American political parties evolve and change, sometimes gradually, and sometimes rather suddenly. The Democratic Party, traditionally the party including working people and conservative Southern whites, is not accurately so described today. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the achievement of a Southern White Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, traditional white Southern conservative Democrats fled to the Republicans. And many blue-collar working people, "Reagan Democrats," started voting Republican.
It's with some irony, as Republicans were the party of Lincoln who got the nation through the Civil War and ended slavery, that African Americans eventually saw Democrats as more friendly to them. It's likely that only a savvy, powerful, southern Democrat like L.B.J. could have muscled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through at that time. The loss of southern Democrats following that event was the Republicans' gain, as L.B.J had predicted.
The Democratic Party became more urban and inclusive of minorities. The Republican Party, long a coalition of Wall Street, corporate and small business, and relatively affluent suburbanites, welcomed the social conservatives, largely but not exclusively rural and white. Republican social conservatives have been key to Republican Southern strategy, including the election of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush presidencies, and especially recent control of the Congress.
With the tremendous unrest and anxiety in this country, this Republican coalition is under strain. I contend that root cause is anxiety over individual economic security. The vast majority of Americans have not shared in economic prosperity. Many feel economically and politically marginalized and abandoned by both political parties.
Yes, there is conservative dislike of the Affordable Care Act, anxiety over immigration, abortion and Planned Parenthood, gun rights, terrorism, the changing face of America, etc. But I contend that if the vast majority of Americans were sharing in economic prosperity and saw a brighter future for themselves and their children, these other issues would fade in importance.
Yes, those issues would still be there in varying degrees among various constituencies, but they would be on the periphery.
With recovery from the Great Recession, the old Republican saw, "a rising tide lifts all boats" is seen as the false analogy that it is. Nevertheless, establishment Republicans stick with their standard dogma of more tax cuts for the wealthy, elimination of regulations, and "free market principles" as the panacea for universal economic prosperity.
Let's assume that Republicans could eliminate the ACA, defund Planned Parenthood, get rid of gun regulations, ban all abortions, and throw out all health and safety regulations governing commerce. While this might make conservatives feel good, the underlying anxiety over stagnant incomes and uncertain economic futures would remain. In-depth surveys show, for example, that respondents favoring stronger border enforcement nevertheless believe their economic situation to be of primary concern.
Feeling of abandonment by both political parties creates loss of confidence in government and demand for outsiders.
Consider the unimaginable:
Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz explicitly calls his Republican Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, a "liar" on the floor of the Senate, a cardinal political sin.
Sen. Marco Rubio, a darling of the Republican establishment, insists that he is an outsider.
Gov. John Kasich remains baffled that his long-standing record as congressman and governor falls on deaf ears. He is conservative enough to satisfy all but the most theologically-inclined conservative. In a normal year he might well be leading the pack. But this is not a normal year. Efforts to portray himself as an "outsider" is a tough sell for him.
Enter Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump clearly realizes that the third-party route is not a viable road to the presidency. So he checks the obligatory Republican boxes including opposition to the ACA, the Iranian nuclear deal, gun laws, and abortion, and for a stronger military and border security. And he goes even further; building a physical wall, and legalizing torture, for example.
Mr. Trump does not stop with disparaging GOP politicians as mere insiders.
He insults Sen. John McCain by trivializing his prisoner-of-war status. Who else, especially a Democrat, let alone a candidate for the presidency, could get away with that?
He rudely insults one of Sen. McCain's pals, South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham.
He insults other powerful Republicans, Paul Ryan, the Bush brothers, and Mitt Romney, who says he cannot support Trump.
All this, in addition to disparaging remarks concerning women, Mexicans and Muslims.
Although having checked all those Republican boxes on policy, he flies in the face of several tenets of Republican orthodoxy by promising to maintain Social Security and Medicare, criticizing the invasion of Iraq as one of the dumbest American actions ever, promises to be a "neutral arbiter" with Palestine and Israel, commends some activities of Planned Parenthood, and opposes international trade as presently practiced. These are generally consistent with Democratic positions, giving conservative Republicans severe heartburn.
Mr. Trump is light on actual policy recommendations, but it doesn't matter to his supporters. Even those who realize that "the wall," paid for by Mexico, is fantasy are happy that someone is shaking up the establishment.
So with Trump seen as an out-of-control, loose cannon, but the leading candidate for the nomination, the GOP's coalition is coming apart. The Republicans face a couple of Hobson's choices.
If Trump gets to the convention with a majority of delegates, he has the nomination sewed up. (He calls it an "arbitrary figure," but a majority is not arbitrary; it is one half plus one.) Powerful Republicans will either have to kiss and make up, supporting the controversial loose cannon, or distance themselves from the nominee. This choice will be especially tough for many "down-ticket" candidates running in tight House and Senate races.
If Trump gets to the convention with a plurality, not a majority, a likely scenario at this point, they either nominate Trump with the risks involved, or deny him the nomination, with perhaps greater risks.
It's a Republican dilemma of their own making.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
It's with some irony, as Republicans were the party of Lincoln who got the nation through the Civil War and ended slavery, that African Americans eventually saw Democrats as more friendly to them. It's likely that only a savvy, powerful, southern Democrat like L.B.J. could have muscled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through at that time. The loss of southern Democrats following that event was the Republicans' gain, as L.B.J had predicted.
The Democratic Party became more urban and inclusive of minorities. The Republican Party, long a coalition of Wall Street, corporate and small business, and relatively affluent suburbanites, welcomed the social conservatives, largely but not exclusively rural and white. Republican social conservatives have been key to Republican Southern strategy, including the election of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush presidencies, and especially recent control of the Congress.
With the tremendous unrest and anxiety in this country, this Republican coalition is under strain. I contend that root cause is anxiety over individual economic security. The vast majority of Americans have not shared in economic prosperity. Many feel economically and politically marginalized and abandoned by both political parties.
Yes, there is conservative dislike of the Affordable Care Act, anxiety over immigration, abortion and Planned Parenthood, gun rights, terrorism, the changing face of America, etc. But I contend that if the vast majority of Americans were sharing in economic prosperity and saw a brighter future for themselves and their children, these other issues would fade in importance.
Yes, those issues would still be there in varying degrees among various constituencies, but they would be on the periphery.
With recovery from the Great Recession, the old Republican saw, "a rising tide lifts all boats" is seen as the false analogy that it is. Nevertheless, establishment Republicans stick with their standard dogma of more tax cuts for the wealthy, elimination of regulations, and "free market principles" as the panacea for universal economic prosperity.
Let's assume that Republicans could eliminate the ACA, defund Planned Parenthood, get rid of gun regulations, ban all abortions, and throw out all health and safety regulations governing commerce. While this might make conservatives feel good, the underlying anxiety over stagnant incomes and uncertain economic futures would remain. In-depth surveys show, for example, that respondents favoring stronger border enforcement nevertheless believe their economic situation to be of primary concern.
Feeling of abandonment by both political parties creates loss of confidence in government and demand for outsiders.
Consider the unimaginable:
Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz explicitly calls his Republican Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, a "liar" on the floor of the Senate, a cardinal political sin.
Sen. Marco Rubio, a darling of the Republican establishment, insists that he is an outsider.
Gov. John Kasich remains baffled that his long-standing record as congressman and governor falls on deaf ears. He is conservative enough to satisfy all but the most theologically-inclined conservative. In a normal year he might well be leading the pack. But this is not a normal year. Efforts to portray himself as an "outsider" is a tough sell for him.
Enter Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump clearly realizes that the third-party route is not a viable road to the presidency. So he checks the obligatory Republican boxes including opposition to the ACA, the Iranian nuclear deal, gun laws, and abortion, and for a stronger military and border security. And he goes even further; building a physical wall, and legalizing torture, for example.
Mr. Trump does not stop with disparaging GOP politicians as mere insiders.
He insults Sen. John McCain by trivializing his prisoner-of-war status. Who else, especially a Democrat, let alone a candidate for the presidency, could get away with that?
He rudely insults one of Sen. McCain's pals, South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham.
He insults other powerful Republicans, Paul Ryan, the Bush brothers, and Mitt Romney, who says he cannot support Trump.
All this, in addition to disparaging remarks concerning women, Mexicans and Muslims.
Although having checked all those Republican boxes on policy, he flies in the face of several tenets of Republican orthodoxy by promising to maintain Social Security and Medicare, criticizing the invasion of Iraq as one of the dumbest American actions ever, promises to be a "neutral arbiter" with Palestine and Israel, commends some activities of Planned Parenthood, and opposes international trade as presently practiced. These are generally consistent with Democratic positions, giving conservative Republicans severe heartburn.
Mr. Trump is light on actual policy recommendations, but it doesn't matter to his supporters. Even those who realize that "the wall," paid for by Mexico, is fantasy are happy that someone is shaking up the establishment.
So with Trump seen as an out-of-control, loose cannon, but the leading candidate for the nomination, the GOP's coalition is coming apart. The Republicans face a couple of Hobson's choices.
If Trump gets to the convention with a majority of delegates, he has the nomination sewed up. (He calls it an "arbitrary figure," but a majority is not arbitrary; it is one half plus one.) Powerful Republicans will either have to kiss and make up, supporting the controversial loose cannon, or distance themselves from the nominee. This choice will be especially tough for many "down-ticket" candidates running in tight House and Senate races.
If Trump gets to the convention with a plurality, not a majority, a likely scenario at this point, they either nominate Trump with the risks involved, or deny him the nomination, with perhaps greater risks.
It's a Republican dilemma of their own making.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
