Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

They can probably hold their first meeting in any convenient phone booth.

I've bandied out this idea to Republicans for years.

I suggested calling it something like "The NORTHERN Republican Conference" to specifically disavow the white racist (which to be fair, is not all Southern, look at Boston) faction.

In addition to the standard Republican party stuff (I'm talking Eisenhower stuff), you add the following:

* That they are Pro-Choice, as the Republican party was before 1980.

* That the confederacy was bad, as was slavery, and they should be condemned.

* That racism exists in the US and it is evil and needs to be fought.

Of course, I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'd never be a member of the group.

I think grownup Republicans are a myth. You see them talked about on this blog, but you never see them in real life.

There is so little left in the Republican party worth saving. It would be more economical to discard it completely and start anew.

Kuas,
they're not a myth, they're just called "formerly Republican voters", or "disaffected Republican voters". I know quite a few in NJ.

The problem is that Republican economics are not popular either, not when truly understood, though it is easy to sell tax cuts and gutting welfare and "getting the government off our backs". Substantially, though, it is Republican economics (and foreign policy) that have us in such a mess. The bigotry is just the circus freak sideshow.

Given that politics is a blood sport in the South, it looks like it was inevitable that when the Southern Strategy invited Dixiecrats into the house, they would eventually take over. But now the disaffected Northern Republicans must, in effect, build a new political party. Not an easy task.

Might we see a splintering of the GOP into an adult party and a redneck party? The Southern Republicans are not going to yield on their positions and would as likely to bring down the entire GOP than to give an inch. I must say that I'd really enjoy watching that happen (a splintering of the GOP) if it comes to pass.

It sounds promising, but they never go into real specifics about what sort of policies they'd actually support. A good litmus test would be whether or not they endorse Hastert's nutty "abolish the IRS" plan.

Also, a list of their "past speakers" is not encouraging:

http://thenewmajority.com/past.html

Among the highlights are Dick Morris and Tony Blankley. Any group that wants to move away from the politics of slime should dissociate themselves from those two immediately.

One really simplistic way of classifying people politically is economically liberal/conservative and socially liberal/conservative, giving 4 possibilities. Right now we have economically and socially conservative republicans and economically and socially liberal democrats. Right now they generally split the country between urban areas and rural areas. But clearly, the values of the parties don't match the urban/rural split.

Rural areas tend to be socially conservative, but more and more they want high spending in the form of government subsidies, and high tariffs. And more and more they seem to be interested in a big government that gets into values, in terms of, say, laws against abortion or gay marriage. States rights and small government have left the republican party.

This same issue can be seen in cities. Factories are no longer placed in cities, so city-dwellers have no need for protectionism. In fact, in order to keep prices down they need lower tariffs. At the same time, cities tend to be more permissive than the country and so want a less intrusive government. So in these ways, the parties are misaligned. They shouldn't be economically and socially conservative or liberal at the same time. A more representative alignment would be economically liberal and socially conservative, and the opposite.

Look at our last two presidents. Clinton came in and liberalized trade, reformed welfare, and brought the budget into balance. Bush raised tariffs, threw us into a huge deficit, made the military bigger, and increased the government's intervention into people's private lives. Under both Clinton and Bush people said they betrayed their parties. In fact, they are showing where their parties are headed in the future. The New Majority is another example of that future.

"his decision to make the Republican Party the home of ex-Democrats who didn't like Blacks--has bespelled America's Republican Party with a curse that it will take immense efforts to lift."

Talk about curses, what about Bush's decision to make the Republican Party the home of evangelical Christian wackos-that is going to take some effort to lift, also.

I agree. Republicans are simplistic, racist, theocratic jerks. They're incapable of reasonable, adult discourse. I just can't imagine why they don't listen to wiser, nicer heads. Adlai Stevenson was right, eh? We have the support of all thinking people -- but it'd be nice to have a majority.

Ryan wrote:

"I agree. Republicans are simplistic, racist, theocratic jerks. They're incapable of reasonable, adult discourse."

The definition of "reasonable, adult discourse," apparently is to call one's political opponents "simplistics, racist, theocratic jerks." I'd hate to see what's you'd have to say if you were less rational or more childish.

sd,

I always figure obvious parody is boring and that obvious satire ain't satire. Thanks for taking my point

"Socially liberal, fiscally responsible, and oriented toward the future."

Sounds like John Anderson Republicans, from early 1980. I was one of them. I left the GOP along with Anderson that year, when it was clear that Reagan, whose 'voodoo economics' abandoned fiscal responsibility, was the GOP's future. I know I had plenty of company.

And given that the two main thrusts of GOP domestic policy, are (a) tax cuts (shrink government to where we can drown it in the bathtub, and (b) the Christian Right's hot-button issues, how exactly is that going to turn into social liberalism and fiscal responsibility? The vast majority of Republican voters, and the vast majority of Republican money, is foursquare behind those two pillars of its domestic agenda.

That is NOT going to change.

If centrist Republicans actually want to make a difference, they should form their own party. I'm serious. Even if we're talking four or five senators, and a dozen House members, they'd have a far better chance of making a difference by caucusing with whichever major party was closer to its agenda in a 50-50 America, than by trying to change the direction of the Neanderthal Party from within.

They might even be able to pull *both* parties back towards the center.

Ian Dew is partly on the right track, I think, but it might be better to think about the parties by distinguishing between where they get their votes and where they get their money. They need votes to win and money to get the votes, and winning has always taken precedence over policy. Policy has been largely about balancing "doing the right thing" against pay-offs to keep voters loyal. The actual elements of either party's coalition are adventitious and historical, not gathered through policy agreement.

Since the rise of modern big business more than 100 years ago, GOP voters and GOP money have been in tension about policies. Ditto the Dems over the last 30 years or so, because of dis-industrialization and de-unionization.

Before then, Brad's troglodyte white South was a Democratic cross to bear. It was Reagan, not W or Nixon, who made them staunch GOoPers. Now they're the only reliable big GOP vote and want to drive social policy. Some of them think they agree with GOP money on economic policy; as far as the Scaifes and the oil barons are concerned that's right, but it's not right about the Paul O'Neills or most small business people.

That's where the breaking point will come, and this election may do it. Bush is losing the moderate midwestern Republicans who actually started the party and who want what government does and are willing to pay for it.

The white-South crazies aren't just racist. At base, they're all about lucrative hypocrisy. They love telling everybody what the world *should* be like and then doing whatever suits them. (Strom Thurmond is a case in point.) Such moralism is useful for the children and a good stick to beat whoever they want to target. And they *really* love talking trash about taxes while they feast on federal pork.

For these people, only suckers pay taxes. And government exists to shovel tax money from the suckers to the guys with inside pull.

The best thing that can happen to the US would be for these people to have the Republican party all to themselves. It will be the white-shoe holy Dixiecrats. The other Republicans will be Democrats for a while, then the Democrats will split as they've done before.

Now, though, there may be enough electoral votes outside the white South that an updated Dixiecrat bloc won't matter anymore. In the long run, that would be the best outcome.

Ya see? Altoid apparently gets my joke. I mean, c'mon! In a set of comments to a post by a liberal ostensibly attempting to persuade people who don't already agree, Altoid refers to the "troglodyte white South." While pretending to believe Republicans are mean-spirited, Altoid then criticizes these "troglodytes" for "hypocrisy." Altoid does the satire thing better than me, I must admit. How pointed the argument is! To argue that another side will eventually lose points for mean-spiritedness after others have suggested that all grownup Republicans -- the "Neaderthal Party -- could fit in a "telephone booth"? After this, my implication about that the party that once ran a presidential candidate who thought most Americans don't think looks downright heavyhanded. Bravo, sir!

Gee, ryan, I'm so flattered.

But I'm a little confused about the nuances, so let me be plain and unambiguous. I plainly wasn't talking about *all* Republicans, just one segment of the big-tent party. ("While pretending to believe Republicans are mean-spirited," you say. No. Just some.)

You'll note that once upon a time that particular segment used to be Democrats (when they weren't Dixiecrats). Then the Dems double-crossed them (again) with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and, just like in 1948, the party's policy direction deserted them. So, courted by Nixon and Reagan, they went over to the Republicans and now have immense influence on what that party does.

There are other groups among the Republicans who don't see the world the way that particular segment does. On the one hand, it's legitimately an opinion bloc; on the other, it supports positions that others, inside and outside the party, don't agree with or find objectionable.

It was that particular segment, not the others, that I was talking about. That's because Brad started this thread by talking about them, and my view of them is a little different than his. People who don't want to think about different groups within the Republican party don't have to.

Gee, ryan, I'm so flattered.

But I'm a little confused about the nuances, so let me be plain and unambiguous. I plainly wasn't talking about *all* Republicans, just one segment of the big-tent party. ("While pretending to believe Republicans are mean-spirited," you say. No. Just some.)

You'll note that once upon a time that particular segment used to be Democrats (when they weren't Dixiecrats). Then the Dems double-crossed them (again) with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and, just like in 1948, the party's policy direction deserted them. So, courted by Nixon and Reagan, they went over to the Republicans and now have immense influence on what that party does.

There are other groups among the Republicans who don't see the world the way that particular segment does. On the one hand, it's legitimately an opinion bloc; on the other, it supports positions that others, inside and outside the party, don't agree with or find objectionable.

It was that particular segment, not the others, that I was talking about. That's because Brad started this thread by talking about them, and my view of them is a little different than his. People who don't want to think about different groups within the Republican party don't have to.

Apologies for double post.

Altoid,

I certainly agree there are different groups. I'm just trying to point out a kind of condescension mixed with derision in this thread in general, and suggest that you're not going to convince anyone of anything if that's the tone. I suppose your goal might not be to persuade so much as to describe the world. If this is the case, however, what you're suggesting seems unlikely. You're depicting a situation similar to the Federalist/Democratic-Republican dynamic, but with the opposite chronology. Then, the country was trending Democratic-Republican, so the Federalists died out and eventually the mammoth party split. While I would love for the two parties you're envisioning to exist, I can't imagine why the party that's been trending dominant would split first. It would seem to me that the Democratic party might be the more likely to split/self-destruct first. I'll punt and suggest a breaking point -- the war. The division of all issues into economic and social is a nice one, and dear to the hearts of many a libertarian, but it completely ignores a fairly enormous type of policy.

"Socially liberal, fiscally responsible, and oriented toward the future."

Um, I thought we called people like that "Democrats."

RT is spot on; "grownup Republican" is Brad's euphemism for "liberal Republicans who will give tax breaks to high-tech and internet businesses".

And what exactly is the difference between a "grownup Republican" and a "new Democrat"? And is Brad DeLong a closet "grownup Republican" -- as are many "liberal" bloggers?

As an independent voter who has struggled for years with the lack of good choices on the ballot, I'm delighted that even PART of the Republican Party is heading back to its conservative heritage. It's boggled my mind that the Republicans have allowed the likes of G. Bush to represent them to the American people. But, yeah, the Dems have stolen their thunder about being fiscally conservative - who would've thunk?

"I can't imagine why the party that's been trending dominant would split first."

If you're referring to the Republicans, they're not trending dominant anymore. Why would that be? As I wrote earlier, because the party faction that has control of the party apparatus is doing things that others in the party, and outside the party, don't agree with. That would be the white southern faction we've been talking about. The ones who don't agree are primarily in the midwest and on the east and west coasts.

These other Republicans will either vote Bush enthusiastically, hold their noses and vote Bush, stay home, or vote Kerry, enthusiastically or not. Many factors will influence these individual decisions.

Among those Republicans unhappy with the current GOP, midwesterners tend to be worried about job and economic trends. Easterners and some midwesterners, and recent converts to the GOP, are worried about the administration's enthusiastic advancement of a particular minority's social ideas. Many others are unhappy about the administration's expansion of executive authority.

The Plains and white South ex-Florida remain pretty solidly Republican (i.e. 55-60%), as does Appalachia northward into central Pennsylvania. Many of these people agree wholeheartedly with just about everything the administration is doing. Others are more specifically issue-oriented; abortion, gay issues, and support for Sharon probably account for very large proportions of them, and the latter is closely tied with the desire of many of this group to see things in Arab lands go boom. Race, which Brad puts first, is an important, though often submerged, element.

If you think my language is condescending or derisive, it might help you to know that I have lived in both the deep South and Appalachia. My characterizations are based on first-hand observation.

Actually, the strongest party is always most likely to split. The underdog has to be concerned with winning. The overdog, having won, must do something.

Winning is comparatively easy when laid against actual accomplishment- then you have to get practical and recognize the existence of reality. This drives the faithful and realistic out of one another's arms. You could call it the "Now What?" syndrome.

They're not trending dominant? The President, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House are all Republicans. The Dems have maybe a 50% chance of gaining the White House and a much smaller chance of getting the Senate; gaining the House is the remotest of likelihoods. The majority of Supreme Court justices are conservative. The governors of most states, including the four largest, are Republicans. Furthermore, even Clinton had to act as a fairly conservative Democrat (at least during the last 6 years), and even a Kerry administration would be far more conservative than, say, Nixon. If the Republicans aren't trending dominant, I'm not sure who is.

perianwyr, yes, the dominant party does split -- but only after the other party has been more or less crushed. Your "always" doesn't seem to correspond to the historical record, unless you're predicting the demise of the Democratic party as an effective contender followed by the Republican split. To which past examples are you referring?