Why Whites Will Abandon the GOP

The Christofascists and inhabitants of Teabagistan believe that all the Republican Party needs to do to win future national elections is to win more white votes.  But other than fanning the flames of racism and religious extremism, the GOP has no plan for moving the nation forward and the hate and bigotry exhibited by the GOP base is seen as increasingly repulsive.  My entire extended family of white former Republicans is but one example that underscores the reality that the victory through winning more white votes is insanity.  A column in The Daily Beast expands upon why the GOP quest for more white votes is not going to save the party from demographic reality.  Here are excerpts:

As you are certainly aware, the new consensus among most Republicans and conservatives is that they don’t need no stinking Latinos . . . . But what’s interesting is this. There’s an assumption embedded in the argument that no one disputes: namely, that whites will always be as conservative as they are now and will always vote Republican in the same numbers they do now. This assumption is wrong. White people—yep, even working-class white people—are going to get less conservative in coming years, so the Republicans’ hopes of building a white-nationalist party will likely be dashed in the future even by white people themselves.

We already know all about the creative-class white voters, the well-educated and higher-income people who have shifted dramatically to the Democratic column over the past generation. Those voters are increasingly lost to the GOP. 

Back in March, the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute released a big poll on immigration. Those findings are interesting as far as they go, but the questions and results went beyond that. It’s the first poll I’ve seen that breaks the white working class into four distinct age groups (65-plus, 50 to 64, 30 to 49, 18 to 29) and asks respondents attitudes about a broad range of social issues. And guess what? White working-class millennials are fairly liberal!

White working-class young people back gay marriage to the tune of about 74 percent. Another 60 percent say immigrants strengthen the United States (the totals for all three other age groups are below 40 percent). About 56 percent agree that changes immigrants have brought to their communities are a good thing. Nearly 40 percent agree that gays and lesbians are changing America for the better (more than double the percentages in the other three age groups).

They have different views because they’re different people: only 22 percent of white working-class millennials are evangelical, compared with 32 percent as a whole and 42 percent of seniors. And an amazing 38 percent of the group call themselves religiously unaffiliated.

But the striking differences between their views and those of the three older groups are consistent, they are uniform, and they are pretty vast. 

So let’s hand it to the Republicans. They make the strategic decision to go all 1980s South Africa on us at a time when a sizable and sure-to-be-growing chunk of one of the most Republican-friendly segments of the white vote isn’t going to want that anymore. So, far from the GOP share of the white vote sailing up toward 70 percent as Sean Trende so giddily predicts, it seems just as likely to decrease as we enter the 2020s and see the sprouting of a more liberal (or less conservative) white working class. Finally, the Republican Party will be the party of true equality, having equally alienated every racial and ethnic group in America.

Based on my children and their friends, I believe that the premise of the column is on target.  Not that the Christofascist?Tea Party base of the GOP gives a damn about reality.
 

Read More

GOP Lunacy: Winning More White Voters Can Save the Party

The GOP's circular firing squad seems to be continuing unabated as supposed leading lights in the insane element of the GOP continue to argue that all the party needs to do for future victory is win over more white voters.  Never mind that the demographic hand writing is on the wall and never mind that young whites are fleeing the party in droves, repelled by the GOP base's blatant racism and rampant homophobia.  A column in the Washington Post looks at the continuing batshitery:

[T]he argument that Republicans don’t really need to improve their standing much among Latinos to be competitive in national elections is gaining real ground among Republicans — posing a serious threat to immigration reform. The emerging case is that Republicans mainly need to do even better among whites — by doing a better job energizing white supporters and by bringing in more “missing” white voters who might be inclined to vote Republican — thus relieving them of the inconvenient need to alienate their base with anything that might persuade Latinos to give their party a second look.

Today Nate Cohn published what may be the most comprehensive piece yet attempting to debunk this notion, which was perhaps best laid out by Sean Trende the other day. Cohn’s piece is well worth reading in full, but here is the summary version:

1) If Republicans are going to increase their performance among white voters even further, they will have to moderate on social issues in ways that will be discomfiting to the base in any case; Republicans will have to “pick their poison.”

2) The whites-only theory of the case depends on the GOP continuing to improve its standing among whites going forward. While this is currently happening, GOP gains among them are largely regional — focused in the south and in Appalachia. At the same time, Democrats may be gaining among whites outside these regions, which, if it continues, could “cement the Democratic edge in the Electoral College.”
3) The notion that the GOP’s future hopes turn largely on boosting turnout among “missing white voters” who didn’t turn out in 2012 is complicated by the fact that many of these voters might vote Democratic. This could be made even worse by the fact that many missing whites were young voters. Over time, if the next generation of young voters is as liberal as this one, it could push the national white voter further leftward.

Cohn concludes:

Conservatives take solace in the possibility that they could win with gains through whites, presumably on the assumption that the changes needed for gains among non-southern white voters will be less painful than embracing immigration reform. To the extent that this assumption is informed by the view that the GOP is making broad, steady gains among white voters, it is wrong. The GOP has a tough road ahead.

In other words, it seems like an epic gamble. But judging by the GOP’s continuing embrace of hidebound positions on issues that many Republicans themselves recognize a need to evolve upon, it increasingly appears to be a risk the party is prepared to take.

Read More

Washington Post-ABC Poll: Most Americans Support Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings

A new Washington Post-ABC poll provides more bad news for the Christofascists and anti-gay extremists within the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.  Most Americans believe the Supreme Court got it right in ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and - to be candid, was motivated by anti-gay animus.  The findings make clear that opponents of gay marriage will largely die off within a generation or less and that the GOP is courting long term disaster by prostituting itself to the Christofascists.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

Most Americans think the Supreme Court got it right last week in decisions that bolstered same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The court by a 5-to-4 margin struck down part of the the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which withheld federal recognition and benefits from same-sex couples who are married in states where it is legal. The poll found that 56 percent approve of the ruling “providing legally married same-sex couples with the same federal benefits given to other married couples,” while 41 percent disapprove.


By a smaller margin, 51 percent to 45 percent, Americans say they approve of the court’s decision to let stand a lower court ruling that will return same-sex marriage to California.

In the Post-ABC poll, the gay marriage decisions drew strikingly different partisan reactions, while the decision on voting rights showed a deep racial disparity.

On the question about DOMA, support for the court’s decision is defined heavily by ideology, partisanship and age. The poll showed that 79 percent of self-described liberals and 68 percent of Democrats approve of the decision, while 62 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of conservatives are opposed. Over six in 10 independents and moderates approve of the decision.

The age difference was also pronounced: two-thirds of 18-29 year-olds approve, while 56 percent of those over 65 take the opposite view.

The decision was supported in every region of the country except the South, where people were pretty evenly split.

Read More

The Decline of American Society and the Revolt of the Global Middle Class

As the parent of three adult children it is interesting that none of my children expect to do as well financially or to have the life style that my late parents achieved.  Admittedly, my parents died as millionaires, but neither I nor my siblings can be assured of the same financial success in our lifetimes and for our children the deck is stacked even more decidedly in favor of the truly wealthy as social mobility in America falls behind that of Europe and wealth disparities exceed those of former banana republics.  It is little wonder why the Republican Party is faring poorly with younger voters.   But the phenomenon is not limited to  America as we see unrest in Brazil and Turkey and other nations as well.  Sadly, the status quo favors the few and the rest of us are increasingly expected to be satisfied with the table scraps that are left over.  A piece in The Guardian looks at what has happened to America.  Here are highlights:

In or around 1978, America's character changed. For almost half a century, the United States had been a relatively egalitarian, secure, middle-class democracy, with structures in place that supported the aspirations of ordinary people. You might call it the period of the Roosevelt Republic. Wars, strikes, racial tensions and youth rebellion all roiled national life, but a basic deal among Americans still held, in belief if not always in fact: work hard, follow the rules, educate your children, and you will be rewarded, not just with a decent life and the prospect of a better one for your kids, but with recognition from society, a place at the table.

This unwritten contract came with a series of riders and clauses that left large numbers of Americans – black people and other minorities, women, gay people – out, or only halfway in. But the country had the tools to correct its own flaws, and it used them: healthy democratic institutions such as Congress, courts, churches, schools, news organizations, business-labour partnerships.

The large currents of the past generation – deindustrialisation, the flattening of average wages, the financialisation of the economy, income inequality, the growth of information technology, the flood of money into Washington, the rise of the political right – all had their origins in the late 70s.  ..

The institutions that had been the foundation of middle-class democracy, from public schools and secure jobs to flourishing newspapers and functioning legislatures, were set on the course of a long decline. It as a period that I call the Unwinding.

Once American pre-eminence was challenged by international competitors, and the economy hit rough seas in the 70s, and the sense of existential threat from abroad subsided, the deal was off. Globalisation, technology and immigration hurried the Unwinding along, as inexorable as winds and tides. It is sentimental at best, if not ahistorical, to imagine that the social contract could ever have survived – like wanting to hang on to a world of nuclear families and manual typewriters.

But there was nothing inevitable about the aftermath – an unmanaged free-for-all in which unemployed workers were left to fend for themselves, while corporate raiders bought the idle hulks of the mills with debt in the form of junk bonds and stripped out the remaining value. It may have been inevitable that the constraints imposed on US banks by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 would start to slip off in the era of global finance. But it was a political choice on the part of Congress and President Bill Clinton to deregulate Wall Street so thoroughly that nothing stood between the big banks and the destruction of the economy.

Much has been written about the effects of globalisation during the past generation. Much less has been said about the change in social norms that accompanied it. American elites took the vast transformation of the economy as a signal to rewrite the rules that used to govern their behaviour: a senator only resorting to the filibuster on rare occasions; a CEO limiting his salary to only 40 times what his average employees made instead of 800 times; a giant corporation paying its share of taxes instead of inventing creative ways to pay next to zero. There will always be isolated lawbreakers in high places; what destroys morale below is the systematic corner-cutting, the rule-bending, the self-dealing.

It is little wonder that many younger voters have little faith in America and the future.  But the phenomenon is not limited to America as noted in a piece in The Atlantic which notes that what has happened in America is happening elsewhere - e.g., Brazil and Turkey.  Here are excerpts from that article:

From Turkey to Brazil to Iran the global middle class is awakening politically. The size, focus and scope of protests vary, but this is not unfolding chaos -- it is nascent democracy. Citizens are demanding basic political rights, accountable governments and a fairer share of resources.  

Overall, though, Americans jaded about world affairs should see the activism as positive. The protesters are performing the same role as middle classes have in developed nations. As their standard of living rises, so do their expectations of government.

The political dynamic in each country is different, of course. In Turkey, the protests are not the equivalent of the Arab Spring demonstrations that toppled governments across the Middle East. Nor are they simply a pitched battle between religious conservatives and secular liberals. Instead, they are deeply Turkish -- and hugely important.

Brazil presents a different dynamic.The ruling Workers' Party is left-leaning and its economic reforms have helped the poor and middle class. But now a souring economy, corruption scandals and $12 billion in government spending on 2014 World Cup stadiums has sparked one million people to take to the streets.

Marcelo Ridenti, a leading Brazilian sociologist, said reduced inequality and increased education have raised expectations. The number of university students in Brazil, for example, doubled from 2000 to 2011.

"This generates huge changes in society, including changes in expectations among young people," he told the New York Times . "They expect to get not only jobs, but good jobs."  

Pro-reform and urban Iranians frustrated with the country's weak economy, isolation and conservative monopoly on power apparently handed Rohani the presidency. Rohani may prove to be more conservative than expected, but his victory prompted thousands of Iranians to take to the streets.

"I am hopeful about the future," Hoda, a 26-year-old who asked that her last name not be used, told Reuters. "Hopeful that we will have more social freedoms, more stability in Iran, better relations with other countries and hopefully a much better economy.".

[O]bservers see parallels between Brazil's protests, India's anti-corruption movement , austerity protests in Europe, the U.S. Occupy Movement and similar demonstrations in Israel. 

First, the explosive spread of social media played a role in the movements. Networks of like-minded people were able to immediately communicate with one another -- and potential recruits. Some online information has been false orrestricted, but technological change has unquestionably sped up the pace of political organizing.

Second, all three movements are demanding basic individual rights and accountable government. They want non-corrupt leaders who respect their right to protest, gather and speak freely. From minority rights in Turkey, to fair elections in Iran, to better policing, healthcare and transit in Brazil, protesters want improved governance. 

That's right. These overseas movements want many many Americans want. especially an accountable government.  Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans, are you listening??  History has a lesson: when the majority of citizens are finding it harder and harder to survive, their interest in supporting the current political structure declines and governments fall, be it in ancient Rome or elsewhere.rest in supporting the

Read More