President Obama ends his first month in office with a very impressive approval rating. Perhaps more impressive are new polls showing the Democrats with a strong edge in partisan identification. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama took 53 percent of the vote, seven points more than John McCain. Now the president’s approval rating is 68 percent. Some analysts see these results as evidence that the country had embraced the philosophy of the political left. At first glance, the Democratic- Republican gap in voters’ party identification would back that up. In Pew’s polling from February 2009, 36 percent of adults identified themselves as Democrats and 24 percent as Republicans – a 12 point party identification gap.
As bad as the current gap looks for Republicans, it starts to look even worse as part of a trend over time. In 2002, Pew reported that the gap in party self-identification was just one pointÑ34 percent of registered voters were self-identified Democrats, and 33 percent were self-identified Republicans. In just seven years, then, the self-identification gap had grown by ten points. It seems unlikely that this shift is entirely attributable to the growing unpopularity of a Republican president over this time period.
The growing party identification gap in certain states should definitely be cause for Republican concern. North Carolina provides a good example. George W. Bush beat Al Gore in North Carolina by seven points in the 2000 presidential elections, but in 2008, Obama won the state by three-tenths of a percent over McCain. In 2000, the party identification gap in North Carolina among registered voters was five points (40 percent self-identified Democrats vs. 35 percent self-identified Republicans). By 2008, that gap had expanded to 13 points (39 percent self-identified Democrats vs. 26 percent self-identified Republicans). Once a Republican stronghold, North Carolina is now firmly in the swing state category, and Republicans must pay attention to boosting voters’ self-identification with the Republican Party in states like this if they are to stay competitive nationally.
Some pundits have suggested that the Republicans embrace a version of the 50-state strategy to stop the bleeding, and perhaps even turn around some of these negative trends. However, there are two reasons why Republicans should not overreact in an attempt to reinvent themselves.
First, the party self-identification gap is not a new phenomenonÑRepublicans have consistently lagged behind Democrats in this area even in times of great Republican electoral success. A case in point: Ronald Reagan in 1984. Reagan won 49 states on his way to reelection, but in that year, only 39 percent of Americans called themselves Republicans, compared to 48 percent who identified themselves as Democrats. Clearly, party identification is not a perfect reflection of how the electorate feels about specific candidates.
Second, while party self-identification favors Democrats, ideological self-identification actually has consistently favored the political right. In fact, less than half of self-identified Democrats have also called themselves liberals over the past 40 years. According to the ANES survey, in 2004, 49 percent of the national electorate called themselves Democrats, but only 23 percent referred to themselves as liberal (including the categories of “extremely liberal,” “liberal,” and “slightly liberal”). Meanwhile, 36 percent placed themselves in one of the corresponding conservative categories. Given all the talk that American conservatism is at death’s door, it is surprising that voters seem less reluctant to identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals.
In the current environment, the conservative “brand” may be more popular than the Republican label for several reasons. The unpopularity of the most recent administration and the GOP’s failure to articulate a cohesive set of values are clearly key. Boosting the national and statewide percentages of self-identified Republicans depends upon the party’s promotion of principles that appeal to those who view themselves as conservatives.
But the great challenge for Republicans may be determining how self-identified conservatives actually view conservatism, and how to associate these views with Republicanism so that the party will have the same positive overtones as the ideology. Based on the statistics presented here, some might argue that the answer is to move the Republican Party further to the right. Those who take this position might point to McCain’s unsuccessful candidacy as evidence that when the Party chooses to abandon ideological purity in favor of a more moderate perspective, the results are disastrous. However, this interpretation of the statistics assumes that voters take a very narrow view of conservatism. If, on the other hand, voters tend to see conservatism as espousing the universal values of limited government and fiscal responsibility, then a move towards greater strictness on policy positions could alienate more voters than it would attract.
The Republican Party faces two potential pathsÑit could move rightward and advocate more conservative policy positions, or it could champion a more open philosophy based on the principle of limited government. The latter approach would be a better course of action. Images from the just-concluded Conservative Political Action ConferenceÑsuch as the electric response to Rush Limbaugh’s conference-closing addressÑsuggest that the conservative movement is primarily populated by those who identify with the right wing on a range of specific policy issues. While this is certainly true of some conservatives, it would be incorrect to describe all self-identified Republicans and conservatives in that way.
Although most self-identified Republicans say they think the party should move in a more conservative direction, many Republicans hold positions on specific issues that are more moderate than right-wing. So do many conservatives. Take the issue of abortion. Perhaps surprisingly, self-identified conservatives are not a monolith. In May 2008, nearly three in ten self-identified conservatives called themselves “pro-choice.” The numbers among self-identified moderates are more illuminatingÑ55 percent called themselves “pro-choice,” while 38 percent said they were “pro-life.” Therefore, if the Republican Party were to take a more conservative position on the abortion issue, this could lead to diminished support for the party. Even though John McCain was a strongly pro-life candidate, the current limited political influence of abortion relative to other policy issues combined with the public perception of McCain as a moderate Republican strongly suggest that the abortion issue had little impact on the 2008 presidential race. However, that is not to say that abortion does not have the potential to impact elections if the Republican Party were to move further to the right on the issue.
Though the words and positions of Rush Limbaugh may resonate with many conservatives and Republicans, they are likely to turn off the significant number of Republicans (and potential Republicans) who see conservatism as something broader than the views espoused by talk radio.
17 responses so far
1 joebozak // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I am a registered Democrat who would consider voting for a Republican candidate articulating a serious interest in governing at a federal level.
Unfortunately, what I see in the current batch of Republican candidates/officeholders is a lack of seriousness in this regard.
I may be guilty of projection here, but I think that most voters want government to work. That is, to function effectively.
My first question is this: If you are interested in government working, why would you vote for a candidate who professes that government, in and of itself, is the problem?
My second question: Can a Republican candidate stand for effective, efficient, and robust government without being branded a heretic by the rump of the party and thereby disqualified from office?
2 Republitarian // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The self-identification polling numbers are incredibly misleading. And, unfortunately give some conservatives a tremendous false sense of security. Limbaugh and Hannity say with great frequency that it’s a center-right country. If that was true, we probably wouldn’t have the most liberal president in the last 65 years and Dems with comfortable control of both houses of Congress. Regardless of what people choose or not choose to call themselves, most are in the middle and not on the fringes. That’s why the pendulum swings back and forth. If the GOP can’t moderate on some of these more divisive issues and start providing solutions rather than criticism, anger and sarcasm, it’s going to be a very long couple of years.
3 joh // Mar 3, 2009 at 6:42 pm
joebozak’s question strikes at the heart of this issue:
The question was: “If you are interested in government working, why would you vote for a candidate who professes that government, in and of itself, is the problem?”
Personally, I see government as a necessary evil and would prefer the smallest government possible. But, I’m obviously in the minority on that opinion.
So ultimately it doesn’t matter if I think abortion should be legal or not, because what’s not what will decide the presidency. What will is whether or not the American electorate believes that government should have more control of the economy, health care, education, wealth redistribution, etc.
And if we are to believe Newsweek, that we’re all socialists now, then no Libertarian or Conservative party can ever be viable, it will always be in the minority.
So if 53% of the electorate in 2008 believed that large government was the answer, how does a party of limited government, with no social conservative center, hope to respond?
I don’t think it can.
4 olipane // Mar 4, 2009 at 12:33 am
Of all the “conservative” leaders in the Republican Party, the one who SHOULD be leading us in 2012 should be Mitt Romney. He’s the most balanced conservative leader who knows how to articulately energize our base and has the charisma non-incendiary communication to woo those on the fence and even some conservative democrats. The problem is we don’t have a good alternative. I believe Romney could have beat Obama. McCain was the wrong choice this past election. If things don’t change in 2012, Romney IS the guy. Pass the word around…Let this seed planted become a harvest that bears fruit for the Republican/Convservative movement in 2012. We badly need it.
5 mlindroo // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:43 am
> Second, while party self-identification favors Democrats,
> ideological self-identification actually has consistently
> favored the political right.
This can be a bit misleading, though, if one assumes that society in general is moving in a certain direction concerning e.g.y rights. It seems to me that self-described conservatives in fact have moderated their views on some social and racial issues during the past 30 years.
6 dmt3 // Mar 4, 2009 at 8:31 am
I am a conservative, but not a Republican and not right wing. The wing nuts have the party and their undisputed leader is Rush Limbaugh. We need a new party that has a conservative philosophy and is federalist in nature – a strong but wise federal government. Rush Limbaugh turns me off as he does the majority of voters. With him as the prom king, I’ll either sit home and watch TV or go to someone else’s dance. It’s really that simple – independents control the outcome of the elections and we don’t like the lef wing or the right wing. I don’t care how much he or others “rally the base” the base and Rush are in the minority and will lose.
7 sinz54 // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:01 am
Part of the disconnect is that the terms “conservative” and “moderate” are usually not defined in the public opinion polls. In polls, a lot of Americans define themselves as “conservative”–but what they mean by that term may NOT be what the folks on RedState or Townhall mean. Consider me, for example: I very much consider myself a “conservative”–I believe in a free economy and a strong, assertive foreign policy, which stands up for Israel, among other things. But I do NOT consider anthropogenic global warming to be an “Al Gore hoax”; I do NOT think that illegal aliens coming here to find work should be treated as “invaders”; I do NOT think that free economies (or free societies) are always self-correcting; I do NOT think that the current economic slump is relatively mild; and I do think that we need major health care reform in this country, and only the Federal Government can initiate that effort (though with substantial private sector involvement). But those are all positions that most of the bedrock conservative base, which follows Limbaugh, TownHall, and RedState, would disagree with. When you get to those kinds of specific issues, you find an enormous disconnect between what the Limbaugh base thinks, and what the rest of the electorate thinks.
8 sinz54 // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:08 am
dmt3 sez: ‘We need a new party that has a conservative philosophy and is federalist in nature – a strong but wise federal government.” Sorry, that’s not a practical solution, not at the national level anyway. The winner-take-all rule of electoral votes in most states guarantees that a fledgling third party will get crushed in any national election. For example, in 1992, Ross Perot and his Reform Party got 19% of the popular vote–not bad for a fledgling third party that made several tactical mistakes. But Perot got ZERO electoral votes–and that was the end of the Reform Party. Occasionally, an Independent or third party candidate can win in a local or state election, like Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. If you want to try organizing a third party to run candidates in city after city, state after state, go ahead. But that’s a very long scenic route to get to where we want to get. Like it or not, the only practical solution in the short term is to keep trying to influence the Republican Party.
9 sinz54 // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:14 am
mlindroo: In fact, conservatives used to have more libertarian views abouty rights, decriminalization of marijuana, etc., 40 years ago. Back in the early 1970s, I used to read articles in the National Review urging decriminalization of marijuana, and urging conservatives to reach out to gays by recognizing that gays have the same economic concerns as everyone else. But after 1978, when these mainstream conservatives made their Faustian bargain with the social conservatives (who were a combination of nativists and born-again Christians), those libertarian ideas were discarded. It’s because some conservatives have finally become disturbed by the lack of reasonableness on the part of these social conservatives that they are rediscovering these libertarian ideas.
10 dmt3 // Mar 4, 2009 at 10:26 am
sinz54: The term “conservative” has been hijacked by those who anything but conservative. The root word “conserve” means to manage wisely, to protect, to prevent loss. If anything it is the antithesis of extremism. In reading what your views, you seem to be a true conservative and consequently, moderate in your views. People who enter this country without permission are here illegally and yet, we cannot put them all in jail or deport all of them. So a rational person has to find a way to securing the borders and finding a path to legitimacy for those who are not here legally. I am sure with that view, I probably would be branded as tree-hugging liberal (nothing wrong with hugging a tree), but I am a conservative that searches for solutions. I have values and princples but I am not rigid. I don’t feel like there is any room for me in the GOP.
11 sinz54 // Mar 4, 2009 at 10:59 am
dmt: Well, that’s why I’m registered as an Independent. Your view of “conservatism,” which seems similar to mine, resembles a more European type of cosmopolitan conservatism (e.g., Margaret Thatcher). That type of conservatism is nearly extinct here in America, now that nativism and religiously-inspired policy have become so prominent in the American conservative movement. As an experiment, go read the platform of the British Conservative Party. I’ll bet you’ll find a lot there that you agree with. So do I.
12 sinz54 // Mar 4, 2009 at 11:06 am
dmt: Continuing on with my comparison of American and European right wings: Some of the “conservatives” we have in America today, like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, really resemble the far-right nativists of Europe like Geert Wilders and Vlaams Belang. There’s much that Geert Wilders says that Coulter and Malkin would agree with. But Vlaams Belang is so far to the right that even the blog Little Green Footballs has come out against them.
13 dendup // Mar 4, 2009 at 11:46 am
People identify themselves as “liberal”, “conservative”, “wing nuts”, “bleeding hearts” or whatever because of a sense of it, a gestalt. Mostly we don’t respond to manifestos, or increasingly narrow declarations of what a TRUE whatever is. Generally, I think it works to the advantage of a poltical party to bur its boundries somewhat, so as to include those who respond to the gestalt, but perhaps disagree on various issues. There is a danger of course in doing so too much and apppearing opportunistic and without actual beliefs. Right now Repubs don’t really have to worry about tthat. Further down the blog is Henry Olsen’s discussion which calls for a American conservatism that provides a distict narrative rather than one that “simply decides how much of the center-left agenda is passed and in what forms.” Both Reagan and Clinton used a gestalt based approach, and appealed to some of the same voters despite having huge ideological differences. Obama used the gestalt approach in his campaign and is trying to use it now as much as events allow him. The Rushans meanwhile are culling the herd of everyone that doesn’t carry his brand.
14 bloodstar // Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Your logic is undeniable. but as I mentioned earlier. The national voice of Rush, Hannity, etc are the same very voices that are destroying the Republican party…
But for those looking for ideological purity, they can’t comprehend the importance of compromise. They feel that if they just yell loud enough, or beat enough people up or get enough guns, they’ll win the argument somehow.
15 HollywoodBill // Mar 4, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Sinz, as usual, you bring up some great points. And while the 70s also brought us disco, it did have other great debating points. In CA, there was Prop13 and of course the infamous Prop6 or the Briggs Initiative. Prop6 was one of those hate filled initiatives that somehow sees the light of day. Prop 6 would have fired every singley teacher in the state of CA. It was started by the Orange County conservatives around the time of Anita Bryant. It was ugly. But an ex Governor, Ronald Reagan wrote an editorial for the now defunct Los Angeles Examiner urging Southern Californians to defeat this measure. It was one of the most stunning turnaround defeats in California history and can be attributed to RR. It even went down to defeat in Orange County. Reagan’s logic in the editorial is still breathtaking in its beauty and simplicity and aboveall sense of fairness. He took on the social conservatives in 1978 knowing full well that he would need their support the next year in the primaries. RR didn’t care. There was a sense of justice within the Republican Party that is so missing today. Maybe there was too much of the Village People, but the GOP wasn’t about to let the lunatics take over the asylum and the American public knew it. Today’s moralizing busybody brigades that represent the GOP are not a group any of us are going to help again.
16 dmt3 // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:10 am
sin54: As you suggested I read the British Conservative Party policies and do find they are more in line with my views. Interesting. After trying both parties in my younger days, As an independent conservative, I am homeless because I do not worship at the altar of Rush. I have little hope for the GOP but I recognize the challenges in creating an alternative. You made an earlier comment regarding third parties and Ross Perot. I think that one of the reasons that the movement died was because Perot was not the right leader. I’m not sue who the right leader could have been but it would take someone who speaks clearly, eloquently, and with conviction (remind you of someone?) that would electrify the electorate. We don’t have that person today, but if we did….While it may not be probable, it is possible.
17 krove // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Sinz is right about the British Tory party. I am British by birth. I moved to the USA in my 30’s. There is a shift a fair way right when you move the British parties to USA politics. The Tory’s would occupy the center right of the spectrum with the Labour party which is truly Socialist being well to the left of the Democratic party, They were way left until Blair took office and were borderline Marxist at one point. I laugh when I hear the Obama administration called Socialist. In British terms the social conservatives would be close to fascist under a UK scale. So it’s not easy classifying oneself when you move here. I was a Conservative in the UK but found the GOP to be way too rigid and not my “cup of tea” So I am an independent with a democratic lean. I just want good government that is competent. I did not like the Bush crowd in the least mainly due to the war and the constitutional abuses I am convinced they used (see the recently released memos). I am open to persuasion but I really would like a centrist party free from the religious right.
You must log in to post a comment.