By George Phillies, originally at Liberty for All:
Occasionally, buried in news from other political factions is some incredibly good news for our Libertarian Party. And here we have some, in the form of a statistical report Demographic Change and the Future of the Parties, which you can read here.
The author is Ruy Teixeira, a demographics expert and progressive democrat. He was co-author, with John Judis, of the excellent book “The Emerging Democratic Majority” which seems to have done a respectable job of describing the 2006 and 2008 elections, except that it was written in 2002 and described the elections via predictions.
While Teixeira usually writes as a progressive Democrat, in this paper he makes considerable effort to propose how the Republican Party way might avoid its current demographic destination, someplace in the vicinity of the whooping crane and the passenger pigeon. Republicans will justly say that his solution involves the Republican elephant amputating its trunk and then cutting its own throat.
As a Libertarian, I offer a different and much more positive perspective, namely that Teixeira’s report is wonderful news, for us! Demographics impel voting patterns; they do not compel voting patterns. Out there in every group are a certain number of people who will vote Libertarian for their own very personal reasons. Nonetheless, it should be anything but surprising that if you collect a large group of people with similar backgrounds, educations, and habits of mind, you will find that their voting patterns tend to be similar, too.
So what demographics are found by Teixeira? The following numbers are almost all paraphrases from his 45 page report; the interlaced commentary is mine.
America has gained a large upper-middle-class. That’s positive news for us, because our philosophy of entrepreneurial ism and self-reliance is particularly appealing to people with the resources to be entrepreneurial and self-reliant. The numbers: In 1947, the 80th percentile of family income in 1947 was around $41,000 (in 2008 dollars) and the 95th percentile was $68,000. A few percent of all Americans had family incomes above $100,000. In 2008, the 80th percentile was around $113,000, nearly three times as much, and the 95th percentile was about $200,000. By 2030, a reasonable projection is that $100,000 of annual family income will be about the 60th percentile. (Those of you who can recall Harry Truman’s 1949 State of the Union Address and other reports may remember his prediction, then widely disbelieved, that income would triple in the next 50 years…he was pretty close.)
That upper-middle-class group is increasingly split between managerial types with a Bachelor’s degree, who tend to be Republican conservatives, and professional types with post-graduate education, who tend to be socially liberal Democrats. The division here leads us to another demographic:
Education: The party of reality-based politics draws its votes from people who are willing to think about our stands. Those people are in considerable part educated professionals with advanced educations.
Fifty years ago, professionals with a post-graduate education were a small minority. Now they are rapidly expanding, so they are 18 % of the electorate and (given that they vote) close to 21% of all voters. While they are well-to-do, they are readily split away from the Republican Party. In fact, they already have been, namely they voted 2:1 for Kerry over Bush. The Republican dead-end march tends to insure that Republicans cannot collect these votes, because they are the votes of people who are, notes Teixeira, forthrightly liberal on social issues, moderate reformists on economic issues and have “a distaste for aggressive militarism in foreign policy”. In short, these are people who are solidly libertarian on social and foreign policy issues, and relative to where America is now ready to move in our direction on fiscal policy. And if they do not want to move as far, well, we have a long ways to go before this is an issue.
Religion: A quite respectable fraction of Libertarians started with the novels or philosophy of Ayn Rand, who was a militant atheist. Our Libertarian Party is rather broader than this, but there is a strong theological trend in our direction. The fraction of Americans who attend services only a few times a year or less has risen to 44 percent of voters, while voters without any religious affiliation has tripled since 1944, and is now up to 14%. These people are our natural targets, just as white evangelical Christians are natural targets of the Republicans, but our plausible demographic groups are rapidly expanding.
Indeed, it appears that by 2020 give or take a Presidential election cycle, only a minority of Americans will be white Christians.
Unmarried women, especially the highly educated: We’re Libertarians. We’re pro choice about everything. And we are opposed to foreign intervention, such as the Bush/Obama wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, not to mention parts of Pakistan, Somalia, the Yemen, the Philippines, and it would appear several other Stans. That has some important consequences, because single women are now 47% of all women. Within that group, single women went for Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent, working women voted for Obama by 60 percent to 39 percent, and a reasonable estimate is that 65% of college educated women voted for Obama. As noted by James Oaksun in the New Path for the LP Plan, Step Five, Page 36 we have a real target audience in young women, who are way left on social issues, draw a bright line against foreign intervention, and are antiauthoritarians who distrust bigness, whether in government or private groups. Those women are prime targets for our Libertarian party, because they support us on our issues, and given the college gender graduation gap the target audience is expanding rapidly.
Finally, young people, which is not the same thing as college students: Teixeira writes: “On social issues, Millennials support gay marriage, take race and gender equality as givens, are tolerant of religious and family diversity, have an open and positive attitude toward immigration, and generally display little interest in fighting over the divisive social issues of the past. They are also notably progressive on foreign policy issues, and favor a multilateral and cooperative foreign policy more than their elders.” On the other hand “Millennials, more so than other generations, want a stronger government to make the economy work better, help those in need, and provide more services. These views extend to a range of domestic policy issues including education, clean energy, and, especially, health care.” Once again, on social and foreign policy we have already won in this area; the challenge is on fiscal policy questions.
Teixeira’s report is indeed wonderful news for us! We may not have a perfect match everywhere, as note the discussion on young people, but we are far better off than the Republicans. It will be even better news for us if we can encourage Republicans to stay true to their idea of principles, namely echoing the crackpot nonsense and foaming-at-the-mouth Republican fanaticism of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and all those other groups who Bill Buckley read out of the conservative movement fifty years ago on grounds of nutcakery. Yes, every time some Republican idiot denounces global warming, evolution, or the round earth hypothesis, cheer for him in your heart, because that Republican is working hard for us by convincing America’s next generation that Republicans truly are The Party of Stupid.
George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at [email protected].
LibGirl (DonLake)// Jul 14, 2010:
“excellent article George! I sure like it when you use ur INCREDIBLE intellect and power to say positive things:)”
(as I am just a tender, immature soul whom cannot tolerate conflict in a system built for confrontation. As Georgie Porgie is ssooooooooo smart as to go on record with the incredibly stupid statement that LP is the one and only 21st Century American Peace Party! Duh! ——- Some one hold me hand, please!)
jt: That’s why the party, its presidential candidate, and its statewide candidates need to focus on issues each side cares about that libertarians can also support (economic issues for the Right and social issues for the Left), not on merely appealing to one side or the other, as some Libertarians counsel.
me: Another way to look at this challenge is observe what works and apply it to L principles. What generally works in politics is for the candidate be non-threatening yet for progress from where we are. Obama, Clinton and Reagan come to mind. They were smooth change agents.
That’s a big part of attracting support…emotional positioning. Firebrands generally don’t win, although they CAN make good pundits. In many ways, Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC was the match that started the Tea Party, for ex.
In matters of policy substance, Ls have a real dilemma, IMO. We tend to sound like EXTREMELY right on economics; EXTREMELY left on social issues; and just EXTREME on foreign policy, I’d say it feels more left than right.
Aside from his apparent imbalances, I though Perot was getting toward a good model for positioning the LP. An outsider/reformer who came off as commonsensical on economics, social issues and foreign policy. (Ls should of course advocate toward liberty in all things, which Perot did not do.)
I believe a lot more people would pay attention to our message if it were to be repackaged along these lines.
IMO, forever.
excellent article George!
I sure like it when you use ur INCREDIBLE intellect and power to say positive things:)
I should add to the above comment that the remainder of the conservative voters who aren’t die-hard loyalists to the Reps can possibly be convinced to vote Libertarian. These still account for millions of Americans. The same is true for liberal voters who aren’t die-hard loyalists to the Dems.
However, drawing millions of votes from each side requires that the LP extend itself to both sides. That’s why the party, its presidential candidate, and its statewide candidates need to focus on issues each side cares about that libertarians can also support (economic issues for the Right and social issues for the Left), not on merely appealing to one side or the other, as some Libertarians counsel.
Tom: “I guess it depends on what you mean by “distant future.””
Well, it seems like your talking about the future, nonetheless. I read your previous comment as saying the GOP is dead at present and doesn’t know it yet, which isn’t the case.
Tom: “Last time around, it was 40 years between GOP congressional majorities.”
I think that was true of the House, but it wasn’t true of the Senate.
Tom: “I suspect that the GOP may temporarily regain majorities in one or both houses of Congress, or a term in the White House, between now and 2020, but the key word is “temporary.” They will be back in the minority by 2020, and they will never hold a majority of either house, or the White House, again thereafter.”
That’s a bold prediction. I don’t think that will be true (all we can do is guess). The Republican Party will probably change its identity from what it is now when demographics change a lot.
In fact, that’s likely to happen if the party doesn’t win either body of Congress or the White House for many election cycles. Most voters on the Right would rather have a GOP President and at least one body of Congress eventually than they would have Republican politicians toe a conservative line. Have to finally beat the Democrats, you see.
Some of you may recall Republican candidate Rick Barber and his bizarre television ads, in the form of a prolonged rant from the candidate and bizarre — some would perhaps unfairly say ‘seditious’ — advice from an actor pretending to be a founding father. The ads were spoken of highly by at least one LNC member.
Mr. Barber had his primary yesterday, and lost 60-40 in a vote limited to Republicans.
You see, even Republican voters can tell that a nearly incoherent rant is no reason to vote for someone.
LPW, before a death-knell is rung for the GOP, keep in mind that there are a LOT of interests with a LOT of money and brains who are constantly taking the mood of the electorate. Those who’ve jumped to the front of parade known as the Tea Party, for ex., have been making the point that the TP (i.e., the GOP) should downplay social issues and focus on fiscal matters. They will push forward people like Paul Ryan and push back people like Sarah Palin.
And then there’s Mitch Daniels…
http://fivebooks.com/interviews/mitch-daniels-on-american-conservatism
We may not “like” the GOP’s svengalis, their methods, means or ends, but underestimating their ability to be facile and to make adjustments is a mistake, IMO.
Straight-line extrapolation is almost always a mistake, an error that Ls should be the LAST to make, but are often the first, driven by a Chicken Little propensity that seems hard to shake. Ls seem to be more in tune with economic principles about constantly shifting supply and demand, yet somehow we as a group don’t seem to apply those concepts to the political marketplace.
Exhibit A:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
Mr. Knapp may be correct on # 14.
The demographics are changing. So what is the GOP doing? On social issues, continuing with hard-right rhetoric and on fiscal, spending nearly as bad as the Democrats.
So what political party pushes more social tolerance, yet fiscal responsibility. That was easy.
tk: What they are never going to see again is the GOP hegemony of the post-Civil War period, or even of the Reagan era.
me: We can certainly hope so. It seems the best outcome is perennial divided government and gridlock. Off the top of my head, W had MORE hegemony than Reagan did, and unsurprisingly on balance more dysfunction was generated during the W years than the Reagan years, IMO.
Whether the hegemony and dysfunction of the Obama years tops the W years is a good question; too soon to tell. If a full-blown WWIII breaks out, Obama may take that (bitter) cake.
Gridlock is generally our best bet, until something better comes along. Perhaps a cynical view, but a realistic one, IMO.
ts: This is why the LP should focus on changing the culture. If you can change the culture, you’ll change the major parties’ policies.
me: Hmm, are you sure you mean “culture”? If so, we might consider heavily recruiting Lady Ga Ga. 😉
I’ll assume you mean something like “prevailing political thought.” This seemed to be the premise of Hayek and Rand…to address the intellectual class, and, near as I can tell, that effort has been reasonably successful. There are a lot of self-identified and reasonably influential Ls in the second-hand dealers of ideas.
The LP, OTOH, is more structured in the Rothbardian “cadre building” model. For activists, MNR wanted the regular Joes and Janes to bear witness publicly to the inherent beauty of a pure vision of liberty, regardless of political palatability. From that we got a kind of shock politics, with Ls advocating the right to private nukes, fetuses as parasites, sex with consenting children not coercive and therefore OK, etc. Rothbard himself may not have taken these positions, but his desire to shock while building a dedicated cadre of extremists predictably led to some strange outcomes. Indeed, the party swung SO far in that direction that Rothbard and his replacement Evers (Rockwell) bolted the party, as the party became a real-life illustration of the Lord of the Flies. (I’m pleased to report that the pendulum appears to be swinging away from that particular dysfunctional situation.)
Personally, I am ambivalent about whether the LP should be angling to be a “real” political party or a noise machine for liberty in the form of a party vs. a public interest group or PAC. It seemed unlikely to be of much influence on the path it was on, pre-Portland, with wild theories about personal secession in the platform and running for public office at the same time.*
Under any model of political change, there is a case — a strong one, I’d suggest — for being appropriately calibrated for the situation.
I do happen to believe that there are many districts in the US where a L Bernie Sanders-type could win under plausible circumstances. Even if we never test my theory, I find the thought encouraging.
____
* Note that in theory I support Nonarchy Pods, a form of personal secession, but I don’t think NPs should be in the platform and certainly should not be part of a political campaign.
JT,
I guess it depends on what you mean by “distant future.”
.
Last time around, it was 40 years between GOP congressional majorities. I suspect that the GOP may temporarily regain majorities in one or both houses of Congress, or a term in the White House, between now and 2020, but the key word is “temporary.” They will be back in the minority by 2020, and they will never hold a majority of either house, or the White House, again thereafter.
They may survive as a shadow of themselves for another 30 years or so after that, moving from congressional minority to congressional third party to historical relic with one or two congresscritters and perhaps a career Senator with a really good gerontologist.
What they are never going to see again is the GOP hegemony of the post-Civil War period, or even of the Reagan era.
Both the GOP and Democrats are strong and vibrant, with bright futures ahead of them, precisely because they don’t stand for anything. They have no principles. Thus, they are free to adapt to a changing culture, to whatever opinions and views voters currently hold.
Both major parties were more or less racist in 1910. Neither is so in 2010, not because their principles changed, but because their platforms are empty vessels, changing as the culture changes. They adapt to the culture.
Both major parties have evolved on gay rights, drugs laws, etc. Not fast enough for some third parties, but at a pace that’s satisfactory to most voters (as demonstrated by electoral returns, if not always by polls).
This is why the LP should focus on changing the culture. If you can change the culture, you’ll change the major parties’ policies.
It’s silly for the LP to try and adapt to please the voters. The major parties will always beat the LP on that score. The LP should accept the fact that it will never be a major party.
So long as the LP operates under the delusion that it’s a “real political party” (merely because some government documents on file with a secretary or state says so), then the LP will remain useless.
The LP should focus on changing the culture by saying “extreme” and courageous Truths that the other parties dare not say, and by influencing the culture, influence the major parties.
Or the LP can focus on “getting votes” by diluting the message so it doesn’t “scare voters,” in which case the LP will neither change the culture nor get votes.
I’m not optimistic about the LP. Too many of its members are deluded by the fantasy that they’re a real political party.
Robert: “JT, I doubt anyone is suggesting the GOP is “dead” in one or even 5 years. Teixeira and Phillies seem to be saying that the longer term trends don’t bode well for the GOP as currently constituted and in the direction they are going.”
Well, I wasn’t responding to those two, Robert. I was responding to what Tom said @ 4, that the Republican Party is a “dead dinosaur, only still flopping around because the “you’re dead” nerve signals haven’t made their way to its pea-sized brain yet.” That doesn’t appear to refer to the distant future to me; it appears to refer to the present. A present in which the Republican Party just had a U.S. Senate candidate elected in Massachusetts (!) and as of right now looks as though it’s heading toward regaining control of the U.S. House in November.
George: “News that there are more conservatives in the United States does not obviously do the Republican Party any good, because Republicanism is now no closer to conservatism than Libertarianism is close to conservatism.”
Yes it does, because a majority (though certainly not the totality) of all conservatives consistently vote Republican regardless.
“The Republicans *may* recover control of the House. It depends, I propose, how the economy is doing, and how people feel about how the economy is doing, come October.”
The latter is the more important factor of the two.
I distinctly recall a poll taken in the early part of the 1992 election cycle.
A large percentage (a majority) of those polled felt that the overall American economy was in worse shape than it had been four years earlier, boding ill for George H.W. Bush’s re-election.
Perversely, a similarly large percentage reported that they personally considered themselves more well-off than they had been four years previously.
Or, to put it a different way, the economy was apparently not doing as poorly as most people thought it was. They didn’t vote their pocketbooks, they voted their perceptions of everyone else’s pocketbook.
Indeed, one might propose that the Tea Party movement is the conservatives trying to capture the Republican Party back from the people who control it.
News that there are more conservatives in the United States does not obviously do the Republican Party any good, because Republicanism is now no closer to conservatism than Libertarianism is close to conservatism. The Party that gave us the war of aggression against Iraq, a trillion dollar budget deficit, and social intolerance at the allegedly-Christian far right rather than the Babbit level is going to have real difficulties engaging the professional and professional management classes, not to mention single women, in the long term.
The Republicans *may* recover control of the House. It depends, I propose, how the economy is doing, and how people feel about how the economy is doing, come October. Personal Consumption Expenditures in real dollars are already higher than they were before the recession started. Much more than previous recessions, this recession hit minorities and people at the very bottom of the fiscal ladder, people who may stay home but who are unlikely to vote for a Republican. If come October the S&P and the Dow are up 30% from today, if the change in unemployment resumes its trend under the first year of Obama, Democrats will have much better chances. If the people claiming in the face of almost all information that we are about to enter a second recession and have major inflation turn out to be right, the Democrats will do poorly for this election cycle.
One election cycle does not make a trend, and in the long run the Republicans as the party of whites who follow some Christian faiths but not others guarantees they will become a regional party. Indeed, one might propose that the Republicans absorbed the Southern Democrats of 1950, and are now in the process of becoming the same regional party. Except, of course that their region is shrinking in that the processes of in-migration and education are separating Texas, Florida, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina from that region, leaving the Republicans as the party of the originally-seceding Confederacy.
Having said that, I would urge those of you interested in the question to re-read the history of political parties in the United States from 1840-1860, not from the perspective of the slavery and union questions, but from the perspective of how we changed our second Party. Note on one hand the AntiMasonic Party, and on the other hand the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, the American Party, and — partly similar to the Tea Party movement — the Know Nothing movement. Note in particular the question as to whether the Know Nothings were a separate party, a group trying to capture the Republicans, or what we would now call a Republican Astroturf movement, and people could not tell which it was. (Answer: All three.) The AntiMasons and the Know-Nothings could not combine, because one was dedicated to separating the governance of the United States from the secret society that was doing a bit more to run the country than many moderns would believe (though far less than conspiracy nuts believed) , while the other was a secret society whose members were sworn to say I Know Nothing (about it). Observe also (Holt, the political crisis of the 1850s, is a good read) the question — why did slavery *now* become a more divisive issue; why did the Whigs break Up and the Republicans prosper?
Why indeed, and what does it teach us about 2010?
In 1787 there was almost no division over slavery, because Massachusetts thanks to judicial activism was one of iirc two free states. In 1840, slavery was as obnoxious as 1859, but the political parties then were national, not regional, so as a result their positions on slavery and union had to satisfy their partisans in all parts of the country. Eventually, both parties, the Democracy and the Whigs, tended to become regional parties, regional stands on slavery and such not came to the fore and became harsher and harsher, it actually did become apparent that there was not a dimes worth of difference between them on other issues so what was the point of a Whig party?, and the differences between political stands of major parties in different regions grew rapidly, exactly as we are seeing today in that the Republican Party has collapsed in the Northeast and much of the Pacific Coast, while the Democratic Party does badly in some parts but not others of some southern states.
JT, I doubt anyone is suggesting the GOP is “dead” in one or even 5 years. Teixeira and Phillies seem to be saying that the longer term trends don’t bode well for the GOP as currently constituted and in the direction they are going.
In the last election, I seem to recall they lost all House seats in the NE states. That’s a pretty amazing opportunity for us Ls, as much of the East Coast doesn’t resonate with the harsh intolerance of social conservativism. The southern strategy worked for the GOP for decades, but the trend is for them to become a regional party.
Personally, I’d like to see them continue to go in that direction. It is the Road to Whigdom.
From those ashes could spring a political party committed to liberty across the board; if we play our cards right, that party COULD be the LP.
I agree with Matt T above. How can you say a party is “dead” when it’s looking more and more likely to win back control of the U.S. House in the November elections? I only wish the LP were as dead as that.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
Yes, we’ve got some things breaking our way. But the LP has often been attractive to absolutists who happen to appear as the proverbial angry white male, heavily skewed toward the left-brain-oriented who (attempt to) apply a hard-science view to politics.
Liberty IMO requires a balance of what might be called heart and head. I’d be very surprised if the emerging demographics that this essay identifies would find, for ex., Block’s simplistic syllogistic “proofs” that a State is unnecessary and “evil” would gain much traction among more a more tolerant but State skeptical voters over the next few decades.
I’d suggest that calibration matters, too. It’s one thing to be pro-choice, another thing to say that means late-term abortions are a-OK and beyond the State’s business.
Opportunities can be exploited, or they can be overplayed and destroyed.
The GOP is certainly not dead, thats a ridiculous statement. Here is a Gallup poll comparing ideologies. Conservatism is almost at a 2o year high.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx
I’m a moderate Libertarian, just joined the LP this year and hope the LP can continue it’s growth for years to come.
David,
Don’t egg Dondero on by taking his position seriously. Even he doesn’t take it seriously — he’s just putting out conservative bait because he hasn’t figured out yet that the GOP is a dead dinosaur, only still flopping around because the “you’re dead” nerve signals haven’t made their way to its pea-sized brain yet.
Eric – I don’t read it so much as “promoting affirmative action based on sexual preferences so that one can receive more government benefits”. In fact, I’m seeing quite the opposite – millenials are routinely stating that, if there are government benefits to be had by pairing up (tax breaks, access to the partner in medical situations, clearly defined divorce law if the partnership must be annulled, etc.), they should be available to all consenting adults that choose to do pair up, regardless of sexual orientation.
Granted, it’s not quite the same as the pure Libertarian position of removing government from marriage entirely, but it’s much closer than you make it sound, and certainly several degrees closer than what we’re living with today.
Funny, the author of this survey mistakenly assumes that Government-sponsored Gay Marriage is the proper “Libertarian” position. It is most certainly not. We Libertarians favor getting the government out of the marriage business, not promoting affirmative action based on sexual preferences so that one can receive more government benefits.
Of course, these demographics assume that Blacks will continue to be tied to the Democrat Party. Already, one Black Republican has been elected to the US Congress in South Carolina after winning a GOP primary in a heavily GOP district. Another – Allen West of Florida, appears headed to Congress. More Black Republicans will be elected to offices at all levels this year than at any time since Reconstruction.
To assume that Blacks will continue to be wedded to the Democrat Party makes an ass out of the author of this survey.