Noam Scheiber makes an interesting observation on the New Republic blog:
Some commentators, like David Brooks, have mistakenly grafted the political milieu of the ’70s and early ’80s onto contemporary politics. They argue that Democrats are losing elections because they’re losing the blue-collar voters Alito grew up with in Trenton. But, as my colleague Frank Foer has pointed out, Democrats aren’t losing many of these urban blue-collar voters today. Democrats now routinely win states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, that Reagan carried thanks to backlash politics. The reason is that Bill Clinton helped defuse race as a political issue in the ’90s with welfare reform and his tough-on-crime posture. Then George W. Bush finished the job by reorienting his party away from “angry white man” politics (and toward “angry religious person” politics).
These days, the only place you’ll still find a healthy backlash against multiculturalists, feminists, and racial mau-mau-ers is among conservative intellectuals–e.g., Federalist Society chapters around the country–who still regularly encounter these scourges in college, law school, and throughout the legal and academic profession…
… and, of course, on certain blogs.
But Scheiber, though I think he exaggerates the “angry religious person” politics, does have a point. Why Republicans refuse to make an issue of racial preferences — by, for example, articulating principled positions that are shared by a substantial majority of voters — remains a mystery.
Norm Scheiber must be living the one of those bubbles. Democrats get a majority of the white vote in less than 10 states. The Democrats are almost 50% black and Hispanics which are the two least educated, least affluent, and culturally conservatives groups in the US.
It isn’t that Republicans are appealing to Angry whites. It is the Democrats who have just forgotten to appeal to whites who work outside of the government or universities.
–Democrats aren’t losing many of these urban blue-collar voters today. Democrats now routinely win states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey,–
Not losing the votes of those who stay in those states.
Blue NY, MA, CA and IL are due to lose reps in the next census, aren’t they?
And we’ll see what happens in MI since Detroit’s on a downturn.
If they were smart, they’d move to NOLA. Work all around and still a lower cost of living than MI.
” Why Republicans refuse to make an issue of racial preferences — by, for example, articulating principled positions that are shared by a substantial majority of voters — remains a mystery.”
Corporate money. The military, etc… all supporting preferences.
“Why Republicans refuse to make an issue of racial preferences — by, for example, articulating principled positions that are shared by a substantial majority of voters — remains a mystery.”
Becuase every time Republicans make this argument, Democrats try to brand them as racists, even if the charge is completely ridiculous. If that doesn’t work, they start talking about corporate “welfare.”
“Democrats try to brand them as racists,”
This is almost right, I think. Not Democrats by name, but the media. Republicans expect any comment on race will be reported simply as racist without bothering with the details.
And the Southern Strategy is defined as what by you both?
–Cobra
The “Southern Strategy” is history. The current strategy of electoral politics is to win the big states, CA, NY, TX, FL.
“The current strategy of electoral politics is to win the big states, CA, NY, TX, FL.”
Of those, I’d say the strategy is to win FL.
I would put Ohio in that mix as well. Red and Blue states are pretty well defined. If Ohio went to Kerry in 2004, then Kerry would’ve been making the SOTU speech last night.
–Cobra
“If Ohio went to Kerry in 2004, then Kerry would’ve been making the SOTU speech last night.”
*shiver*