism. Democrats need to publicly declare that in November they don’t want the votes of people who would rather vote for a candidate who will continue Bush’s anti-worker, anti-soldier, pro-millionaire policies rather than vote for a black man. The loss of the racist votes will be more than offset by the influx of votes from people who have been waiting for a candidate with integrity.

  • Those Reagan Democrats helped make his 1980 election a landslide. Carter won only his home state of Georgia, Mondale’s home state of Minnesota, Hawaii and…that racist hick state (that low lying fruit Hillary picked up) of West Virginia.
    You know, it just might be possible that some people stereotype “working class” voters in the same manner that other people stereotype immigrants or African Americans, gays, women, etc.
    It is possible that not all people of a certain economic class share the same prejudices. It is possible that not all college-educated, higher income voters despise the working class and feel morally superior to them.

  • I am an immigrant and I have replaced at least one Reagan Democrat. If they’re too dumb to see the perils of voting Republican they can go to hell for all I care.

  • Call ’em “Reagan Democrats” if you like. I have another word for them: Dupes. The popularity of Ronald Reagan was always just that: his personal popularity. Reagan garnered the support of a lot of people who would have disagreed with every one of his policies if only they’d bother to find out what they were. Reagan put on a good front – such a good front that people voted for the facade. Trying to put together any kind of coalition based on Reagan’s support without the presence of Reagan is like trying to remake “Casablanca” without Bogart: pointless, fruitless, ludicrous.

    (And here I invoke Will Durst’s comments on Reagan and Casablanca in the 80s: Reagan was offered the lead in Casablanca before Bogart. Just think, if he had taken it, Bogart would be president today… Of course, Casablanca would be a shitty movie.)

  • There is the implication here that supports of Hillary Clinton are Reagan Democrats. Wrong. There is also the implication that those who opposing Barack Obama are racist. Wrong again. I have opposed Sen. Obama quest for the nomination for several reasons, including my pessimistic view that America has not sufficiently overcome racism; I do not share the hope and optimism that infects Obama supporters. I call myself a realist. And as a realist I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

    Oh, and one last thing: Paul Krugman, once again, cautions all those who think that November is a slam dunk.

  • SteveT,

    What has saved the Democratic Party is that it has given up most of its race based social engineering ideas. Remember, crime was at its highest level in 1980, the Bakke decision had been a national headline, the NYC blackout made most of white America want to end racial social engineering. Forced busing was in full swing along with white flight.

    If the Democratic Party has keep on the path of forced busing and hard set racial quotas, it would probably not be around today.

    It is hard to say that most people see the world your way when Michigan voted 58% to end racial quotas and set asides.

  • Everyone talks about the “Reagan Democrats” as if they were a natural part of the Democratic party that Reagan seduced. I’m not sure that’s correct. Is it possible that the Reagan Democrats (mostly Southern and fairly conservative) probably would have been Republican all along except for the fact they were pissed at the party of Lincoln over the Civil War and ending slavery? Was voting for Reagan the abberation or was 100+ years (1865-1980) of voting Dem the abberation that was finally ended by the Civil Rights movement? FDR certainly had problems getting his legislation past them, didn’t he?

    As for Carter, Strobe Talbot once wrote (in a book about the SALT II Treaty) that Carter thought he could solve any problem by simply understanding it to death. Carter is highly intelligent and a good man, but he was a lousy pres.

  • superdestroyer said:
    If the Democratic Party has keep on the path of forced busing and hard set racial quotas, it would probably not be around today.

    That’s probably true. The political pendulum had swung a bit too far to the left as people wanted to fix things right away.

    But I was active in sports from 7th grade through high school in the late 70s. That allowed me to see schools all around the Milwaukee, WI area. For those who may not know, Milwaukee in the 70s was identified as the most racially segregated city in the North.

    What I saw was schools in historically hispanic and black neighborhoods in the middle 70s, when busing was just getting started, that were run-down, dingy and poorly furnished. What I saw at those same schools five years later was new paint, new equipment and refurbished buildings. Did busing have something to do with this? Or was it merely coincidence that the school boards of Milwaukee and some inner-ring suburbs suddenly suddenly started to spend more money on those schools and the fact that there were now white students attending those schools had nothing to do with it.

    I don’t believe it was a coincidence.

    We can probably get rid of most affirmative action programs at this time. But someone still needs to pay attention, so they can ask law schools why they accept so few minorities, and ask businesses why they have never had a member of their board of directors who isn’t white.

    As far as the Michigan referendum on “set asides”, all referendums depend on how they’re phrased and how they are advertised. As an intellectual exercise, what do you think the result would be for a referendum worded thusly:

    1) A local municipality may not conduct their business so that contracts are only given to business owned by white persons.

    2) A business in Michigan may not employ only white persons in supervisory and executive positions.

    We’re back to making it socially unacceptable to be racist. It was public pressure the forced Augusta National Golf Club to accept a black member. But the public’s attention is a fickle thing. Does anyone know whether Augusta has actually ended its racist practices? Or doesn’t the public care anymore?

  • I wish the MSM would just call “Reagan Democrats” what they really are: old white men.

    There’s nothing wrong with being an old white man; some day I hope to be one.

    However, the current crop of melanin challenged males of a certain age is highly unlikely to vote Democratic in any presidential election, much less one featuring “A black guy with a funny name”.

    The good news is, Obama doesn’t have to win a majority of old white men. He only needs to get a decent sized chunk of their vote. which he will.

  • SteveT,

    Now in Milwaukee you have a school system that is 60% black, 20% Hispanics and only 15% white. It also has one of the highest drop out rates in the nation. By any numerical evaluation, the degregation efforts in Milwaukee was/is a failure. The schools became worse, whites fled or started paying for private schools, and the situation for minorities got worse relative to whites.

  • Reagan democrats just became part of a larger party…the “money party”. That is primarily what Reagan ushered in that so many dems were willing to become a part of. Let money flow at the top end. Remove government regulations and let the wealthy determine their own accountability. Get the governments nose out of big business and keep it focused on eradicating social programs. Need money…just write a check for it and let the treasury cash it for you.

    Reagan is dead and so are the Reagan democrats. His policies may live on but we are in the process of doing something about that as well. 30yrs of Reaganomics has all but destroyed our economy while causing the “money party” to flourish. The disparity of incomes in America is absurd and the lack of government regulations produced Enron.

    Ronnie raygun was the worst of presidents yet a hero among republicans.

    ***Steve T #16*** excellent idea on Obama getting his story out now. Hope he gets the message.

  • I would argue, mostly out of ignorance, I’m afraid, that a fair amount of Reagan Democrats were, as has been mentioned, against the perception that social programs were helping everyone but them. If their animus isn’t racist in nature, they can be wooed back if they can be made to understand that every since then, the Federal government has been on a nearly ceaseless campaign of talking this money and diverting it to the most wealthy companies and individuals.

    I also wonder what effect that Rep. John Anderson’s 7% had.

  • So, I dunno, but hasn’t the Democratic Party won those states since ’88 and ’92, anyhow? So, basically, even if we dislike the Reagan Democrats, they’re already voting Democrat.

    Whoever was a Democrat before Reagan and is a Republican now really isn’t a ‘Reagan Democrat’, so much as a ‘Republican’.

  • School desegregation in Milwaukee was a failure because it was designed to be – internal documents have been found/released that show that undermining Milwaukee Public Schools was intentional.

    This was done in many subtle ways – they did not want segregation to work and wanted to be able to show the nation that it didn’t.

    This is actually what happened in most urban areas, but in Milwaukee, some of the documentation has been made public.

  • (That the Democratic candidate has won more votes than the Republican candidate in three of the last four presidential campaign does not seem to affect this analysis.)

    And less than 51% in all four.

    Democrats have won against WEAK Republicans using ineffective strategies.

    80’s liberals bought everybody whatever they wanted and taxed them for it. WRONG.
    90’s triangulators PROMISED everything, delivered virtually nothing, raised taxes, and balanced the budget (Thank you Ross Perot) WRONG. (but close enough to win a plurality)

    My prescription? Time for the peace dividend. Slash defense spending, invest some of it back to intelligence to keep tabs on worldwide whack jobs.
    Eliminate the medicare drug plan or keep only the first 2000 in benefits.
    Put taxes on those making 200 grand back where they were and reinstate the “hoarding tax” (The proper name for the estate tax/death tax).
    Put some more funding from defense and tax increases into rebuilding neglected infrastructure to create jobs in the short term and pay for printers for every touch screen voting machine so the Thug party can never ever take our democracy away.

    Once the debt is under control cut taxes ruthlessly so the Republicans no longer have any worthwhile weapon in their arsenal. Tax cutting is the one trick their pony does well. Take THAT away and you’re left with a jackass.

    That, friends, delivers 55% for the foreseeable future.

  • Reagan Democrats? Psshh, whatta myth.
    White working class voters WEST of the Mississippi voted for Obama in droves. East of the Mississippi he ran into problems. I say SO what?
    Our real focus should be on presenting every detail about McCain’s record and character.
    He wants to run on character? Fine! We’ll put out ads about his first marriage, his temper, and his second wife’s drug addiction and his manipulations regarding that.
    He wants to run on military service? Fine! We’ll talk about the USS Forrestar and the number of planes he crashed and his damn near bottom class graduation.
    He wants to run on his record? GReAT! We’ll talk about how he consistenly flip-flops, except when it comes to voting against civil rights for women and minorities, and when he says he votes with the Dems but doesn’t.
    He wants to bawl, let’s brawl!
    http://www.truth-about-mccain.blogspot.com

  • Ah, yes. The wise words of all the Urban Archipelago types who so easily look down their noses on a) poor rural voters; b) poor rural white voters; c) anybody over the age of…what is it now…45?; seniors; Catholics; Jews. In other words: anybody who doesn’t look, think, dress, talk and act exactly as you do. Sounds like the Republican Party to me.

    But when you have a eunich running as a Democrat who “gets” more Republican and Independent voters to vote for him in the primaries, but the candidate that TRUE Democrats don’t favor, it seems little more than the Republican-lite Party.

    I’m not sure what is wrong with so-called progressives/liberals that your heads are up your a**** most of the time, but it never fails to amaze me that each time the Democrats have a real chance of real victory, we walk away from the constituencies that can bring us that victory. Amazing. Absolutely amazing…

  • The gist of the comments here is that “Reagan Democrats” are conservative, old, white, racist, and southern. Okay, so then how do you explain that Virginia Senator Webb, sponsor of the improved GI Bill, introduced himself as a “Reagan Democrat” (he was after all, Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy) during an NPR profile of him as a potential Obama Vice Presidential pick? He’s not that old, appears not to be racist (his third wife is a Vietnamese-American securities lawyer), and has criticized the handling of the war in Iraq (changed parties because of his disgust) since the beginning.

    Well, yes, there’s his 1979 sexist article “Women Can’t Fight,” and his staunch pro-gun-ownership stance. But there was also the fact that it was Webb’s campaign operative, S. R. Sidarth, who drew incumbent Sen. George Allen’s “macaca” comment and possibly cost Allen the seat.

    I’m a staunch liberal who was sure that Orwell’s 1984 had arrived when Reagan was elected. I just think maybe it’s not so simple.

    PS: Actually, his reference to himself as a “Reagan Democrat” was not in the NPR piece, but perhaps in an NBC News profile I can’t locate (I couldn’t figure out why I had a visual memory of the guy standing in front of microphones). Sorry. Point stands, though. If anyone other than Joe Lieberman is a Reagan Democrat (and Lieberman is the easily demonized kind), it would be Jim Webb.

  • like Ezra, I’m also reading “nixonland.”

    the first group of democrats who turned to Nixon were the northern racists, next it was the pro-war hard-hats. the southern racists had their own candidate in ’68. by the 72 election, Nixon was working on the ‘southern strategy’ going after whites in the so called southern border states.

    by ’80, Reagen was so confident that he could even get the white vote in the deep south, he started his campaign in Mississippi.

    digby’s statement “People who drifted to Reagan in 1980 were driven by nationalism and animus toward social change,” is somewhere between naive and wrong. it was racism that drove them.

    30someyears later, i simply can’t imagine that any “Reagan democrats” still call themselves democrats anymore.

    Hillary attracted a bunch of racist voters who claimed they were democrats, but i can’t believe that any of those people will vote democratic in the fall election.

    • Comments are closed.