Monday, January 21, 2008

Who votes for the Democrats, and what impact does it have on Republican strategy?

The diagram that we all learn in Political Science 101 for the "political spectrum" in America goes something like this:

<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican

Pretty simple, right? It also makes election strategies simple: Move to the wings for primaries, move to the center for the general. Moreover, by moving your party as a whole to the center, you can get more votes!

However, when Republicans move to the center, it never works. Why not? The diagram suggests that moving the Republican Party to a centrist or center-left position on the spectrum ought to grab Republicans all sorts of extra votes. Yet, when Republicans have moved to the left (2006 rings a bell,) they lose, dramatically. When Republicans move to the right, as Ronald Reagan did, they win huge victories. Republicans that want to move the party to the left on questions like spending and social concerns are missing the point: Democrats will never vote for Diet Democrats, and Centrists will never vote for somebody who stands for nothing.

In order to help my fellow Republicans understand why Democrats vote the way they vote, and what can be done to steal some of these voters, I humbly offer this analysis of the four different groups of Democrats:

1) The Welfare Royalty: Welfare Kings and Queens vote for the candidate who will give them the most government money with the fewest strings attached. I include Social Security/Medicare voters, Trial Lawyers, union members and leaders, and anybody who gets an AFDC check in this category. Each one of these groups relies on Democrats for their meal ticket, at the moment, and will not abandon them until somebody offers them more money.

Why can't Republicans get the Welfare Royalty vote? If you don't have to worry about the calories (i.e. your taxes being raised,) then why drink Diet Generic Cola when they can have Generic Cola Classic? Unless Republicans abandon all spending restraint, and embark on a decades-long binge, they will never convince Welfare Royalty to vote for them. In the meantime, the base will grumble about the monetary wisdom of intoxicated sailors every time they see the budget figures, and justifiably stay home on election day.

2) The Special Privilege Separatists: The Special Privilege Separatists could be women, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. They are members of groups that want special treatment from the government. Affirmative Action is probably the best example. It is a privileged status afforded to blacks because bad things were done to their ancestors. Illegal aliens suggest that our government is oppressive and racist because it occasionally deports people who are here illegally. Illegal aliens demand amnesty for coming here illegally, living here illegally, emptying the welfare purses nationwide, shutting down hospital emergency rooms with their demands for medical care, and for stealing Social Security Numbers and screwing up the credit of millions of people. Young women demand the right to kill unborn children so that they can avoid the inconvenience of adopting them out.

Republicans tend to believe in ideas like equality before the law, and the rule of law. Why would a working woman or a black man vote for a Party that has pledged to take away their special privileges? Why would an illegal alien vote for a Party that (might,) enforce the law and deport them? Republicans cannot get the votes from Special Privilege Separatists until there is a widespread recognition that these special privileges may not be deserved, may provoke resentment, and lead to these groups being perceived as "tokens" and unqualified for the positions they hold. We cannot grab this group immediately, but we can certainly oppose amnesty and avoid importing millions of new Democrats from Mexico.

3) The Compassion Fascists: Compassion Fascists are people who vote Democrat because of the warm, fuzzy feeling they get for doing so. Another important reason for their vote is the warm, fuzzy feeling they get from others. They perceive the Democrat Party as the Party of compassion, the Party that cares about the poor, minorities, and the environment. They parrot what they read in the New York Times and what they hear from Chris Matthews to win approval as an enlightened cosmopolitan from their fellow cocktail party attendees. Their affiliation with the Democrat Party has nothing to do with rational thought or evaluation of their positions, it is an emotional reaction to the way Democrats are perceived, and a burning desire to find acceptance.

So why do I call them Compassion Fascists? They know their beliefs are illogical and contradictory. They know that they don't live their own lives by the principles and values that the Democrats express, but they have to be able to ignore this fact to continue getting those looks of approval at the cocktail parties! Therefore, they crush whoever spouts reality at them. They club them down with implications of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, dishonesty, murderousness, lack of moral right, etc. They use spokespeople that cannot be criticized, so that they will not be called stupid for making stupid suggestions (like the 9-11 widows, or Michael J. Fox.) They dance around questions like Madonna with a pole. They hurl food, or yell their opponents down. They shoot up the local Republican headquarters, slash tires, and hurl bricks. I have not even begun to discuss Liberal peace activists or environmentalists. (I debated with myself for a full two hours: What do I link to for these lunatics? There are so many options, I was paralyzed. I decided to continue ahead with this one, because it so effectively displays the total lack of thought on the part of these particular mental patients, and because I had other things to do.)

The only practical difference between the Nazi Brownshirts and these Democrat thugs is that these thugs are not official.

Can Republicans get these votes? It will require a public relations campaign on a scale that dwarfs the movement I suggested against the Special Privilege Separatists, and it will not be quick. These people need the approval of others, so they will need a conservative intelligentsia to join for this strategy to work. This strategy also requires massive PR campaigns to highlight facets of Islamofascism like the Saudi woman who was gang-raped and sentenced to 90 lashes for being with a man who was not her husband, the stoning to death of gays and adulterous women in Iran, or the recent "honor killings" in Texas. It can be done, but it has to be done via emotional appeals, not via logical argument.

4) FDR Democrats: FDR Democrats vote for Democrats because their parents voted for Democrats, and so did their grandparents, and so on. These people tend to believe that the Democrat Party is the Party of FDR, and not of George Soros, the DailyKos and MoveOn.Org. Their association with the Democrat Party is based on a picture of that Party as it once existed, not as it currently exists.

Any of these voters who pay even scant attention to the news have already noted the loony tilt their Party has acquired. They are ready to head for the hills, but they do not currently have anywhere to go. Republicans consistently fail to make the case for their policies, and to live up to their promises. These people do occasionally vote Republican for President, but only when their candidate is so obviously insane that they need to find refuge, or when there is a Republican out there making the case for conservatism. We can win these folks if we can convince them that the Democrat Party has changed from what they believe it to be. If this is combined with somebody who is not afraid to make the case for what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, we can sweep these people in to the Party.

***********************

Finally, there are the Centrists. Centrists are generally driven by gut feelings. Note that this is not the warm, fuzzy feeling of the Compassion Fascists. It is an instinctive impression of the people involved. When somebody displays clear leadership abilities, and can make a case for what they believe, the Centrists tend to pile in to voting booths to cast a ballot for them. All that is required to get the Centrist vote is to nominate somebody who doesn't retreat every time they are attacked, and can lay out a consistent philosophy that they will follow in office.

When Republican move to the left to gather votes from the middle, they will fail. They will alienate their own base, while managing to confuse Centrists and present a less-than-convincing pitch to the FDR Democrats. What Republicans need to do to win is to present a clear, consistent case for their ideas. We learned in 2006 what happens when our Party ignores the base and goes after moderates, we should not repeat this lesson in 2008 if we want to see a non-socialist elected.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just read your post at TCS Daily http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=9579&fldIdMsg=90805 that referred me to your blog. From my experience the crux of the definition problem is that there are too many meaningless and misused terms. As you indicate, a Socialist is a fascist (which anyone knows who has read Hayek). Calling fascists "liberals" is falling into their trap. I have never liked the straight line method of defining political leanings, because those at both ends of the spectrum are all fascists, or to use a better word, "totalitarians". It would be far more appropriate to use concentric circles with Individual Freedom at the center, and anything outside of the center a varying degree of totalitarianism. To my way of thinking a political party is something one votes for - or against by not voting or by voting for another party. But when it comes to the actions of politicians, we always need to ask whether they will take actions to enhance (or maintain) freedom, or will their actions result in loss of freedom. If we ever wake up, we will realize that there is no such thing as equal opportunity, that no two people are created equal, and that we have to earn our niche in life. The last I heard, we get paid at the end of the month for work we have done, not at the beginning. However, I do not believe in total unrestricted freedom; rather freedom to do and say as we please, provided we do not interfere with the lives of others. I do not believe in total and unfettered freedom of expression, because "expression" in addition to covering speech, also covers actions (besides, freedom of expression is not mentioned in the constitution - the founding fathers knew better than to open that can of worms). Only totalitarians would agree that they have full freedom to take action against anyone they do not like, but of course being totalitarians they reserve that "right" for themselves.

Matthew Kemp said...

Thank you for visiting the blog, howiem.

I've found that a lot of people criticize the spectrum I use to illustrate my point in this post. I happen to agree with most of these criticisms, this spectrum is useless. The point of this post was to demonstrate that this spectrum is useless, and that Republicans can only win if they present an unapologetic case for their ideas.

However, this straight-line spectrum does shape the thinking in Washington and the high officers of both the Democrats and Republicans. I served for a time as an intern in Washington, and I have to say that the group everybody was after was the "middle." Everybody seemed convinced that the Republican Party needed to adopt pseudo-socialism as their dominant ideology in order to capture the 30% or so of voters who did not identify with either of the two major parties.

They don't care that this strategy never works, they believe it because everybody in Washington believes it. In a groupthink environment, you either adopt the dominant thought, or you make your case and get crushed by those who disagree.

I'll be posting a full refutation of the "circle" political spectrum today (1 Mar 2008.)