The Southern Undercurrent of the Republican "Revolution"

One of the key misunderstandings of the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress is that it has not been reversed. Certainly, Republicans have maintained control of the House for the entirety for the past decade, as they have maintained control of the Senate for all but eighteen months during that same time period. However, the regional complexion of the Republican takeover has changed dramatically during the past ten years, and the pillars that support the Republican majority in Congress have changed frequently. In other words, the Republican coalition that took over Congress in 1994 is significantly different from the Republican coalition that currently controls Congress. Certain elements of the Republican takeover have indeed been reversed, while others have strengthened dramatically.

For example, looking at the composition of the Senate since 1988, it is possible to identify at least four distinct periods of regional party coalitions, including three periods since 1994. The following table looks at party control of the Senate both within the eleven states of the old Confederacy, and the thirty-nine states outside of it (numbers reflect Senate balance at the end of each session):

       78 non-southern seats   22 southern seats
Congress     D	   R		    D	  R
101st	    40	  38		  15	 7
102nd	    42	  36		  15	 7

103rd	    44	  34		  12	10

104th	    38	  40		   9	13
105th	    38	  40		   7	15
106th	    37	  41		   9	13

107th	    42	  36		   9	13
108th	    40	  38		   9	13

109th	    41	  37		   4	18
From 1989-1992, the wide Democratic majority in the Senate was held together through a narrow majority outside of the eleven states that once formed the Confederacy, and a wide supermajority within those eleven states. In the 103rd Congress, Democrats were able to offset significant losses in the south with noticeable gains outside of the south, where they formed a wide 44-34 majority.

The first three Congresses following the 1994 Republican takeover featured a Republican coalition held together by a narrow non-southern majority and somewhat less narrow southern majority. However, the 2000 election witnessed a reversal of the non-southern portion of the 1994 takeover, as Democrats were able to restore their non-southern majority to its pre-1994 level. While that did not change in either the 2002 or 2004 elections, Republicans were able to restore their Senate majority to its 1995-2000 level by completing their long takeover of the conservative south.

Thus, taking the long view of the Republican takeover, the entire shift in the balance of power in the Senate has occurred within the eleven states that once formed the Confederacy. While the balance of power in non-southern seats remains essentially the same as it was from 1986-1994, the Republican takeover, which originally had a real national flavor, can now be understood as entirely a southern revolution. This can even been seen as we look to 2006, as six of the seven seats most ripe for Democratic takeover--Arizona, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Rhode Island--are outside of the old south. If Democrats were to engage in a wide sweep in 2006, it would effectively be a full-fledged "non-southern revolution," as Republicans would retain a stranglehold over the twenty-two southern seats.

Taking a very long view, such a non-southern sweep would not, in and of itself, be enough in order for Democrats to once again become the natural governing party of the Senate. As long as the two coalitions remain primarily ideological, I have a difficult time believing that Democrats will ever again achieve parity, much less majority control, within the most conservative area of the nation. However, it will be necessary for Democrats to regain the minority, but competitive, stance that they held from the 104th -108th Congresses. Combined with a non-southern revolution, being able to pull between seven and nine seats in the south would be enough for Democrats to become the natural governing party again.

Either way, realizing that the Republican revolution of 1994, which was national in character, has been reduced to a southern Republican revolution by 2005, gives us a better understanding of the current political situation, and serves as a starting point for envisioning a Democratic breakthrough on the magnitude of 1994.



Display:


Terrific post (none / 0)

I think you're on to something here Chris.
by kmartino on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:07:55 PM EST

Exactly right (none / 0)

and worth repeating. Not only is the Republican majority a Southern phenomenon, but all their leaders (with the single exception of Denny Hastert, who is just a pawn of DeLay anyway) come from the South as well.

This is more than just interesting in an academic way. It is potentially a very strong political frame. Coming from the Republican mountain region, I frequently sense a deep unsettled feeling among conservative (old definition of the word) Coloradans. They might rather do a self-root-canal than vote for a snobby Easterner like Kerry, but they REALLY don't like having to vote for a bunch of   what they see as intrusive, bible-thumping moralists with no feeling for the West they love. It's palpable. They'll vote for Ken Salazar (or Brian Schweitzer) but not Kerry. Still, the potential frame is strong: Perhaps this is the Democrats own version of a "Southern Strategy." Emphasize (by implication, never directly) that voting for Republicans puts in power these anti-freedom, anti-privacy yokels. Maybe that's the way to cross the tipping point out here ...

by ColoDem on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:13:42 PM EST

Re: Exactly right (none / 0)

They might rather do a self-root-canal than vote for a snobby Easterner like Kerry,

hey, Kerry got 47% in Colorado -- that's better than any Presidential candidate since LBJ in '64.

by johnny longtorso on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly right (none / 0)

You are right.  If we express a more libertarian attitude towards social issues, one that is coherent and heart-felt, we can win in the West.  In my opinion, the west is where it's at.  As I've said before, Kerry ran a pretty poor campaign but still almost won in Nevada and improved over Gore's performance in Colorado.  These states, along with demographic changes in Arizona and New Mexico provide great hope for our party.  I think this should be "the" strategy going forward.  
by Eric11 on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly right but . . . (none / 0)

Don't completely write off Utah, Idaho and Wyoming.  

I know it sounds improbable, but thirty years ago, all three states were represented by liberal democrats and Rockefeller Republicans.  All three states have a history of social liberalism and tolerance.  I also think the political culture in all three states is characterized by complacency among Republicans - I know it's true in my own benighted Utah.  The Republicans that run the place are so convinced they'l never lose that they barely try.  The stench of arrogance is growing stronger from our state Capitol.

Social libertarianism has potential, but the people of Utah, at least, actually like government programs when they believe they're making a difference in their every lives.  I believe the key to defeating the Republican anti-tax, anti-government crusade lies in making government relevant for people.  It's big programs that people see every day - student loans, child care, roads, clean water, police officers.  

by glendenb on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 07:06:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at the House (3.00 / 1)

The story is a little different:
          Non-South     South
Congress   D     R      D    R
103       181   128    77   48
109       153   149    49   82

Unlike in the Senate, Democrats have not even recaptured their pre-1994 position outside the South.

by tgeraghty on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:57:15 PM EST

Re: Look at the House (none / 0)

Thanks for the info. I was trying to figure out where I could find that. Can you break it down for every Congress from 101-109?
by Chris Bowers on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look at the House (3.00 / 1)

Here it is:

            Non-South         South
Congress    D       R        D      R
101        185     134      75     41
102        190     128      77     39
103        181     128      77     48
104        150     159      54     71
105        152     157      54     71
106        158     151      53     72
107        160     148      52     73
108        151     151      53     78
109        153     149      49     82

And here's the presidential election numbers (electoral votes) that Armando asked for:

           Non-South         South
Year       D       R        D     R
1988      112     288       0    138
1992      331      60      39    108
1996      328      63      51     96
2000      267     124       0    147
2004      252     133       0    153

by tgeraghty on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look at the House (none / 0)

Thanks again! I think he was lookign for the popular vote totals though. Don't worry, I'll add those up tomorrow.

I think the Hosue numbers make it pretty clear that the 2000-2003 redistricting really punished us, to the tune of at least 10-15 seats. We have to keep making those gains in state legislatures and Governships.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Presidential Elections - Popular Vote (3.00 / 1)


by tgeraghty on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:02:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

One key (none / 0)

One key to this has been Republican control of the trifecta in key non-southern states during redistricting. Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular.

Still, that Demcorats are lagging so far behing their non-southern majority pre-1994 does at least show more hope for reclaiming the House than the Senate in the short term.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Minorities and urban areas (none / 0)

Those still vote Democratic.  However, they are not the majority in any southern state-hence the difference in the House and the Senate and at the presidential level.
by Geotpf on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Ideological Trick (none / 0)

As long as the two coalitions remain primarily ideological, I have a difficult time believing that Democrats will ever again achieve parity, much less majority control, within the most conservative area of the nation. However, it will be necessary for Democrats to regain the minority, but competitive, stance that they held from the 104th -108th Congresses.
I think you've already answered how to do this quite a few months ago, Chris--by adopting a serious reform agenda, and staying serious about it.  

There are enough blacks, Northern transplants, progressive whites, and new generation moderates that this could spell some victories, which in turn to could lead to others. It will take some special candidates--folks like John Edwards--to get the ball rolling, but it is definitely doable.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:40:13 PM EST

Re: The Ideological Trick (none / 0)

Virginia is definitley one place to start.  
by Eric11 on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:11:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Ideological Trick (none / 0)

Well, to some extent.. There are not so many places (big cities, sometimes - close suburbs), where you can assemble the coalition you mention (blacks, Northern transplants and so on). It's absolutely doable, say, in Research Triangle in NC or Atlanta or Southern Florida, but what will you do, say, in Cajun areas of Southern Louisiana??

So, in my opinion, this politics must be complemented by running "tailor-made" candidates in corresponding districts. The above-mentioned Southern Louisiana is responsive to populist tones in economical area, but is very conservative socially. If you look at Democratic congressman from LA-3 (Charlie Melancon) - he ran in 2004 on somewhat populist and, simultaneously, very conservative social platforms. That's exactly as this district feels, and that helped Melancon to beat Tauzin Jr.. Anyway, he votes with leadership much more often then any Republican would do in his place...

The same is true for some other districts. Gene Taylor may be the most conservative Democrat in the House, but he holds the district in Mississippi, which was won by Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. by very large margin.. There is no sense to run, say, Nancy Pelosi-clone, in such district - she wouldn't be able even to win a primary there (even less - general election). Nevertheless, Taylor votes with the party about half of the time - no Republican would do that...

There are other districts of this type - LA-7, AL-3 and so on. So, i think, the proper approach would be to run progressives where possible, moderates - in moderate districts and conservatives (but not the far-right zealots of Trent Lott-type) in remaining conservative (but winnable) districts, Ideology can wait until majority will be won...

by smmsmm on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Social conservatism is populism (none / 0)

Populism is a double-edged sword.
by Paul Goodman on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 10:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Social conservatism is populism (none / 0)

I referred to economical populism. Mainly...
by smmsmm on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 10:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Texas... (none / 0)

like California, is now a majority-minority state.

The changing demographics are in our favor

by v2aggie2 on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 12:18:38 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.