RSS Feed MenuVoters don’t think in terms of policy or facts but rather imaginary personalities (Walter Lippmann called them “stereotypes”) — that stand in their minds for a given class of people. Time was, the Republican stereotype was an elderly gent, cigar clenched in his teeth, grousing that the government won’t let him turn a profit anymore. Call him the Plutocrat.
These days, the Republican stereotype is the Yahoo: a middle-aged woman, bible in one hand and flag in the other, proclaiming the need to win back the country for Jesus. Both stereotypes grossly distort the GOP and its policies. Nevertheless, the term “Republican” conjures these imaginary personalities as surely as “1950s housewife” or “Whole Foods shopper.”
Republicans downscaled their brand because that’s where the votes are. Wal-Mart will always draw more customers than Neiman Marcus. The downscaling worked too. From Nixon to Bush II, the GOP won by appealing to the middle and working classes. Wealthier and better educated Republicans often tired of defending the Yahoo to their uncomprehending friends and colleagues. Still, even in the age of Obama, millions of Americans identify with her.
Only suddenly, it’s not enough. In 2008, the GOP lost by six percentage points among voters earning $200,000 or more. The Democrats, meanwhile, have performed the neat trick of winning both the poorest and the richest. Consequently, the GOP is no longer competitive in states marked by larger extremes of rich and poor.
The Republican brand used to have cachet. To worship in the Episcopal Church, to have a wife in the Junior League, to vote Republican: these things were once the marks of bourgeois success. Today, not even the high bourgeois vote Republican.
The GOP needs to expand its appeal, and the most natural place to turn is to the wealthy voters that it once took for granted. To win them back, Republicans will need to refurbish their brand. It won’t be easy. Stereotypes compress the blooming, buzzing confusion of the world into meaningful forms; by definition, they are incorrigible to facts. Nonetheless, Republicans can still do some things to improve their image among the wealthy and educated, without at the same time betraying their middle and working class base.
First, Republicans can again become the party of fiscal responsibility. With their tax-cutting platform and big-spending ways, recent Republicans have betrayed their party’s reputation for fiscal prudence. Obama, on the other hand, has proposed budget deficits that dwarf those of even Reagan and Bush. A call for balanced budgets appeals not only to Republican constituents’ sense of patriotic solidarity, but also to the upper class’s sense of stewardship. (Think of Ross Perot’s surprisingly broad support in 1992.) The GOP might even consider downplaying tax cuts and instead calling on every American to sacrifice for the greater good.
Second, Republicans should promise to combat economic inequality. For years, it was a given that that the Democrats, as the party of the hardworking Common Man (yet another stereotype), would lose among high-income voters. No longer. The Yahoo now triggers the status anxieties of the rich just as much as (perhaps even more than) the Common Man ever did. To assuage these anxieties, Republicans should emphasize themes of solidarity with the less fortunate — a strategy which can also play into the very feelings of higher moral obligation that Obama so successfully manipulated in 2008. As David Frum has argued, the GOP should get serious about stagnating incomes. They should promise (in contrast to the Democrats) to reduce the kind of low-skilled immigration that depresses wages. Culture war themes have divided the wealthy from the middle class. Economic themes can reunite them.
If Republicans are going to win again, they’ll need a better stereotype. It doesn’t necessarily have to be flattering, but it does have to be more popular. As a start, let’s begin by purging the word “elite” as a form of name-calling in our internecine squabbles.
ChristianMiller // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Mussolini was competent too. So was Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Franco (generalissimo, not me). Oh and Chavez and Sadaam Husein and Khomeni and Putin and… Doesn’t matter what they believe, problems are so complex! It just takes the right 5 year plan right?
danbmil99 // Mar 12, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Franco: “Do you know ANYTHING about history or about political science? Philosophy? Economics? Clearly you know nothing. I don’t care what school you went to or what classes you took – you didn’t learn anything. And you are calling others stupid because they know about these things and you don’t?” Franco, why you gotta be like that? Did I call you names? Where did I say anyone is stupid? It’s hard to avoid the feeling that you’re just trolling here, trying to keep the heat up and avoid a real discussion. For your benefit, I dropped out of college and spent most of my life running my own business. Maybe that’s why I’m so darn stoopid. What’s your excuse?
danbmil99 // Mar 12, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“Mussolini was competent too”. Sheesh. Obama and friends aren’t any more likely to turn the USA into a fascist dictatorship than Bush/Cheney were (and I believe they tried). The left wants us to be like France, not Cuba. (well maybe the fringe left wants Cuba, but not the merely liberal, ie Pelosi/Reed/Frank). Their main difference with us is a belief in trying to mandate some sort of fundamental “fairness”, where you get compensated for all the bad things that happen in life. They are steeped in a culture of victimhood that tends to downplay personal responsibility, and blames much of the world’s ills on the corruption of the rich and powerful. They’re no farther left than FDR was, and he didn’t destroy America. Stop claiming the sky is falling.
ChristianMiller // Mar 13, 2009 at 5:47 am
danbmil99
3:41 PM
“I think something that gets lost in discussion of politics is that no matter how ideological you are, unless you are crazy or just plain stupid…” That is where. You don’t know the importance of it and think that because FDR was left-wing we can tolerate all manner of new leftism. Yes! Pile it on! America can survive anything! FDR’s Social Security chickens are coming home to roost. The US government is still in denial about their own ponzi scheme. 53 Trillion dollars, my friend. Oh, but it is all harmless it is all about your perception of competence. And Obama is competent? Not so far he’s not. And there never was anything thing he demonstrated competence about except delivering a prepared speech with a teleprompter. Your statement about Bush/Cheney whether wrong or right reveals that you CAN see ideological beliefs influencing politicians, you just don’t see a threat from the left. You believe all the propaganda and lies they utter, Face it. You aren’t going to vote for anything other than a Democrat, a far left wing one at that. like Obama who is going to take all your money and work and have you believe it’s Bush’s fault. And Frum thinks he can convert you people?!
ottovbvs // Mar 13, 2009 at 6:28 am
Franco.
“And Obama is competent? Not so far he’s not.”
………By comparison with his predecessor he looks like a model of competence. I’m afraid this comment not to mention the ones about Bush/Cheney and FDR show you’re just not grounded politically Franco. SS chickens ARE NOT coming home to roost in the sense that America is never going to give up this program. In fact the events of the past year in the stock markets have totally destroyed any future efforts to nibble away at any part of it by privatization which is why it’s never mentioned by Republicans. You don’t get it buddy, Frum is trying to get some light in there but he’s clearly not succeeding in your case.
sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:03 am
danbmil99 sez: “I’d rather have a competent liberal than an incompetent conservative any day.” What on earth gave you the idea that Obama was competent, given his *extremely* limited record in the Senate? What about being a Senator makes one competent at executive functions, which are what being a Chief Executive is all about?
sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:14 am
Franco: I read National Review Online and Weekly Standard Online every single day. In fact, I have them both linked off my own home page. Here are the links off my home page: # FrontPage Magazine (David Horowitz)
# Little Green Footballs
# Lucianne.com
# Michelle Malkin.com
# National Review Online
# New Majority
# Real Clear Politics.com
# Politico.com
# RedState.com
# Town Hall
# Weekly Standard
See any liberal publications in there???
ChristianMiller // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:39 am
sinz There so many partisan Democrats here posing as ‘moderates” that I’m losing track of who is who. Are you embarrassed by Coulter? If so, it is useless because she and the others aren’t going to stop, and the moderates turned off by them, as they claim, are just using them as an excuse to hit naive Republicans over the head. Notice they aren’t turned off by Democrats with Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Micheal Moore, James Carville. Nor do these moderates take the ‘moderate” position that these people tend to cancel each other out in the partisan ideological fight. No, they apply a double-standard and are convinced that the center-left is the center. That is really what is happening here at NM. The center left is the new center, the right is the extreme and the left are perfectly legit. I got it. BTW you read Horowitz, so you see the threat from the left I take it? So many of the supposed centrists here don’t seem to see that.
ChristianMiller // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:48 am
ottovbvs, Oh, that is right 8 years of Bush . That refutes everything. I forgot. And the refutation about SS an assertion IN THE SENSE that America isn’t going to give it up. Ha! Mkay. Whatever you say about Iraq is invalid IN THE SENSE that Obama and successors will never leave! Yeah okay… I can play at this game of fallacies too. And your misreading of my response to another poster is evidence that you are dense and partisan. More Democrats coming here to do what exactly? What a silly site this is.
midcon // Mar 13, 2009 at 8:02 am
Franco: I for one am a centrist that is turned off by both fringes, whether they are named Coulter or Sharpton. I am cognizant and critical of both what the “liberals” and “conservatives” say and do. If there was a “moderate” liberal site, I would go there and say the same thing. P.S. Is it just me or does Carville resemble Skeletor?
Rhampton // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:17 pm
This Rush Limbaugh monologue is a fascinating document, and should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand one of the most powerful conservative narratives emerging around the looming GOP debacle. For Rush, there are only two kinds of people in Republican Party: True conservatives like him, and “moderate Republicans.” The latter is an ideologically-inclusive category: You can be pro-choice or pro-life, David Frum or Colin Powell, a Rockefeller Republican or a Sam’s Club conservative; indeed, the only real requirement for moderate-Republican status is the belief that the Republican Party needs to reach out to voters w don’t agree with, well, Rush Limbaugh on every jot and tle of what conservatism is and ought to be. This Rush Limbaugh monologue is a fascinating document, and should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand one of the most powerful conservative narratives emerging around the looming GOP debacle. For Rush, there are only two kinds of people in Republican Party: True conservatives like him, and “moderate Republicans.” The latter is an ideologically-inclusive category: You can be pro-choice or pro-life, David Frum or Colin Powell, a Rockefeller Republican or a Sam’s Club conservative; indeed, the only real requirement for moderate-Republican status is the belief that the Republican Party needs to reach out to voters who don’t agree with, well, Rush Limbaugh on every jot and tittle of what conservatism is and ought to be . . . But read quickly (or delivered with Rush’s customary brio), it has a certain surface plausibility – just enough, I suspect, to be persuasive to the many, many conservatives eager to be convinced that the ‘08 outcome had everything to do with John McCain’s heresies and the treason of the Beltway elites, and nothing whatsoever to do with them.
– “Rush Limbaugh Explains It all” by Ross Douthat, October 26, 2008
sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Franco sez: “Notice they aren’t turned off by Democrats with Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Micheal Moore, James Carville.” I don’t consider them equivalent to Ann Coulter (OK, maybe Sharpton was in his younger days). The closest equivalent to Coulter I can think of on the Left are: Reverend Wright, Cynthia McKinney, and Ward Churchill, all of whom have trafficked in sheer hate, and all of whom were condemned by the mainstream Democratic Party. (In fact, McKinney was ousted twice from the Congress, by Democrats from her own party.) Because some of the things Coulter has said are just plain hateful towards minorities, and other religions. Beyond that, right after 9-11, when passions were running high, along came Ann Coulter to pour gasoline on the fire, with her calls for what could only be described as a Christian crusade against Islam. She was being totally irresponsible in a dangerous time–and loving it. In that way she really does resemble Ward Churchill.
sinz54 // Mar 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm
danbmil99 sez: “[Obama administration is] no farther left than FDR was, and he didn’t destroy America. Stop claiming the sky is falling.” I disagree with you–and on this I agree with Franco. Because we had 40 years since the New Deal to learn what elements of liberalism don’t work, and w to accomplish the goals of liberalism in more practical ways. So liberals can’t any longer just propose the exact same nostrums with the exact same philosophy as before, without sounding stupid to those of us w remember the past. But, that’s exactly what Obama has done. The liberal Great Society of 1965 led directly to the Great Stagflation and the Great Urban Decay of the 1970s. It took a lot of work to fix those two pathologies. Obama and his left-wing supporters, some of whom are just too young to remember the 1970s, are just ignoring all that, and are going to reboot the Great Society as if nothing bad resulted. And the result is going to be the same as the last time–a Great Stagflation and a Great Decay. Remember what Santayana said about those who do not remember the past: They are condemned to repeat it.
MariaTSGirl // Mar 14, 2009 at 11:05 am
danbmil, please do not defame me. First off, I work a full-time job, I don’t get insurance because I have a preexisting condition. I can afford insurance, people just won’t insure me. I exercise, eat healthy, I have never smoked or drank once in my life. I have money to cover my health concerns myself. Also should my hard earned dollars pay for your churches? I am not a liberal at all, I am not poor. wever, you ume because I am transsexual that it is my fault I am in this situation and that I do not work. You know I have never met one physically disabled person or transsexual person without a legitimate job or unemployed. We are denied healthcare because of w we are even though we can afford it. Also, please do not call me a liberal, it is simply untrue. Sincerely, the true believer.
MariaTSGirl // Mar 14, 2009 at 11:16 am
why should churches not have to pay taxes, why do we keep giving money to people w do not choose to work, we should be supporting the people who choose to work. I am entirely against welfare but I am for taking money from the churches and allocating it to spitals. why do companies get bailouts, and criminals get better healthcare than me? I mean if you say that your taxes shouldn’t go to prevent people for suffering for a few years and then dying in pain with no one caring, and you go to church, then it is simply hypocricy, no other way to put it. the rich and poor get money back, but the middle cl suffer. Do not say you don’t want the hard-working middle class to get healthcare, and also if disabled people were able to get insurance easier and not get denied when they can afford it but because they have a disability. we work hard, and you get things, you deserve everything, but I deserve nothing, cause I am a freak right?
MariaTSGirl // Mar 14, 2009 at 11:34 am
also, you speak of lifestyle choices, what lifestyle choices have I made? Last time I checked, I haven’t made any lifestyle choices that have affected my health. Being born with a genetic condition and being confined to a power chair because of that, developing arthritis and osteoporosis, even though I get therapy every day, due directly to my genetic condition. I am the weight I should be, for my height. I have never engaged in dangerous sexual activities, well I haven’t even had sexual intercourse. Also, in terms of lifestyle choices, I haven’t taken an rmones or gotten any surgeries for my transsexuality because it will likely make my physical body weaker and the side effects are too high. I also have a clotting factor by birth, and it would be simply stupid to take hormones, which can cause clotting. I do everything that I should to keep myself health, because of my physical conditions. I am simply denied healthcare for no reason at all.
sinz54 // Mar 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
MariaTSGirl: There are other states, like Massachusetts where I live, where by state law, no resident can be turned down for medical insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Have you considered relocating to one of those states? Unless you want to wait until Congress passes some kind of health care reform, which could take a while.
midcon // Mar 14, 2009 at 3:34 pm
MariaTSGirl: I think you have it spot on. You are neither poor enough, nor rich enough for the government pay any attention to you. The bailout should give you a clue. The government has given to the banks (the rich) and is in the process of providing for those who are in danger of foreclosure. If you pay your bills, hold a job, and become a product member of society —- this will be a little over the top —– you are nothing more than a host on which the parasites of our society feed. Our government has waged battle over the years maintaining the proper balance between hosts and parasites. Thus far the parasites have been held in relative check. But after 8 years of incompetence the parasites are ready to feed and they are hungry!