Electric Politics | Reflections on Republican Strategy

Reflections on Republican Strategy

Archimedes It doesn't really make sense for each major party to try to appeal to everybody, the electorate being so split, and the parties, in fact, don't. But it seems to me we don't have a very clear understanding of how the electorate is split, or why the Republicans — improbably as it seems — remain competitive. It's something I've been talking about a little bit in recent podcasts, I've been mulling it over, and to help organize my thoughts here are a few written, albeit scattered, observations.

The first thing to understand, or try to understand, which most political scientists and pundits miss, is that what Bob Altemeyer calls "authoritarian followers" make up a large part, maybe about a quarter, of the electorate. Bob's theory has been cited by John Dean in his books, it's the product of decades of research, it yields very powerful predictions, but it doesn't seem to have made much of a dent, if any, in the social science establishment literature or in our popular conceptions of political process. If true, however, the fact that roughly one quarter of the electorate remains beyond the reach of rational argument, absolutely impervious to reasonable discourse, means that we must take a closer look at who votes for what, whether there are regional differences in the distribution of "authoritarian followers," and how these votes may get added in with other quasi-permanently oriented groups.

To pick up on the latter point, though they might not always or exactly fit Bob's definition of "authoritarian followers," I would suggest that there are a couple of additional, largely overlapping populations. The most important of these would be people who are dismally ignorant of the modern world. The National Science Foundation, for example, in its most recent survey of American adults' knowledge of science, found that 20% of respondents believe that the sun orbits the earth. Shameful and pathetic, but given that creationism plays such a prominent part in American political debates (Sarah Palin, for example, supports teaching creationism in schools) perhaps it shouldn't be so surprising either. Obviously, ignorance on such a sweeping scale is just begging to be manipulated.

Then there are recovering addicts of various types, many of whom may be liberal in orientation, but all of whom find that their successful rehabilitation often requires a strict and highly structured program. When they relapse they don't just return to a general pool of addicts, they tend to die off, thus skewing their particular population. How large is this group? I don't know, but I don't think it's de minimus. Further, and related, a fair number of people suffer from severe psychological illnesses — having bipolar or other disorders — and these people, like addicts, require help in structured environments. Many of the above may be good liberals and even highly intelligent but I would guess that the majority favor politicians who represent authority and order (if anybody knows of empirical research on this please email me).

Adding those overlapping groups — and perhaps one could suggest others, like veterans, etc. — I think it's not unreasonable to assume that roughly 30% of American adults are effectively locked in to voting for the Republican party.

Two other separate and distinct groups vote Republican as well: people at the top of the income scale and people who depend directly on the military-industrial-congressional establishment for their livelihood. Not all wealthy people are Republicans, of course, but let's assume that from the top income brackets at least 5% of the public regularly vote Republican. And that at least another, separate 5% (located somewhat further down the ladder) are hopelessly co-opted by their economic circumstances.

Even making the most optimistic case for the Democrats, then, this picture suggests that the Republicans become competitive without breaking a sweat. Their key to outright victory appears to depend on finding something around (and perhaps less than) 10% of the electorate or, put another way, finding about 15% of voters who are not already reliably Republican.

To some extent a parallel argument can be made for locked-in Democratic votes, but there is no comparable Democratic category of "authoritarian follower" nor of narrow vested economic interest (though one certainly could quibble about the latter). For the most part, voters who vote for the Democrats rely upon objective standards of comparison, both regarding policies and politicians, notwithstanding how imperfectly the Democratic party may represent the voters' true preferences.

It wouldn't be smart for the Republicans to waste time chasing most Democratic or Democratic leaning voters as opposed to independents and ideologues of various conservative stripes, with an important exception: lower class whites. These so-called 'white ethnics,' despite being marginally conscious of their real political interests, can be fooled — and often are — by Republican lies.

They are the people that Joe Bageant worries about and writes about. Hillary made her appeal to them the foundation of her campaign, running as something of a 'new and improved' George Wallace. And it's likely that McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is aimed squarely at their support.

In appealing to 'white ethnics' the Republican advantage comes from not having to worry about whether pandering might offend the Republican base. By definition, it won't. Unlike the Democrats the Republicans can, and do, revel in stupidity.

We can be pretty sure, though, that the many-layered stupidity of the public won't be mentioned much, if at all, in the campaign...

Posted by George Kenney on August 30, 2008 12:12 PM

Comments

I think you are quite right about the 30% number, but there is another larger group that should be considered. Voter turnout for Presidential elections has ranged from 52% and 64% over the last 60 years, so 36-48% of the eligible voters aren't voting.

It seems unlikely that these people are staunch Republicans, and the percentage of authoritarian followers could not be higher than in the voting population.

Obama has the potential to inspire some of these armchair Americans to get off their duffs and vote. IMHO, that is where the Democratic Party's hope for success lies. I would prefer a campaign that energized the party base for a massive registration and GOTV drive, rather than one that swerved right to bring in the soccer (and hockey) moms.

I would also observe that Presidential campaigns are little more than large, expensive marketing campaigns. The Republicans are marketing to the authoritarian followers and their religious and other leaders (their base), and the Democrats are marketing to their funding sources. Everything seems geared to reassuring Wall Street and the M-I-C complex that the Democrats won't do anything rash. Not really a mass-market strategy.

Posted by: Democracy Lover | August 30, 2008 4:13 PM

That would be an excellent thing for idealistic, progressive Democrats to do. It would also mean fundamentally changing the nature of the party in as much as an appeal, for example, to the large majority of Americans who favor universal, single-payer health care, if successful, would necessarily put the insurers out of business and drastically prune profits by the drug manufacturers — i.e., some of the very same Wall Street interests that you so correctly note the Democrats currently rely upon for funding.

It's another example of how the Democrats, in balancing somewhat intelligent interests, have difficulty holding onto power.

I suppose the challenge to progressives boils down to either taking over the Democratic party apparatus or figuring out how to create a viable third party. Either way, there is a whole series of political reforms we should think about, large and small, to do with voter registration, proportional representation, size of congressional districts, the electoral college, whether the U.S. Senate is salvageable from a democratic (small "d") perspective, and so on.

The other (perhaps default) option is to just wait in the expectation that everything will collapse in some sort of unmanageable crisis, and try to be prepared to start over from scratch.

Posted by: George Kenney | August 30, 2008 4:52 PM

I used to dismiss ethnic arguments as vulgar, but I am increasinly of the opinion that the Republicans are so powerful because they are the 'white' party in the eyes of millions of white Americans of all socio-econimic levels. This goes hand-in-hand with militarism. Don't forget that this nation is built on conquest, and many whites are quite self-conscious about their 'heritage'. Of course, I do not mean to imply that all whites are like this, but many are.

I also wonder about the roughly half of Americans who don't vote. They may not all be poor people who are too busy with three jobs to vote. They many include people like me who are inclined to feel that voting is futile. I don't see that the chances of perpetual war are reduced under Obama, who has talked about extending the war to Afghanistan and even to Pakistan. The choice of virtual neocon Biden confirms his priorities. I now feel that he is a seducer who has prostituted himself to the establishment. And no third party stands a chance. Perhaps our only hope is to wait for an economic implosion as unmanageable debt based on extravagant military spending and corporate welfare finally brings the house of cards down.

Posted by: benjamin777 | September 1, 2008 5:16 PM

This isn’t the fascism of Orwell, but that of Phillip K. Dick.

Posted by: Tom Hatry | September 2, 2008 12:01 AM

Thanks for framing this discussion in terms of Altemeyer’s research. I think it provides a very useful lens for viewing the Republican party. I have two thoughts on the subject:

1) There is a minor note in Altemeyer's book where he describes religious fundamentalists.

"No other group comes close to being as zealous. Feminists usually come in second in my studies, but way behind the religious fundamentalists, and one finds far, far fewer of them."

I have long believed that Herr Rove is a dedicated student of Altemeyer's research. This election will be an excellent test. If Altemeyer is right, a meaningful slice of zealous feminists will vote with McCain against their own interests. Let's hope we have reached the limit of the theory.

2) The choice of Palin provides a strong disincentive for Hillary to work hard for Obama. Assuming McCain survives one term, he doesn't have a second in him. Palin is a tailor-made opponent for Hillary in 2012. There is thus a very strong inducement for Hillary to hatchet Obama, if she can keep her fingerprints off it.

Posted by: Chris Collins | September 4, 2008 8:58 AM

A good book to read about the Republicans popularity is "What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Here is a link to a good review.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2004/06/28/tomfranks/index.html

I would also add that I think the Republicans for about 35 years have used racism to develop a following. They basically grabbed the Dixiecrats or now the Nascar Dads... These are large angry white males that will never vote for a party that also represents so many minorities (policy and economic interest does not matter). I think race plays a huge issue in why the Republicans can maintain a base. I think white people are threatened that they are losing their majority and are therefore losing their power. We see this exactly happening in say France, where the Front Nationale has become very popular. The problems the Republicans have is their tent is shrinking, as white men are become a small part of the population. White woman voters generally do not follow a similar course, as the Republicans have always been terrible on women's issues and women tend to be more compassionate, which is much closer to what the Democrats represent.

Posted by: Phillip | September 6, 2008 12:18 AM



Home FAQ Contact Archive EP Store EP Alerts © 2012 ElectricPolitics	Reflections on Republican Strategy It doesn't really make sense for each major party to try to appeal to everybody, the electorate being so split, and the parties, in fact, don't. But it seems to me we don't have a very clear understanding of how the electorate is split, or why the Republicans — improbably as it seems — remain competitive. It's something I've been talking about a little bit in recent podcasts, I've been mulling it over, and to help organize my thoughts here are a few written, albeit scattered, observations. The first thing to understand, or try to understand, which most political scientists and pundits miss, is that what Bob Altemeyer calls "authoritarian followers" make up a large part, maybe about a quarter, of the electorate. Bob's theory has been cited by John Dean in his books, it's the product of decades of research, it yields very powerful predictions, but it doesn't seem to have made much of a dent, if any, in the social science establishment literature or in our popular conceptions of political process. If true, however, the fact that roughly one quarter of the electorate remains beyond the reach of rational argument, absolutely impervious to reasonable discourse, means that we must take a closer look at who votes for what, whether there are regional differences in the distribution of "authoritarian followers," and how these votes may get added in with other quasi-permanently oriented groups. To pick up on the latter point, though they might not always or exactly fit Bob's definition of "authoritarian followers," I would suggest that there are a couple of additional, largely overlapping populations. The most important of these would be people who are dismally ignorant of the modern world. The National Science Foundation, for example, in its most recent survey of American adults' knowledge of science, found that 20% of respondents believe that the sun orbits the earth. Shameful and pathetic, but given that creationism plays such a prominent part in American political debates (Sarah Palin, for example, supports teaching creationism in schools) perhaps it shouldn't be so surprising either. Obviously, ignorance on such a sweeping scale is just begging to be manipulated. Then there are recovering addicts of various types, many of whom may be liberal in orientation, but all of whom find that their successful rehabilitation often requires a strict and highly structured program. When they relapse they don't just return to a general pool of addicts, they tend to die off, thus skewing their particular population. How large is this group? I don't know, but I don't think it's de minimus. Further, and related, a fair number of people suffer from severe psychological illnesses — having bipolar or other disorders — and these people, like addicts, require help in structured environments. Many of the above may be good liberals and even highly intelligent but I would guess that the majority favor politicians who represent authority and order (if anybody knows of empirical research on this please email me). Adding those overlapping groups — and perhaps one could suggest others, like veterans, etc. — I think it's not unreasonable to assume that roughly 30% of American adults are effectively locked in to voting for the Republican party. Two other separate and distinct groups vote Republican as well: people at the top of the income scale and people who depend directly on the military-industrial-congressional establishment for their livelihood. Not all wealthy people are Republicans, of course, but let's assume that from the top income brackets at least 5% of the public regularly vote Republican. And that at least another, separate 5% (located somewhat further down the ladder) are hopelessly co-opted by their economic circumstances. Even making the most optimistic case for the Democrats, then, this picture suggests that the Republicans become competitive without breaking a sweat. Their key to outright victory appears to depend on finding something around (and perhaps less than) 10% of the electorate or, put another way, finding about 15% of voters who are not already reliably Republican. To some extent a parallel argument can be made for locked-in Democratic votes, but there is no comparable Democratic category of "authoritarian follower" nor of narrow vested economic interest (though one certainly could quibble about the latter). For the most part, voters who vote for the Democrats rely upon objective standards of comparison, both regarding policies and politicians, notwithstanding how imperfectly the Democratic party may represent the voters' true preferences. It wouldn't be smart for the Republicans to waste time chasing most Democratic or Democratic leaning voters as opposed to independents and ideologues of various conservative stripes, with an important exception: lower class whites. These so-called 'white ethnics,' despite being marginally conscious of their real political interests, can be fooled — and often are — by Republican lies. They are the people that Joe Bageant worries about and writes about. Hillary made her appeal to them the foundation of her campaign, running as something of a 'new and improved' George Wallace. And it's likely that McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is aimed squarely at their support. In appealing to 'white ethnics' the Republican advantage comes from not having to worry about whether pandering might offend the Republican base. By definition, it won't. Unlike the Democrats the Republicans can, and do, revel in stupidity. We can be pretty sure, though, that the many-layered stupidity of the public won't be mentioned much, if at all, in the campaign... Posted by George Kenney on August 30, 2008 12:12 PM « Sarah Palin \| Main \| H.R. 676 » Share this post: Comments I think you are quite right about the 30% number, but there is another larger group that should be considered. Voter turnout for Presidential elections has ranged from 52% and 64% over the last 60 years, so 36-48% of the eligible voters aren't voting. It seems unlikely that these people are staunch Republicans, and the percentage of authoritarian followers could not be higher than in the voting population. Obama has the potential to inspire some of these armchair Americans to get off their duffs and vote. IMHO, that is where the Democratic Party's hope for success lies. I would prefer a campaign that energized the party base for a massive registration and GOTV drive, rather than one that swerved right to bring in the soccer (and hockey) moms. I would also observe that Presidential campaigns are little more than large, expensive marketing campaigns. The Republicans are marketing to the authoritarian followers and their religious and other leaders (their base), and the Democrats are marketing to their funding sources. Everything seems geared to reassuring Wall Street and the M-I-C complex that the Democrats won't do anything rash. Not really a mass-market strategy. Posted by: Democracy Lover \| August 30, 2008 4:13 PM That would be an excellent thing for idealistic, progressive Democrats to do. It would also mean fundamentally changing the nature of the party in as much as an appeal, for example, to the large majority of Americans who favor universal, single-payer health care, if successful, would necessarily put the insurers out of business and drastically prune profits by the drug manufacturers — i.e., some of the very same Wall Street interests that you so correctly note the Democrats currently rely upon for funding. It's another example of how the Democrats, in balancing somewhat intelligent interests, have difficulty holding onto power. I suppose the challenge to progressives boils down to either taking over the Democratic party apparatus or figuring out how to create a viable third party. Either way, there is a whole series of political reforms we should think about, large and small, to do with voter registration, proportional representation, size of congressional districts, the electoral college, whether the U.S. Senate is salvageable from a democratic (small "d") perspective, and so on. The other (perhaps default) option is to just wait in the expectation that everything will collapse in some sort of unmanageable crisis, and try to be prepared to start over from scratch. Posted by: George Kenney \| August 30, 2008 4:52 PM I used to dismiss ethnic arguments as vulgar, but I am increasinly of the opinion that the Republicans are so powerful because they are the 'white' party in the eyes of millions of white Americans of all socio-econimic levels. This goes hand-in-hand with militarism. Don't forget that this nation is built on conquest, and many whites are quite self-conscious about their 'heritage'. Of course, I do not mean to imply that all whites are like this, but many are. I also wonder about the roughly half of Americans who don't vote. They may not all be poor people who are too busy with three jobs to vote. They many include people like me who are inclined to feel that voting is futile. I don't see that the chances of perpetual war are reduced under Obama, who has talked about extending the war to Afghanistan and even to Pakistan. The choice of virtual neocon Biden confirms his priorities. I now feel that he is a seducer who has prostituted himself to the establishment. And no third party stands a chance. Perhaps our only hope is to wait for an economic implosion as unmanageable debt based on extravagant military spending and corporate welfare finally brings the house of cards down. Posted by: benjamin777 \| September 1, 2008 5:16 PM This isn’t the fascism of Orwell, but that of Phillip K. Dick. Posted by: Tom Hatry \| September 2, 2008 12:01 AM Thanks for framing this discussion in terms of Altemeyer’s research. I think it provides a very useful lens for viewing the Republican party. I have two thoughts on the subject: 1) There is a minor note in Altemeyer's book where he describes religious fundamentalists. "No other group comes close to being as zealous. Feminists usually come in second in my studies, but way behind the religious fundamentalists, and one finds far, far fewer of them." I have long believed that Herr Rove is a dedicated student of Altemeyer's research. This election will be an excellent test. If Altemeyer is right, a meaningful slice of zealous feminists will vote with McCain against their own interests. Let's hope we have reached the limit of the theory. 2) The choice of Palin provides a strong disincentive for Hillary to work hard for Obama. Assuming McCain survives one term, he doesn't have a second in him. Palin is a tailor-made opponent for Hillary in 2012. There is thus a very strong inducement for Hillary to hatchet Obama, if she can keep her fingerprints off it. Posted by: Chris Collins \| September 4, 2008 8:58 AM A good book to read about the Republicans popularity is "What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Here is a link to a good review. http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2004/06/28/tomfranks/index.html I would also add that I think the Republicans for about 35 years have used racism to develop a following. They basically grabbed the Dixiecrats or now the Nascar Dads... These are large angry white males that will never vote for a party that also represents so many minorities (policy and economic interest does not matter). I think race plays a huge issue in why the Republicans can maintain a base. I think white people are threatened that they are losing their majority and are therefore losing their power. We see this exactly happening in say France, where the Front Nationale has become very popular. The problems the Republicans have is their tent is shrinking, as white men are become a small part of the population. White woman voters generally do not follow a similar course, as the Republicans have always been terrible on women's issues and women tend to be more compassionate, which is much closer to what the Democrats represent. Posted by: Phillip \| September 6, 2008 12:18 AM Leave a comment Name Email Address URL Remember personal info? Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

Reflections on Republican Strategy

Comments

Leave a comment