Ronald Reagan redefined the political landscape. (Oh? You thought when I said this article was about a winner I was going to discuss a Democrat? Yeah, I thought President Trump would continue to be a punchline.) Obama even compared himself to Reagan. I personally consider Reagan overrated, but you must admit: He’s still influential. (And of course, both parties essentially put forth a nostalgia candidate in 2016: Clinton for the 90s for obvious reasons, and Trump for the Gordon Gekko 80s and the hedonistic, Studio 54 70s.)
Interestingly enough, Reagan’s “one neat trick” was the so-called “three-legged stool”: Economics, social, and foreign policy. The really cool part is, Reagan made them all look so damned moderate, even as he pursued an extremist agenda. For instance, we all worry about our own debts, so clearly, we should worry about the government’s debt, while pursuing hare-brained policies that actually ballooned the debt. Or, we all do silently judge unfaithful spouses or people with ties to organized crime, while doing nothing about AIDS. Foreign policy was particularly awkward; prior to Vietnam, the rule had generally been that partisanship ended at the border, and Democrats lost 1968 as the pro-war party and 1972 as the antiwar party.
It should be noted, of course, that racism permeated all three legs of the stool. It was there when Reagan spoke at Bob Jones University. It was there throughout the conservative movement’s economic policy; in a 1981 interview, Lee Atwater made it clear right-wing economic policies were popular in the South because they hurt black people more. And it was there when Reagan backed South Africa. This also relates to Reagan’s own role as a nostalgia candidate: There was a lot of 50s/early 60s nostalgia during that period. And while Reagan was certainly not pursuing Ike’s fiscal policies, people came to see “the 50s” as a dog whistle for segregation. (Ignoring that the military was desegregated in 1948, and there were still segregated country clubs in the 90s. Isn’t that right, Bill?)
Something generally understood by Democrats from that era, and pretty much everyone who isn’t a New Democrat, was that the fiscal wing was in charge. As mentioned, foreign policy doesn’t generally have as much dissent as domestic policy, and social conservatives were essentially being scammed. And you know? This argument, while simplistic, is actually a fairly accurate description of what was going on.
In short, going after self-described “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” types is like trying to give the Architect a red pill. He knows what the Matrix is because he built it. And this is statistically true: Pew did a study of eight different types of voters. What they called “business conservatives”, voters who are economically conservative but more moderate or liberal on social issues? Pew found that 88% of those people voted Republican in 2014, and 84% voted for Romney in 2012. Interestingly enough, their inverse, the “faith and family left”, 63% voted for the Democratic candidate in 2014 and 75% voted for Obama in 2012.
It goes beyond that. Visit some alt right blogs some time. I’m unaware of any study of the demographics of the alt right, but seriously, they strike me as overwhelmingly yuppie types, and it seems a majority of them are in finance.
In fact, I would say, what do you call a man who is obscenely wealthy and
- has ties to organized crime in several countries
- is on his third wife
- allegedly raped his first wife
- allegedly admires Adolf Hitler, and we can confirm he does admire certain heads of state who openly admire Hitler