I have been reading with considerable optimism the posts about the electoral chances of Kerry/Edwards. Perhaps the move to Canada can wait just a little while longer and perhaps I will be able to face my Canadian friends this winter, without them laughing at me. So far so good. But is this movement an indication of a longer term trend?
I for one am hesitant to try and guess long term political trends, but we may actually be seeing something here. First a little history. Even though the pundits usually credit Reagan for the rightward shift of the country, it was actually Richard Nixon, of course. It was Nixon who recognized the chance to move the Solid South from blue to red. His appeal was quite simple of course -- race. Trent Lott was but the latest to state explicitly, what has been sub rosa since the 60's.
Read the rest in the extended entry...
I have been reading with considerable optimism the posts about the electoral chances of Kerry/Edwards. Perhaps the move to Canada can wait just a little while longer and perhaps I will be able to face my Canadian friends this winter, without them laughing at me. So far so good. But is this movement an indication of a longer term trend?
I for one am hesitant to try and guess long term political trends, but we may actually be seeing something here. First a little history. Even though the pundits usually credit Reagan for the rightward shift of the country, it was actually Richard Nixon, of course. It was Nixon who recognized the chance to move the Solid South from blue to red. His appeal was quite simple of course -- race. Trent Lott was but the latest to state explicitly, what has been sub rosa since the 60's.
What Ronald Reagan did was to add a few other non-racist or at least overtly non-racist groups to the Republican fold. The first was the "freedom loving" Westerner. The red states of the west vote Republican generally on the theory that Republicans are for keeping the pointy headed beareaucrats out of their business. Reagan also added the anti-abortion groups to the fold, which siphoned off votes in normally Democratic areas such as the northeast. Reagan also added in the "cultural warriors." While Nixon and company for the most part were talking about race with their "law and order" rhetoric, Reagan and company expanded that rhetoric to include an element of class or cultural warfare, so that anything out of the "mainstream" was attacked. Gay bashing, teen pregnancy, pornography and other irrelevancies (to national governance, anyway) come under this rubric. A shorthand way to think of this might be "narrow minded white suburbanites" for Reagan.
So now the question is, "Was Clinton/Gore the beginning of a leftward correction or just a blip?" It is actually still fairly hard to say as Clinton actually leaned quite a bit to the right. Gore was leaning a bit more to the left and obviously won the election, but it was still traditional red versus traditional blue -- 50/50. I think Kerry leans a bit more leftward and things seem to be breaking his way right now, but we have to see.
On the other hand, I think GW represents the outer rightward limits of American governance (thank goodness!). At first I was afraid that his semi-faschist agenda would take hold, but actually he has taken quite a bit of flak from both sides on the more extreme agenda items, which is grounds for hope.
So, where do we stand now? As always, the northeast stands as a progressive stronghold. It wobbled for a while, but now seems to be solidly blue again. I guess a good education is good for something after all. It's multicultural make-up and strong educational systems make it less vulnerable to the class/race appeals. It is ironic that the richest area of the country actually leans blue!
The upper midwest is in flux at the moment, but seems to be coming back blue. Unfortunately we are not always as progressive as we like to think up here and with majority white populations we are still vulnerable to the class/race wars and the anti-abortion vote is still strong here.
Even after 50 years of civil rights, the south still seems hopeless, with the appeal of the race/class wars still overwhelming. They can say it is "taxes" or "freedom" or some such garbage, but they know why they vote Republican and we do too. But as those states become more multicultural and diverse they may swing blue -- we are seeing some movement in that direction in the border states -- Missouri didn't want Ashcroft anymore.
The central west is an interesting case, solid red since Reagan, now starting to swing. I think the reason here is population density. Absolute freedom is great when your nearest neighbor is 2 miles away, put him a hundred feet away and suddenly the need for some kind of regulation starts to look pretty good. Plus, no one wants a lead smelter in their neighborhood. The fastest growing western states (AZ, NM, NV) are starting to swing blue as folks realize that the Dems will tolerate pools and SUVs, but will fight against radioactive waste dumps. It might be sad, but it is true.
The west coast is shaping up as almost solid blue. Its multicultural makeup protects against the race/class warriors and they already see the need for effective government action (e.g. smart growth in OR). Also, it seems that higher educational levels make for a blue leaning area.
Please do not misunderstand me, I don't feel that those who vote Republican are necessarily racist, sexist or any ist. I am sure that many folks actually buy their low tax / low regulation approach to governance, but I think we have to also honestly face the more underlying aspects of their electoral appeal. Or to be quite blunt about it, if the Republicans are the party of the rich, why don' t they carry the northeast?
So, perhaps we are seeing a bit of a shift back to a more "blue-ward" direction. In my next dispatch, I'll give a few suggestions for what the blues can do to solidy their gains.