GOP Headed South

An interesting article in the New York Times today observed that while the Republican Party was resoundingly defeated across the country last Tuesday, their performance in the deep south had largely improved since 2004. This is interesting largely because it challenges a paradigm in political strategy which has arguably prevailed since 1960 when then-Senator Kennedy selected Lyndon Johnson from Texas for his running mate: a Democratic ticket must feature someone from the South to draw sufficient support below the Mason-Dixon line to have a change at building a winning majority in the electoral college. Indeed, in more recent elections, this requirement seems to have become even more stringent, with only those Democratic tickets with Southerners at the TOP (e.g., Johnson, Carter, Clinton) winning since 1964.


Why have the Democrats struggled so much in this region? As is often the case, the answer lies both in the actions of the Democratic Party and the REactions of the Republican Party. For the Democrats' part, waning support in the South began in the early 60s. Up to that point, the South had long been the Democrats' strongest bastion, hearkening back to the days of Reconstruction immediately following the Civil War, a brutal event in American history perceived at that time by many Southerners to have been inflicted upon them by Abraham Lincoln, a Republican President. However, throughout the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, moves were taken toward sweeping civil rights legislation designed to further codify equality for African Americans. When President Johnson signed the legislation culminating from these efforts (the Civil Rights Act of 1964), he famously predicted (correctly): "There goes the South for a generation."


Of course, even these events would likely not have so polarized the South against the Democratic party had the Republicans not acted decisively to capitalize on the resulting void of political support. This reaction by the Republican party, spearheaded by Richard Nixon, became known as the Southern Strategy. Bluntly speaking, this strategy sought to exploit racism and racial fears among white voters in order to win votes in the South. It was wildly successful. Indeed, if 1960 and 1964 were the key elections in which the Democrats rolled the dice by backing controversial civil rights legislation, then 1972 was the pivotal moment in which the Republicans committed to exploiting this weakness for political gain. Nixon won reelection that year in one of the most decisive electoral blowouts ever seen in American political history:




While deplorable in many senses, it is undeniable that this strategy worked very well. Campaign ads seeking to exploit racial fears continue even up to today. The most notable contemporary example of this is surely the advertisement run by the Republican National Committee during the 2006 Senate race in Tennessee implying an 'inappropriate' relationship between the Democrat, African American Harold Ford Jr., and a white woman. A broader legacy of the Southern strategy today may in fact be the inclination for dirty campaigning. (If I am correct in positing this general connection between the Southern Strategy and the evolution of modern dirty campaigning, then Obama's attempt to paint himself simultaneously as a post-racial candidate who seeks to move beyond such partisan politics seems all the most poignant.)


Regardless, the results from this most recent election seem to demonstrate that a Democrat can resoundingly win without the heartland of the South. Thomas F. Schaller had put forth this idea in recent years, arguing in his book "Whistling Past Dixie" that Democrats could win presidential elections by focusing on regions outside of the South (and should do so as the South is increasingly irrevocably opposed to the Democratic platform). Sure enough, Obama won a decisive electoral victory both as a non-Southerner and as an extremely liberal politician who did relatively little to move to the right during the election. I believe this happens for two primary reasons.


First, the electoral 'strength' of the South has become weakened due to fragmentation. The region's largest state, Florida, has long been considered a world of its own and a swing state which cannot be reliably depended upon to vote Republican (having voted for a Democrat in 1976, 1996, nearly so in 2000, and 2008). Moreover, Virginia has been trending Democratic, particularly in the outskirts of Washington, D.C. Similarly, North Carolina voted for Obama this year, presumably due to the high concentration of college campuses and metropolitan areas throughout the state.


Second, the Republican platform has become perfectly honed to appeal in the deep South (including southern Appalacia). Indeed, even while the remainder of the country was moving leftward this past election, the vast majority of the deep South voted more Republican than it did during 2004. This is bad news for the Republican Party if it is gaining ground in the only region where it is already virtually assured victory. It suggests that the GOP is becoming 'boxed' into an increasingly small portion of the electorate. Compounding this problem is the fact that this most recent election's 'culling' of the Republican party has largely led to the removal of the GOP's more moderate members, particularly in the senate. Indeed, some moderate conservative commentators expect the emerging battle for GOP revival between the reformists (seeking moderation of the party platform) and the traditionalists (insisting the recent failures of the party reflect too much compromise of conservative values, e.g., nomination of moderate candidates like McCain, support of socialist economic policies under President Bush like the bailout).


The traditionalists may well be right, but my sense is that until the GOP begins focusing on widening its appeal to the national electorate, they will continue to be headed south.

GOP Blame Game Begins

The 2008 election is not yet a week old and yet the Republican party has already begun pointing fingers, determining who is to blame for their loss. Many McCain staffers are allegedly behind this early beginning of the blame game, insisting Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) compromised the Republican ticket. This is a marked change of events from the weeks immediately following the Republican National Convention (RNC) during which it was widely accepted that Palin was to thank for a large "bump" McCain received in the polls. Similarly, a Rasmussen poll conducted in early September found Palin to be more popular than either Obama or McCain.

However, by the end of the election, the public perception of Palin had greatly deteriorated. By late September, a plurality of poll respondents were questioning whether she possessed the attributes necessary to serve as president. By the eve of the election, this plurality had expanded to a solid majority of respondents. Graphs of her approval ratings produced by (liberal) bloggers as early as mid September chronicle her fall from grace:

This fall is attributable to a number of events which occured after the RNC but before the election to include:

- a disasterous interview with Katie Couric

- a lackluster performance in the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden despite efforts by the McCain campaign to lower expectations

- increasing revelations of inconsistencies in her positions (e.g., declaring opposition to pork barrel spending despite having advocated nearly half a billion dollars in federal funding for the now infamous "bridges" to nowhere during her 2006 campaign for governor in Alaska)

- an embarrassing investigation of a potential ethics violation by Palin involving her firing of a state trooper who was formerly engaging in a nasty divorce with Palin's sister (i.e., "troopergate")

Post election, the allegations leveled against Palin by former McCain staffers include her ignorance of foreign policy (not knowing that Africa is a continent and not a country), poor temperament (failing to prepare adequately for debates), and perhaps worst of all, her extravagence (e.g., buying $150,000 dollars in clothes and jewelry for use during the election).

Yet, in spite of this, Palin remains extraordinarily popular with the Republican base and so a strong contender for assuming the future mantle for the party going into 2012. The first Newsweek poll soliciting voter preferences for 2012 GOP nominees (put in the field in OCTOBER -- presumably making McCain one unhappy camper) revealed the following:

35% Mitt Romney

26% Mike Huckabee

20% Sarah Palin

10% Other

9% Don't Know

These figures are interesting when viewed against the background of the Republican platform which, since the days of Reagan, has been described as a stool with the following three legs:

1. Economic (e.g., free trade, lower taxes)

2. Defense (e.g., strong military, aggressive foreign policy)

3. Social (e.g., pro-life, anti-gay rights)

Conservatives themselves have freely admitted that members of each of these three coalition components do not necessarily feel any overwhelming fealty above and beyond that to the cause of their highest priority. The key is to achieve an interlocking agenda between the three.

Given the current "frontrunners" for the GOP nomination in 2012 (if such a term can even be used this early in the game), we see that there is no longer any representative for defense. This may signal increasing ambivalence by Republicans over the foreign policy agenda prioritized by neoconservatives. After all, McCain met a devastating defeat at the hands of Obama this election cycle. Moreover, Republican losses in 2006 have been largely attributed to dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq. However, it may also simply be the case that no Republican whose background is most tailored to foreign policy expertise has yet stepped up to the plate.

Romney, the current frontrunner, is the clearest bearer of the economic conservatives' mantel. Currently receiving the most impressive polling, this could be cause for believing that a revitalized Republican party will be inclined to emphasize economic issues. Whether this will have any traction in 2012 will probably depend in large part upon whether the Democrats have achieved any success in the interim years in turning around the current economic crisis.

Finally, Palin and Huckabee both broadly represent the social conservatives of the Republican party. Together, they comprise a larger proportion of the vote (46%) than Romney appears to be attracting. It is interesting to note that although Bush's approval ratings are in a total nosedive and the country has in no uncertain terms rejected his governance as the clearest representative of social conservatism since Ronald Reagan, among Republicans conservatism among social issues nevertheless continue to be among the most important criteria for selecting a president.

All of this is not to say that a 'representative' from either of the other two legs of the Republican stool cannot succeed in earning the Republican nomination. Indeed, McCain this year demonstrated the ability to win the Republican nomination, particularly when multiple opponents split the social conservative vote. This is precisely what happened in the pivotal South Carolina primary this past year. The exit poll results demonstrated that Huckabee received a larger percentage of the vote among respondents reporting characteristics consistent with more conservative opinions on social issues (e.g., stance on abortion, frequency of church attendance). Moreover, these more socially conservative respondents generally formed a significant majority of the electorate. However, one of the aspects of this race which most helped McCain to win in spite of all this was the split of the social conservative votes between Huckabee, Thompson, and to probably a much lesser extent, Romney.

I do not expect this dynamic to change significantly within the next four years. To that end, I would expect to look to those candidates emphasizing social conservatism for the next leader of the Republican party: he/she who can win near-total support of that leg of the Republican party, will win the nomination. If candidates such as Romney hope to make headway in winning the nomination four years from now, their best shot would be to start attempting to redefine themselves such that they have greater appeal to the social conservative base. Of course, Romney attempted this during the primaries (for example moving away from his moderate support for gay rights and abortion while governor of Massachusetts) and was widely derided as a flip-flopper. Failing a successful lurch to the right on social issues, the most Romney and other candidates like him can hope for is Huckabee, Palin, and others to command sufficient support from social conservatives such that they tear each other to pieces.

Four years is a long way off. Anything could happen...

Rahmbo: First Blood?

It has been reported that Rahm Emmanuel, Democratic representative for the 5th congressional district of Illinois, has agreed to serve as the White House Chief of Staff for Obama. This is an incredibly important and influential position, often described as the second-most-powerful post in the nation. According to the work of Martha Kumar and Terry Sullivan, the Chief of Staff is resonsible for two broad roles:

1. Managing the White House staff and the President's schedule

2. Advising the President on various political and policy issues

Suffice it to say, this is a very important choice for a President. Consequently, President-elect Obama's choice merits some scrutiny.

An article by Zachary Coile of the San Francisco Chronicle provides a nice summary of Emmanuel's resume. He was born in Chicago in 1959. He obtained his first political experiences with Democratic politicians in Illinois, including Senator Paul Simon's campaign in 1984 and Richard Daley's run for mayor of Chicago in 1989. During 1993-1999, he worked as a senior level political and policy adviser in the Clinton White House. In this position, he was especially influential in directing initiatives on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and an assault weapons ban. In 2002, he was elected to Congress. He is widely acknowledged as the chief architect for the Democrat's successful mid-term election in 2006. Thus, Emmanuel clearly brings a wealth of political experience, a useful asset for Obama who has been widely criticized as too inexperienced for the job of President. Indeed, some observers have already concluded that Obama's choice is a mark of his strength and refusal to become a weak President who makes amateurish mistakes. (For those enamored with the TV show, "The West Wing," Emmanuel served as the inspiration for the character Joshua Lyman.)

However, Emmanuel is also seen as having a very disagreeable disposition. This is perhaps best illustrated by a recent summary of the five most infamous Emmanuel moments. Perhaps most poignant is the story of Emmanuel listing aloud Bill Clinton's enemies at the dinner following his election to the presidency in 1992. He allegedly stabbed a table with a steak knife upon listing each name, yelling that they were 'dead!' His 'scrappiness' has earned him the nickname 'Rahmbo.' Predictably, Republicans have responded to the announcement of Obama's choice of Chief of Staff with accusations of hypocrisy, with House Minority leader John Boehner (Republican representative of Ohio's 8th congressional district) insisting that Emmanuel does not represent the conciliatory, non-partisan school of politics to which Obama claims he adheres.

Regardless, the die is now cast. It will be interesting to see exactly how Emmanuel shapes the political and policy discourse for Obama's presidency in the ensuing weeks and months.

A New Beginning

This week, America chose its 44th President. The 2008 election marked the culmination of nearly two years of campaigning. The initial field of contenders was incredibly diverse, comprising pioneers in American politics who challenged preconceived notions about religion, race, gender, and age. It was the most expensive election in the history of the United States. It also drew the largest proportion of eligible voters seen in decades. The political maps and stereotypes which have prevailed in recent decades were largely transformed. As the winner, President-elect Obama has been hailed at home and abroad as an inspiring example of the possibilities of the American dream.

Like many others throughout the world, I became fascinated observing the American political process play itself out over the past two years. For the first time in my life, I found myself inspired to engage with the issues and learn more about the candidates and the philosophies underlying their stances on the issues. The knowledge I gained about our country and its leaders has been incredibly fulfilling, but perhaps even more satisfying have been the revelations I have had regarding my own belief systems and values. In many ways, I feel I have grown with the candidates; speaking to family, friends, and colleagues, I believe many others in the United States and abroad share this sentiment.

Of course, the never-ending campaign is now over. Almost immediately, the political discourse has shifted away from the contest and toward expectations of the Obama administration. As Obama rightly stated in his victory speech, this election has really been about America and her citizens all along. While his ascent to the presidency has undoubtedly been itself an embodiment of the American Dream, the question is now how he and America's other political leaders will affect the opportunities for Americans to realize their own piece of the American Dream. Also important are the implications of Washington's new political leadership for the fates of the other citizens of the world.

There are many uncertainties going into the days ahead:

How committed will Obama be to practicing a new brand of politics? Will his inexperience compromise his ability to govern? Will he be able to fulfill the expectations of the broad coalition of voters which put him into office?

How will the Republican party respond to this electoral defeat? How will this defeat affect their underlying philosophy? Who will be their new standard bearer?

Will Americans come together following this election cycle or will we become ever more partisan? Will the world continue to look upon the United States more favorably with President Obama as her standard bearer, or will the current show of support quickly fade away?

I am building this blog in an attempt to motivate myself and others to consider these and other questions striking at the heart of the pursuit of the American Dream as we turn to a new chapter in history. I hope those reading follow any inclinations they may have to engage and challenge me on my posts, as well as to recommend topics for discussion and consideration. If the past two years have taught me anything, it's that nobody has all of the answers all of the time, but perhaps more important is to ensure that we are always growing.