The familiar slogan, "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line," is history.
Oklahoma cowboy philosopher Will Rogers, proclaimed, "I belong to no organized political party; I am a Democrat." Democrats have their share of problems. But by contrast with the current Republican brouhaha, the Democratic Party is almost a well-oiled machine. Not really, but in this game it's all relative.
The coalition of establishment Republican Wall Street and moneyed interests, and social conservatives, including many of whom are below median income, has been key to Republican power. Fracture of this coalition has occurred with suddenness that no observer anticipated. Upon closer examination, it is easily understood, except by the establishment itself, and the shocked mainstream media "analysts" whose chief accomplishment is to echo each others' clichés and ignorance.
Let's review. While there are multiple aspects of the "Trump phenomenon," I'll stick mainly to my economist's version.
I grew up as a farm kid during the 1940s when Franklin D. Roosevelt was champion of the ordinary working stiff. I recall our Irish Catholic hired man, a gung-ho FDR fan, imitating FDR's New York accent, "that the worker and the farmer have a fair share."
It was clear. The Democrats favored working people and Republicans favored the rich. The Irish and Catholics tended to be Democrats. Working men, especially labor union members, were strong Democrats. As a legacy of the Civil War, white Southerners were solidly Democratic; black Southerners were denied the vote. Even the Great Plains and Mountain West produced its share of influential Democrats; Wyoming's Gale McGee, Idaho's Frank Church, South Dakota's George McGovern, Utah's Frank Moss, Arizona's Stewart Udall, for a few examples.
While there were tensions between the more moderate-to-liberal, and the conservative Democrats, particularly of the South, this uneasy coalition held together. The more or less "center-left" Democratic and "center-right" Republican combination of politicians did a pretty fair job of governing for several decades during and after World War II. Not all was peaches and cream as minority citizens did not fare well. But thanks to legislation following the Great Depression, financial institutions behaved themselves. Corporate CEOs acknowledged responsibility to their employees along with their customers and stockholders. The nation's middle class grew and prospered.
Some early signs presaged breakup of this successful, if uneasy, Democratic coalition. Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrats" drained off Southern Democratic votes in the late 1940s. Conservative Gen. Douglas MacArthur was favored by many Republicans to run for president both in 1948 and 1952. Another popular Army general, "every soldier's General," Dwight Eisenhower, got the nod instead. Ike, as he was affectionately known, defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson, famously photographed with a hole in his shoe, not once, but twice, in 1952 and 1956. Ike could as well have been a Democrat - the more conservative Republicans favored Sen. Taft. It's hard to imagine today's Republicans touching Ike with a 10-foot pole. But Ike was hailed as having "cracked the solid South."
It was during the 1960s that the Democratic coalition collapsed and a new Republican coalition emerged. It grew ever stronger in the following decades, reaching its zenith with the election of Barack Obama, and the Republican establishment welcoming and embracing the chief tenets of the tea party.
President Lyndon B. Johnson grew up in the poverty-stricken Texas hill country, sensitive to the hardships that he had seen and experienced. He initiated the "War on Poverty," now excoriated by Republican politicians who insist that it failed. Republican critics dutifully remind us that poverty still exists, "proving," they insist, that government is ineffective in fighting poverty, or anything else for that matter.
When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he knew, and stated, that by doing the right thing for the nation, a consequence would be conceding the Democratic solid South to the Republicans. So with the "southern strategy" practiced by Richard Nixon, there went the traditional southern Democrats.
As social issues, including gay rights, so-called "feminine issues," crime, gun violence and Second Amendment issues, etc., came to the fore, social conservatives fled the Democratic Party. It didn't matter that many of these social conservatives were of modest or low income. Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" clearly and concisely explains the logic of this coalition. While some critics dismiss Frank's thesis, I contend that it is right on target.
Social conservatives across the country, including the Great Plains, Mountain West, and remaining white Democrats in the South became Republicans. Politicians like Alabama's Jeff Sessions changed party affiliation from Democratic to Republican. So there went another bunch of Democrats, newly allied with the Republican establishment.
If this were not enough, many blue collar workers in the industrial heartland, labeled "Reagan Democrats," fled the Democratic Party during the Reagan years. There are various explanations but I see this as stemming partly from the anti-war stance led by Democrats. Republicans came to be seen as "stronger," and with complicity of the mainstream media, painted as "more patriotic" than Democrats. And it's no secret that the professional military officer corps leans definitely Republican.
Meanwhile, the economy and the face of America were dramatically changing. International trade arrangements rewarded corporations for moving production facilities abroad to take advantage of lower wages. Manufacturing jobs across the country, especially in the industrial heartland, disappeared, and with it the increased difficulty of blue collar workers with high school educations to achieve middle class status. For this, Democrats and Republicans share blame even though corporate CEOs who made decisions to move production abroad are of Republican constituency. It didn't matter - many blue collar workers had already left the Democratic Party.
By 2016, income inequality is still increasing - no credible solutions offered by "establishment" Republicans. With rise of the tea party and fury over what many see as Republican broken promises, the Wall Street bailout, and illegal immigration, the stage is set for fracture of the Republican coalition of "establishment" and social conservatives.
Next week: The impending GOP fracture.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
Oklahoma cowboy philosopher Will Rogers, proclaimed, "I belong to no organized political party; I am a Democrat." Democrats have their share of problems. But by contrast with the current Republican brouhaha, the Democratic Party is almost a well-oiled machine. Not really, but in this game it's all relative.
The coalition of establishment Republican Wall Street and moneyed interests, and social conservatives, including many of whom are below median income, has been key to Republican power. Fracture of this coalition has occurred with suddenness that no observer anticipated. Upon closer examination, it is easily understood, except by the establishment itself, and the shocked mainstream media "analysts" whose chief accomplishment is to echo each others' clichés and ignorance.
Let's review. While there are multiple aspects of the "Trump phenomenon," I'll stick mainly to my economist's version.
I grew up as a farm kid during the 1940s when Franklin D. Roosevelt was champion of the ordinary working stiff. I recall our Irish Catholic hired man, a gung-ho FDR fan, imitating FDR's New York accent, "that the worker and the farmer have a fair share."
It was clear. The Democrats favored working people and Republicans favored the rich. The Irish and Catholics tended to be Democrats. Working men, especially labor union members, were strong Democrats. As a legacy of the Civil War, white Southerners were solidly Democratic; black Southerners were denied the vote. Even the Great Plains and Mountain West produced its share of influential Democrats; Wyoming's Gale McGee, Idaho's Frank Church, South Dakota's George McGovern, Utah's Frank Moss, Arizona's Stewart Udall, for a few examples.
While there were tensions between the more moderate-to-liberal, and the conservative Democrats, particularly of the South, this uneasy coalition held together. The more or less "center-left" Democratic and "center-right" Republican combination of politicians did a pretty fair job of governing for several decades during and after World War II. Not all was peaches and cream as minority citizens did not fare well. But thanks to legislation following the Great Depression, financial institutions behaved themselves. Corporate CEOs acknowledged responsibility to their employees along with their customers and stockholders. The nation's middle class grew and prospered.
Some early signs presaged breakup of this successful, if uneasy, Democratic coalition. Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrats" drained off Southern Democratic votes in the late 1940s. Conservative Gen. Douglas MacArthur was favored by many Republicans to run for president both in 1948 and 1952. Another popular Army general, "every soldier's General," Dwight Eisenhower, got the nod instead. Ike, as he was affectionately known, defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson, famously photographed with a hole in his shoe, not once, but twice, in 1952 and 1956. Ike could as well have been a Democrat - the more conservative Republicans favored Sen. Taft. It's hard to imagine today's Republicans touching Ike with a 10-foot pole. But Ike was hailed as having "cracked the solid South."
It was during the 1960s that the Democratic coalition collapsed and a new Republican coalition emerged. It grew ever stronger in the following decades, reaching its zenith with the election of Barack Obama, and the Republican establishment welcoming and embracing the chief tenets of the tea party.
President Lyndon B. Johnson grew up in the poverty-stricken Texas hill country, sensitive to the hardships that he had seen and experienced. He initiated the "War on Poverty," now excoriated by Republican politicians who insist that it failed. Republican critics dutifully remind us that poverty still exists, "proving," they insist, that government is ineffective in fighting poverty, or anything else for that matter.
When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he knew, and stated, that by doing the right thing for the nation, a consequence would be conceding the Democratic solid South to the Republicans. So with the "southern strategy" practiced by Richard Nixon, there went the traditional southern Democrats.
As social issues, including gay rights, so-called "feminine issues," crime, gun violence and Second Amendment issues, etc., came to the fore, social conservatives fled the Democratic Party. It didn't matter that many of these social conservatives were of modest or low income. Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" clearly and concisely explains the logic of this coalition. While some critics dismiss Frank's thesis, I contend that it is right on target.
Social conservatives across the country, including the Great Plains, Mountain West, and remaining white Democrats in the South became Republicans. Politicians like Alabama's Jeff Sessions changed party affiliation from Democratic to Republican. So there went another bunch of Democrats, newly allied with the Republican establishment.
If this were not enough, many blue collar workers in the industrial heartland, labeled "Reagan Democrats," fled the Democratic Party during the Reagan years. There are various explanations but I see this as stemming partly from the anti-war stance led by Democrats. Republicans came to be seen as "stronger," and with complicity of the mainstream media, painted as "more patriotic" than Democrats. And it's no secret that the professional military officer corps leans definitely Republican.
Meanwhile, the economy and the face of America were dramatically changing. International trade arrangements rewarded corporations for moving production facilities abroad to take advantage of lower wages. Manufacturing jobs across the country, especially in the industrial heartland, disappeared, and with it the increased difficulty of blue collar workers with high school educations to achieve middle class status. For this, Democrats and Republicans share blame even though corporate CEOs who made decisions to move production abroad are of Republican constituency. It didn't matter - many blue collar workers had already left the Democratic Party.
By 2016, income inequality is still increasing - no credible solutions offered by "establishment" Republicans. With rise of the tea party and fury over what many see as Republican broken promises, the Wall Street bailout, and illegal immigration, the stage is set for fracture of the Republican coalition of "establishment" and social conservatives.
Next week: The impending GOP fracture.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
