So much for the ‘permanent Republican majority’

March 23, 2007

This week, a Senate Republican aide said of the White House, “We just hope they leave without doing any more damage.”

If the aide was referring to damage to the Republican Party, it’s too late.
partyid

Public allegiance to the Republican Party has plunged during George W. Bush’s presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP political victories, a major survey has found.

The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found a “dramatic shift” in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, 50% of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, whereas 35% aligned with Republicans.

What’s more, the survey found, public attitudes are drifting toward Democrats’ values: Support for government aid to the disadvantaged has grown since the mid-1990s, skepticism about the use of military force has increased and support for traditional family values has decreased.

One should always be cautious about throwing around words like “realignment,” but the Pew Center’s poll suggests the Republicans’ problems go beyond just Bush and a tragic and unpopular war.

“Iraq has played a large part; the pushback on the Republican Party has to do with Bush, but there are other things going on here that Republicans will have to contend with,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Center. “There is a difference in the landscape.”

Bruce Bartlett, a conservative analyst and author of the 2006 book “Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy,” said, “There are cycles in history where one party or one movement ascends for a while and then it sows the seeds of its own self-destruction…. It’s clear we have come to an end of a Republican conservative era.”

Going over the details in the report, that’s probably not hyperbolic.

Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.

More specifically:

* Asked whether the government should care for those who can’t care for themselves, 69% of Americans said yes — up 12 points since the GOP take-over in 1994

* Asked whether the government should help the needy, even if it means greater debt, 54% said yes — up 13 points since 1994.

* Asked whether they embraced old-fashioned values about family and marriage, 76% said yes — down 8 points since 1994.

* Asked whether school boards should have the right to fire gay teachers, 28% said yes — down 11 points since 1994.

“This is the beginning of a Democratic opportunity,” said Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The question is whether we blow it or not.”

Please don’t.

Post Script: If you’re interested, the whole, 112-page Pew report is online here (pdf).

Today’s Republicans are radicals, not conservatives. We need to be putting quotation marks around the word “conservative”, or just trash the brand name altogether:

“Yeah, those conservatives, they always want more wars, more corruption, more debt, more pollution, more illegal government spying, etc etc. The only things they conserve on are ethics and brains.”

  • This is welcome news. I just knew that, as time went on under BushCo., my countrymen would ‘see the light’ and return to reason.

    Now, it appears to be the Democrats’ turn. Let’s hope that they too do not fall into a cycle of self-preservation and cronyism, and instead learn from Republican mistakes, and their own, to iterate our American Democratic experiment toward a solid governmental style that helps others, protects our planet, and engages not in military adventures, but in protection of fairness, honesty, and integrity.

    We’re still quite a young country, and perhaps it can be argued that we’re experiencing growing pains. The ‘growth’ in these last six years was not a mutual one, but was growth in the power and privelege of a few. Let’s make sure that this never happens again.

  • Ha-Ha. They’ve spent so much time trying to make “liberal” a dirty word that they forgot to keep their own label from turning into an insult.

    republican = Disaster
    republican = moronic blindness
    republican = compulsive prevarication

  • The Dems must press the case, too. The adage is that if the GOP is sinking, you throw them an anchor. Fer-instance; Steny Hoyer wrote an op-ed piece in USAToday which began ‘Since the Iraq war began….’

    That’s thoroughly unacceptable. As a senior Dem leader in Congress, he must absolutely tie the Iraq debacle around the choice made by the Decider and his enablers in the GOP Congress. At every step, the top Dem leaders must remind the American people that it was the GOP behind this state of affair and that things didn’t just ‘happen’ as the President and his people wish to imply.

    Until the GOP wipes away more of the Bush taint, they deserve to keep dropping in popularity.

  • I never could understand why folks would want a “permanent” legacy. 15-20 years is good enough to make a mark (good or bad) as well as people’s attitudes and demographics change.

    It seems that the universe has a habit of laying a hubris style beating on those who push for any sort of permanence. Like the Romans, the 1000 “Year” Reich, the Dominion of the Catholic Church and now the Repubs and their alleged majority. In 2004, I was disappointed when Kerry lost, but I remember telling a friend of mine that he shouldn’t be gloating too much about the Repubs controlling all three branches of the US gubiment as I said that if they screw this up then they have no one to blame but themselves.

    What makes this so much more disturbing is that the “permanent” majority would have happened under the dubious use of the legal system. If the Rove et al didn’t over react to Carol Lam, etc, then no one would have definate PROOF that they were going to politicize the DOJ and use it to club the Dems into oblivion. Heck of a job, Turd Blossom.

  • I am not exactly sure how to convey this, but southern Charistian conservative values I think are where some of this unease for the current incarnation of the Republican party come from. The stronger the hold by that wing of the GOP, the greater the discomfort (at least I can say that about myself). While I have never though that Americans were in general liberal, at least as defined by Republicans, I do think they miscalculated how conservative Americans were. I have never gotten the impression that the average American was all that comfortable with extremes – of either political stripe. The general arrogance and chauvanism of the Delays, Gingriches, Cornyns, etc rubs people the wrong way and since the GOP closely tied itself to those people and those leadership styles, when those people and styles overreach, get caught, and/or go out of favor the GOP follows. To me, the general drift away from the GOP should be a signal to them that Americans don’t like the new version of the GOP. Of course since these guys still control the party and because they are so arrogant, I mean deaf, they won’t change. They will never admit that they are wrong because the are Republican, and Republicans are always right. Their certainty about their rightness will blind them.

  • Let’s hope that Rasmussen, which routinely overstates Dubya’s approval ratings, will take this new information to heart and realize that polling equal numbers of Rs and Ds is why they spit out routinely misleading polls.

  • Americans were never as radically right wing as the Republicans they put in power; they were simply hoodwinked by the simplistic rhetoric of the right aimed at what had been a complacent left. Having now seen firsthand the walk that was behind the talk, I think we’re seeing a rejection of the right and return to more normal public opinion.

    That said, I wouldn’t be so quick to see the Pew results as a shift toward Democratic party. In a two-party system, rejection of one may appear to be an endorsement of the other, but it could be a shallow endorsement.

    To me, the critical point of CB’s post was made by Rep. Rahm Emanuel: “This is the beginning of a Democratic opportunity… The question is whether we blow it or not.”

    That statement was also true in 2000, 2002 and 2004. It’s up to Dem’s whether the rejection of the right in 2006 turns into support for the left in 2008 and beyond.

  • I’m with beeb52.

    We can lose the trust of the american people as easily and quickly as the Republicans have.

    It is important to govern from the middle. If the next president (Democratic) tries only to please his or her base then we will lose power once again.

  • Wow, that’s a pretty picture. I’m sorely tempted to print it out and frame it.

    NeilS wrote: “It is important to govern from the middle. If the next president (Democratic) tries only to please his or her base then we will lose power once again.”

    I’m a little hesitant to say ‘govern from the middle’ , since it seems a lot of the Democrat’s problems in the past few years arose from trying to be all things to all people, which meant that they didn’t really do much of anything or take a stand on anything. In other words, they really misunderstood what governing from the middle should be like. I would prefer to say something more wordy like, “govern effectively without a dogmatic ideological bent.”

    You are absolutely right, in my opinion, that simply pleasing the base is a recipe for disaster, especially since the people who are called ‘the base’ are often those with that dogmatic bent.

  • I think maybe one thing that’s been missed in the discussion here is the way that the media landscape shifted because of the right-wing radicals at Fox and how that affected the voting habits of many Americans. If today there was a popular media outlet with a strong liberal bent, whose viewers supported Democrats 88% to 7%*, then we would have an even playing field with the “conservatives” at Fox, who currently are being allowed to sway public opinion to the right, virtually unopposed.

    So I guess I am saying that the graph above is not even as asymetric as it would be if it wasn’t being skewed to the right. Imagine the party identification ratio if there was a level media playing field!

    * Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

    http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/hounding-fox-news-coverage-2007-03-20.html

  • Some great points made by others … which reminds me why I love this place (troll free and smart folks).

    A couple of thoughts:

    Americans were never as radically right wing as the Republicans they put in power; they were simply hoodwinked by the simplistic rhetoric of the right aimed at what had been a complacent left.
    –beep52

    Bingo! With the advent of the Internet and alternative sources of information, the simplistic rhetoric the right has used to trick people no longer holds up under scrutiny. They depend on fear and lies, both of which are easily debunked in a matter of seconds.

    I’m a little hesitant to say ‘govern from the middle’ , since it seems a lot of the Democrat’s problems in the past few years arose from trying to be all things to all people, which meant that they didn’t really do much of anything or take a stand on anything. In other words, they really misunderstood what governing from the middle should be like. I would prefer to say something more wordy like, “govern effectively without a dogmatic ideological bent.”
    –gg

    Very well put, and I couldn’t agree more. I will note, however, is that the GOP has managed to move the middle to the right. So much so that the “middle” really doesn’t represent a balance of though, policy or even ideology — it’s instead just conservative lite.

    The key is for the Dems to move the middle back where it belongs, and continue to encourage the independence of thought that may occasionally make things tricky within the party, but that truly represents what being progressive is all about — being open to new ideas in an effort to move forward.

  • It is important to govern from the middle.

    This depend’s on one’s definition of “the middle”.

    In Canada, the right to universal health care under a single-payer system is accepted across the political spectrum. In the US, this notion is labelled socialist.

    In Canada, unfettered gun access is something only right-wing redneck whackballs demand. In the US, widespread, unchecked gun ownership is considered mainstream.

    Only in today’s America could the electorate move sharply away from the most extreme Republican positions and still be left squarely in what, anywhere else, would be far-right territory.

  • The survey just demonstrates the power of changing demographic of the United States. As whites make up a smaller portion of the population while blacks, hispanic, and asian populations grow, the decline of the Republicans was pre-determined.

    The future of politics in the United States can be seen in California where the Democratic Party is dominiate and the Republicans have no chance as affecting politics.

    The real question should be is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state. Will Dc, Mass., NJ, or California be the models that are followed.

  • As #1 said, theyare “radical” – in fact they are “radical right wing revolutionaries” – i.e. fascists on the level of Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom campaigned as “conservatives” and bamboozled the conservatives in their respective countries until it was too late. We need to rip the word “conservative” from these people and call them what they are. If you’re afraid of “Nazi” or “Fascist,” then “right wing revolutionary” will do.

  • While the graph is a pleasure to see and the slow alignment of values even more so, it’s not yet time to break out the champagne.

    Those people who now say they want the government to help those who can’t help themselves etc will still vote repub, come November (’07 in case of VA local elections; ’08 for national). Their values may be more aligned with ours but it doesn’t mean they’re ready to switch allegiance. What they want is *their* party to achieve those goals, not Dems.

    Yeah, I know… It’s a contradiction in terms. But most people don’t spend their lives parsing politics. And, besides, wanting to have your cake and eat it too is a very human trait 🙂

  • Tom Cleaver (#15) suggests “right wing revolutionary” when referring to the current crop of “conservatives.” I seem to remember a time when “right-wing extremist” was a term that was used to define this crowd. “Extremist” while sorta pejorative, fits them nicely—and frightens to vast mainstream. “Revolutionary” seems too kind.

  • It’s all about “branding.”

    The fuck-ups of the Bush administration are visible and numerous. Here’s a partial list: the Iraq war, North Korea nuclear program, Katrina, “No Child Left Behind,” the federal budget deficit, cronyism and corruption, the “war or terror” (think Tora Bora), energy policy, Social Security, access to affordable health care. (I think I’ll stop–it’s tiring).

    Like poorly-made American cars of twenty-five years ago, Bush and his poor policies and management has kicked the crap of out the Republican/Conservative brand. And while the American auto industry has moved on over the past few decades, millions of Americans still refuse to buy American cars.

    Bush’s damage to his party should last a long time.

  • I think actually the U.S. Attorney “scandel” is indicative of the problem the Republican’ts are having. Every one of the fired attorney’s is a good Republican. Yet the White House didn’t consider them Bushie enough. That alone should be warning to any competent person to steer clear of involvement with the Republican’t party. If you do your job well and ethically, eventually you will be slandered and libeled by your bosses.

    The Bushite expectation that if you control 30% of the electorate you control it all because another 21% will allow you to overrule them (out of fear of LIBERALS) is coming to an end (I hope).

  • After reading the posts I must say I’m confused… I have read that the Republican’s are Facist’s , even though the definition of Facist, someone who promotes nation and race and promotes a centeralized govenerment, sounds more like a traditional southern Democrat….. That the firings of the US Attorney’s is indicative of the problems in the Republican party, even though President Clinton fired all 93 when he took office….That Katrina was the fault of the federal government, even though the city was not evacuated by the Democatic Governer or the Democratic Mayor….That only right wing red necks own guns, even though it is a right granted to us by the constitution and is no different that free speech and a free press (both of which are in use here). Gee I’m not sure who the radicals are..

  • Confused American, @20

    I suggest a good night’s sleep. Should clarify your thinking and, possibbly, improve your spelling as well.

  • Confused American, no wonder you’re so confused. A “facist” is a person who discriminates against others based on how pretty or not pretty their “face” is. Worthy as the struggle against facism may be, it really doesn’t have much to do with politics.

    Please don’t take this correction personally. It’s clear from your spelling, punctuation and utter lack of logic that your country has left you behind. Let’s hope Democrats stay in power long enough to institute remedial programs that can help people like you.

  • Permanent Republican majority is and was always a myth only possible by Rovian election boosting tactics, corrupting government institutions (SCOTUS, DOJ, you name it), and decades of turd polishing and brain-washing by right-wing radio BS.

    America has NEVER embraced a political party which is now the poster child of blatant abuses of power, greed, avarice, death and destruction. Thank God for that.

  • OK. To all the confused people out there, here’s the definition of “Fascist”, straight from the man who invented the term.

    “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
    — Benito Mussolini

    If you don’t like that, try Wikipedia:
    Fascism in Italy combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-Communism.

    How well this describes today’s Republican leadership I’ll leave as an exercise to the reader. 🙂

  • Umberto Ecco’s “Five Moral Pieces” has a great piece describing Fascism, a much more frutiful enterprise than trying to define it, as (like all religions) it was made up as they went along and doesn’t have a lot of internal self-consistency—the love of modernity and magic, the cult of the self-willed individual combined with the herding of extreme emotion in millions…. Chris Hedges excerpts it in his latest book, “American Fascists” under the title “Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt”—if you get that joke, you’re on my side even if you’re a Republican.

    As far as waning Republican influence goes: sometimes the best argument against an ideology is exposure to it in power…I think we’d have even fewer “libert”arians if they were daily exposed to Gilded Age conditions…even if you’re fat and prosperous, it can be a pain stepping over all those beggars and all that filth.

    • Comments are closed.