|
It would be folly to dismiss them now. After reading all of the pre-2008 posts giving multiple reasons why the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority were wrong, it's telling that they couldn't have been more right.
Boy, did they it the nail on the head. When I read this in 2007 I thought that the thesis of the book was fallacious, especially since it was written and released before the Kerry/ Bush election in 2004 and Kerry lost. Great book and highly recommended. This was the latest they predicted it would happen (2008). However, I judged the authors much to quickly. Their predictions that places like North Carolina and Virginia would turn blue due to increases in education and technology ended up coming true in 2008.
No reason to believe these trends will change any time soon or that the Emerging Democratic Majority will not occur as predicted in this book. Given the fact that we are two days away from the 2008 Presidential election and the trends predicted in The Emerging Democratic Majority appear to be taking hold in 2008 just as they predicted, I have to say well done to the authors. How can the Republicans win The White House without a solid south and nearly sold West. When I read this book in 2003 I was skeptical given the conservative political climate at that time, but these authors spotted trends and were spot on. This is a good read today to see why the 2008 political landscape is starting to favor Democrats again. The demographic shifts the authors predicted are starting to take shape with Colorado swinging Democratic and Florida very much in play this year.
Polls mean nothing when you lose over and over again. Now the tables have turned and most Bush states send conservative GOP'ers to the Senate. Democrats have more abortions than republicans in fact it's millions more. A Tom Daschle would have never lost his seat years ago even though his state was lopsided for Bush both times. After the show is over you say to yourself "Man how do the Republicans ever win an election." And yet they keep winning them. The authors assume that we will never change our immigration laws and that we will continue to let millions of Hispanics in year after year who will help swamp white voters.
Once they have children they are part of the republican's base. Carolina has two GOP Senators ( John Edwards was a fluke, the authors try to make him a trend). It is hard to predict what will happen. In certain cases the swing is dramatic in the Democrats favor. They also don't mention that Hispanic voters are a very tiny block that doesn't turnout much.
Polling data. This book is like channel CNN: it presents solid facts and poll numbers but like CNN you just can't help but feel the liberal leaning come ringing through after they start off so well. Now with the internet and C-Span and the rise of conservative groups to counter liberal groups this is almost never the case anymore. Most districts, be them Dem or GOP like their congressman or woman just fine. While they may be correct in that Asians and Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic no one knows for sure and to what extent. They also love to point out counties in certain "red" states where the democrats have done so much better in 2000 than 1988 in the presidential election. One huge factor in determining your political outlook is what your parents were when you were growing up.
While Whites may be decreasing in these states as a % of voters they are not decreasing fast enough and the fact they are voting more republican blunts any deem advantage in the south in this area. (Governors do have a hand in redistricting which can affect congressional races only) I noticed they don't make the same claims for liberal states that elect GOP governors from time to time. Conservative "red" states are MUCH less inclined to send Democrats to the Senate anymore. The more Democratic women that abort and or have no children; the fewer Democrats in the future. Years ago in the south many people still mistrusted Republicans and wanted a "conservative" Democrat. It has come down to turnout which no longer favors the democrats anymore either. They fail to mention that younger white southerners are even more Republican than older white southern voters. There are others out there.
We are at a unique cycle right now. They only problem is that although marriage and child bearing are less important to white Americans than a generation ago the fact is that most white women, however late it is, do marry. The gender gap is actually a marriage gap. The reality was that most of these Democrats talked conservative at home and than Voted Liberal in Washington. One mistake they make is the old canard that Governors somehow mean something in Presidential elections. They seem to believe that professionals and minorities will eventually overtake Republicans in Southern states. This book has one other weakness which the democrats seem to trot out whenever they lose elections.
Is Mass or NY going to vote GOP in national elections because they have GOP governors. The one big thing the authors have deluded themselves into is that the congress will somehow be fertile ground for Democrats. The authors don't even mention this. An article in the Wall Street Journal in 2005 showed how it has already affected election in the Republicans favor.This books strength is the analysis of why now strong democratic states such as Illinois, N.J and California are the way they are. That leaves single women for the Democrats. Once they do they become less democratic.
Now both candidates start with 45% of the vote. It's been proven false so many times and yet the authors go on saying how because VA elected a Democratic Gov in Mark Warner that this is a sign a takeover is coming. The great majority will have the same partisan tendencies as their parents did. The House of Representatives is Gerrymandered in the Republicans favor.
This may or may not be true but it does seem to be that Hispanics in GA, FL or Texas appear to be much less Democratic than in either CA, CO or NY. If you go the authors' website you can see they are still in denial making all kinds of excuses and citing still more poll numbers as to why the Republicans are doomed. Every year I hear that America is ready to boot them out. This next statement applies to the house as well but the impact is much greater and pronounced in the Senate. Then you check and see G Bush Sr.
They have won a majority every year from Nov 1994 on. Fair enough. I believe that this book may be right but I cannot say for sure. That leaves 10% of undecideds. This country it seems keeps getting less traditional and more socially liberal which is good for the democrats. Eventually parts of the coalition will defect which this book accurately points out for both parties. They don't say it but I believe that they believe that we will start granting voting rights to illegals or give them amnesty. This is kind of like watching "Inside Politics" on CNN with Judy Woodruff and Bill Schneider.
You read the analysis and think "Wow the Republicans have lost some serious ground in N.C. The cat is out of the bag on most "independent" voters who it has been shown vote the same way over 90% of the time. Of course not and the same is true in reverse. Married men and women vote more republican than democratic. It's the same feeling you get with this book, I'm a conservative republican and so my biases may be on full display as well. This book offers one well researched view.
Examples are the larger "Ideopolis" counties in N.C. The authors fail to show where in the state the Republicans are gaining to the point that N. Don't hold your breath on that one folks. On the other hand we appear as medical technology advances to have more disdain for abortion than before. I do concur with the book that VA and FL are trending away from the Republicans but I submit that the outcome of the governor's race in either state has nothing to do with it. Senate elections. In years past except for a few unique landslides the losing candidate (yes even Herbert Hoover in 1932) could expect to get 40% of the vote. Lets be realistic here and many Democrats are.
Some polls such as Generic Congressional Polls are useless altogether but the authors cite them anyway.The 2004 election proved that that the Democratic majority is on hold for at least another 4 years. You may shocked to realize that in decades past the same states that were voting 60+% for Nixon and Reagan and Bush I were also sending the most Liberal Senators you could imagine to the senate.many times in the same year. The fact is that there is really no way the republicans or the democrats for that matter in years past could expect to continue to pile up 40-49 state victories on a regular basis. Governors races are so different I don't want to take the time explaining why they have zero bearing on a states overall tendency in Presidential and U.S. There is a demographic trend that others have pointed out but these authors do not; the abortion/childless effect on the electorate. That killed the GOP in the south for years.
Just because an Oklahoma or VA elect a democratic governor means nothing in a national election. IT does appear that that landslides for either party may be out of the question for a while. Liberal single/married women are much more likely to stay childless than more conservative women. won NC in 1988 57-41 and his son won it in 2004 and 2000 56-43. Unmarried men still vote Republican.
Also, Democrats have in many elections charged that Republicans will somehow cause the environment to decline to a state that is so unbearable that it would "poison the children". They can't talk about fiscal responsibility when they produce record budget deficits. Social Security and Medicare. The next problem with the thesis is the complete lack of discussion of how Minnesota, Wisconsin, and most importantly Iowa, which George Bush carried in the 2004 election, have become more Republican since the 1988 presidential election in which both states went for Michael Dukakis. The only way that could occur is if Democrats start to move into the places where Republicans live. Furthermore, the authors distorted Mark Warner's campaign victory as one caused by his appeal in the suburbs.
The problem with this is that theory is not upheld during practice as shown by the worst defeat for a senate candidate in North Carolina's history since one party rule ended in 2002 afflicted the Democrats and the loss of Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards' seat to Richard Burr in 2004, and the 2003 elections that gave the GOP complete control of both houses of the Virginia Legislature- I believe they obtained a 2/3 majority in each. The Republicans have crime/ defense, welfare, fiscal responsibility, and taxes, and the Democrats have economic growth/ equity, environment, education, and elderly issues ie. Latinos are up for grabs because of cultural issues and many are flocking to GOP. Furthermore, because of gerrymandering the Bush-Cheney ticket won 237 seats in the house.
Now honestly does anyone believe that this would occur. 12 years after the Emerging Majority should have all ready occurred. In every ballot initiative in 2002, 2003, and 2004 the voters when asked to sacrifice by having their taxes raised said "no way, not a chance in hell". Ballot initiatives to raise taxes in Alabama, Oregon, Washington, and Virginia all failed. These states probably did not fit their thesis. They can't talk about Welfare Queens when it is now called Workfare. However, both parties have equal support from each economic bracket because culture and not economics matters in American politics.
The trend in each state is the growing ultra conservative Ex-urbs. In addition, the authors did not discuss the real opportunities of the Democratic Party like in Arkansas, and Louisiana, where in each state there is a large body of rural white Democrats. Many White Democrats deserted their party and voted for the GOP candidate, because in the case of New York their candidate Andrew Cuomo was defeated in the primary and thus they saw no reason to vote for Carl McCall. The thesis of the book should have included these problems within it, but the authors were not willing to be flexible. Just look at the now famous 2000 election map. This is complete nonsense both parties perform immorally. Additionally, the authors write rather well.
At that time no one had direct representation in British Parliament, we all had virtual representation. Our own revolution was about taxes. Even if we were given seats in Parliament we still would have refused to pay taxes. Moreover, this trend insures that each party will earn even in a blow out election between two candidates around 45%. Just look at the two most recent ones, the "New Right" created by Goldwater, and "New Deal Democrats". The Emerging Democratic Majority is a nice read for a liberal, but it is extremely optimistic. The authors also make it out as if the Democratic Party does not employ fear tactics, and is unwilling to into the gutter to win. This is a huge increase since 1996 when Bob Dole could not even break 30%.
If they do this, the Republican Party could erase the Gender Gap that is currently present. However, voting trends may not continue as the 2004 election results indicated 43% of Latinos voted for George Bush. The point is that both parties use very offensive tactics. Moreover, the rise of independents in the African American community actually gives the GOP a great opportunity to obtain some votes from this community that was previously solidly registered as Democrats. There are two ways that this assumption could prove to be untrue.1.
Maybe, even if voting trends based on the 2000 election continue by 2020 they will be a factor. I know many Republicans who are none of the above, but just believe in conservative economics, or are refugees from communist countries and vote the way they fled. However, in the case of Louisiana the Democrats lost a senate seat in 2004 to David Vitter, mainly because they adopted the authors' ideas as opposed to appealing to populism. After this point southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats" and Republicans ended any other increase in government till the Great Society by endless filibusters and till the Democrats achieved an even larger majority to pass there liberal programs with the aid of many moderate Republicans.
With regards to the Reagan Administration the GOP was unable to pass its agenda after 1986, most noticeably by the refusal of the Senate to Appoint Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Finally, I would recommend reading this book anyway despite its flaws. Yet, the authors rarely discuss this in their book. We are not going to give it up now.
They are in reality 50 separate state elections and one for the District of Columbia. Moreover, this event has become even more widespread lately as shown in the California Recall, and the New York Governor Race. In addition to this the authors do not explain how political campaigns are really run. Dick Morris called the Phenomenon "The Death of the White Liberal". This is an advantage for conservatives because rural and suburban areas are over-represented in congress. Mark Warner won because he was able to increase African American turnout, and because of his rural initiative that minimized his losses in these parts of the state. The Republicans continue to solidify its control of this electorate election after election since 1980.
Moreover, the book discusses how the centers of the post-industrial economy will turn the tide and give liberals victory as they continue to expand. Even when these coalitions supposedly "ruled" American politics there were fractions within them. It wasn't about how we did not have representation it was about us refusing to pay taxes. They can't talk about Law and Order when it currently exists. This is the really reason why the Democrats will win more than any other. Moreover, the Democrats also appeal to class warfare to characterize their opponents as plutocrats.
The main reason why the Democrats should have a majority is because of Clinton solving the problems of welfare, and crime, and giving Democrats the right to call themselves fiscally responsible. LA, and New York are the prime examples. They primarily discuss how Virginia and North Carolina are the best targets for the Democratic Party citing Mark Warner's recent victory, the growing DC suburbs, and the Raleigh, Durhamn, Chapel Hill research triangle. This is just not true. However, I would venture to say that this is a grave problem for both parties, especially the Democratic Party that is for the first time in the over fifty years not identified as the majority party. Moreover, many parts of the Reagan environmental plan to allow for more use of natural resources were defeated by a coalition of Democrats and Northeast Republicans even before the GOP lost control of the senate. Moreover, the Democrats may be doing better among the professional class, but they are losing their previous Blue Collar base to the GOP.
This can all ready be seen in many city primaries, as mentioned by the authors. Yes, Latinos are growing as a segment of the population, but they are even more unlikely to vote than the population as a whole and are not any where near as loyal to the Democratic party as are African Americans. Since 1896 the general trend in voter turnout has been a downward spiral. However, the authors fail to realize that this clustering of liberals into cities, where Democrats have all ready won the state, will only make Blue states bluer, but will do nothing to make Red States Blue. The authors, though right in many instances in their thesis, have series problems within it that they do not address. There cannot occur any decisive overwhelming Democratic victory like years past with this trend.
Liberals generally live in cities, and conservatives generally live in rural and suburban areas. The authors do not seem to understand that presidential elections are not just one big election. However, by doing this they have put into their platform a social program that offends many people's values. Each party has certain issues on which the general public perceives it as better in dealing with that problem. Remember most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in addition to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 - even Barry Goldwater voted for these two. One of the main reasons Clinton won the 1992 election was because many average people voted for him.
Another problem is the thesis depends too much on the Latinization of America. The main flaw of the thesis is that it assumes no voting block will join the Republican Coalition. Demography is destiny. Moreover, the authors are just viscous in their characterizations of the GOP, as being racists, religious fanatics and plutocrats. Bush carried 30 states, and Gore carried 20.
Even in the most liberal state in America, California, voters rejected higher taxes. The Republicans could run a minority candidate for president and thus steal many votes away from the Democratic coalition that will probably never come back.2.The Republicans could dump the Christian Right. Well, guess what the GOP has had 6 presidential administrations since Social Security was created and 5 presidencies since Medicare was created and both programs are still here. An additional problem is the lack of discussion on the topic of "The Vanishing Voter". An additional problem that the Democratic party faces that the book addresses very little on is that as minorities grow as a larger segment of the population and within the Democratic Party they will start to control the Democratic Party apparatus and will cause many white voters to flew to the GOP. Furthermore, the authors tried to show how the increase of independent voters actually helps the Democrats because they tend to lean Democratic in elections. This is not currently the case because the Democrats have embraced the DLC model of embracing cultural liberalism and left wing elitism instead of economic liberalism because that won't win the suburbs. Yet, there is no discussion of the growing Ex-urbs, here or through out the country.An additional problem of their thesis is the lack of discussion on where liberals and conservatives live and how this aids the Republicans.
Whenever there is a tie the GOP will win. I would say the majority of Americans do not agree, especially with their stands for Gay Marriage, subsidized Partial Birth abortion, and the complete abandonment of any spiritual life. For instance the "New Deal Coalition" essentially did not exist after the court packing fiasco, and the failure of FDR to oust several southern senators in the 1938 election. I also feel that the authors did not explain the history of political coalitions very well. In those two states the Democrats have performed very well as of late. In Arkansas they knocked out an incumbent GOP Senator Tim Hutchinson in 2002 and in 2004 re-elected a Banche Lincoln, and in Louisiana the Democrats kept Mary Landrieu's seat and elected a Democratic governor in 2003. The GOP now has only 229 seats in that chamber. This is a belief ingrained in us from our early days in elementary school.
Republicans have simply run out of issues. That translates into 60 GOP senators and 40 Democratic Senators. The Democrats perennially scares the elderly into thinking that the GOP will take away their Social Security, and Medicare. An additional problem arises in their thesis with regards to the South. Thus, the people who are now currently voting in elections are much more partisan because moderates do not care enough to go and vote. Moreover, the authors just don't seem to understand how much people hate taxes.
|
