The Regionalization of the GOP

In August of 2005, Chris and I wrote 'The Emergence of the Progressive Blogosphere' in which we laid out the case for why the left-wing blogs are a new power center, and the right-wing blogs are simply the last vestiges of a top-down system.  

There is an emerging social structure of the Internet which includes key differences in how conservatives and progressives use the web to communicate. For years, conservatives dominated the political Internet, with such websites as FreeRepublic.com, the Drudge Report and Newsmax. Moveon.org was one of a few notable, progressive exceptions to conservatives' online dominance. Their Internet supremacy was anchored in, and improved on, an already existing conservative infrastructure. On the whole, it reflected the top-down, coherent messaging structure that characterizes the conservative movement.

Since 2002, the Dean campaign and other landmark events have caused a new world of online activism to thrive: the blogosphere. The blogosphere, and in particular the progressive blogosphere, have emerged as powerful political forces. Unlike their conservative counterparts, progressive Internet activists have not relied on an existing set of institutional relationships. They have instead forged a new constituency group, a new set of leaders, and a new forest of social relationships. The strengths and weaknesses of each blogosphere are reflected in their origins.

As far as I can tell, the right-wing blogosphere represents Republican activists who mostly live in blue areas, not the social conservative or corporate base.  It's not a real constituency group, it's more of a forum for people who are already well-connected to work with each other more effectively.  Redstate's sale to Eagle Publishing, a right-wing publishing house, is confirmation that the right-wing blogs slot comfortably into the existing top-down messaging system of the GOP leadership class.  The growing and heterodox ecosystem of the left is fighting aggressively to increase the representation of liberals throughout the party and the press, without any institutional support from any piece of the party, and often with overt hostility.  But there are millions of liberals around the country who have had no forums for influence for a long time, and who provide the backbone for what we are doing.  There's a real base here.

So while it's painful and often disappointing to be in a party whose leadership is wrangling with lobbyists we don't like, we are slowly transitioning into a majority governing party, and the GOP is slowing decaying into a thoroughly corrupted party of Southern pork and racism.  The war in Iraq has destroyed the idea that conservatives or Republicans are competent.  They aren't.  It has ruined the notion that they are strong on defense.  They aren't, and they basically don't care about America's national security or values.  America is much weaker today because of these people, as Christy (and others) have pointed out repeatedly.

The myth of American superiority has been punctured, most likely irreparably, by the idiocy of George Bush's policies and failures.  Nations which once worked with us -- not just because we were working on issues of import to them, but also because it was in their long-term interest to do so with a nation which controlled so much of the economic and military and other resources throughout the world, as well as had its finger on the pulse of so many spheres of influence at once...all of these nations have learned to get by without having to rely on any favor from the United States whatsoever.

The Republican advantage on national security is just gone.  Period.  It's going to take some time for the political leadership to catch on to this, but the era of Rambo has ended.  America's military limits have been revealed, and Americans are ready to try wisdom again.  That's really bad for the Republicans, who rely on a reflexively paranoid and nationalistic attitude towards the rest of the world.

There's also the problem of horrific racism and corporate dominionism entrenched into the political apparatus of the right.  Pachachutec and Latina Lista have been documenting the exploits of the for-profit concentration camp operator the 'Corrections Corporation of America', which is imprisoning immigrants in Texas.  It's a terrible story, but it is stories like these that will increasingly dominate the brand of the GOP.  For all intents and purposes, Nixon's strategy of bringing the South into the Republican tent has worked, only it has made a conservative racist white base the dominant strain in the party.  As Tom Schaller documents, this isn't something that can be swept under the carpet for the Republicans anymore.  A big chunk of their voters are racist and expect leaders who pander to that racism.

On the Democratic side, our party looks very different than the FDR coalition.  Rather than an stubborn group of Dixiecrats controlling the committees, our most senior lawmakers are entrenched liberals from urban areas who focus on poverty and social justice.  They will have to negotiate with K-Street Democrats, but that's a far cry from the overt corruption of the Tip O'Neill Congress.  And among insiders, the vicious tactics of the right has provoked a real reaction against bipartisanship, though some old-timers are hanging on to the past.  

I had hoped that moderate Republicans would take back their party, but that's probably not going to happen.  If anything, the party is going to become more conservative and reactionary.  Any attempts to distance themselves from racism, for instance, will bring a backlash from their base.  Thus Trent Lott is back in a leadership position in the Senate, despite the carpings in 2002 from right-wing pundits on how the party had moved beyond racism as demonstrated by Lott's resignation.  Demographic trends are increasingly going to push power to young people and minorities, and racism and militaristic incompetence isn't exactly rolling out the welcome mat for these constituencies.  

So what we're seeing is a weaker America, one the conservatives have tried to wreck for their own greedy, selfish, and racist ends, but also a wiser America, one that is pushing the Republican Party back to its stronghold in the South.  As liberals, it's our time.  We must seize this opportunity to push back against people who set up concentration camps on our soil.  We must regionalize the GOP.  At the same time, we must work to bring corporate America and the military into our fold, and convince them that there is a brighter and more profitable future for them in a progressive America.  I mean, it happens to be true.



Display:


Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (3.00 / 1)

We must, repeat must, continue to hammer the Republican (Dixiecans?) politically in the South. That is, rebuild (Thanks, Gov. Dean!) an effective grass roots/populist Democratic Party that strives to make the Republicans a minority party in the south. Two more years of Bush might be the death knell of the Republican party in America.


"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Denis Diderot
by Stoic on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:32:59 PM EST

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

A thing you get it mostly right. I also think the GOP has lost both houses for the forseeable future because I can't figure out where they will have a strategy to regain either. If someone can point to where they can produce a majority now that the damns have broken, that would be an interesting read. I also think increasingly as their constituencies age (those that you mention here) they are locking themselves into a trap of their own making when it comes to the Presidential run as well.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:49:10 PM EST

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

You're right in saying that their natural constituency is now noticeably smaller than ours. They will produce a majority only when they can take advantage of a Democratic failure, such as the failure to lead on Iraq, or the failure to get anything done at all after spending 12 years in the majority (although the public patience is probably much thinner now than it was for them).


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

On its face, I think you're right: in the foreseeable future Democrats are poised to retain the House, and grow their majority in the Senate (barring any party switches or, worse, deaths in the Dem caucus).  That said, a report on NPR today reminded how close a lot of this year's congressional elections were, some were won (and lost) by less than a 1% vote difference.  The point: we're still a 50/50 nation and, unless Dems make an aggressive effort to offer a compelling progressive vision for America (i.e., not republican-lite), we may be relinquishing our majorities sooner than we'd like.


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

Incidentally- one thing I forgot to say and that I am not sure is clearly stated. The brand of conservatism that comes from my home region doesn't match the conservatism that exists elsewhere. I am starting to talk to  conservatives who feel that the party has come off its wheel in focusing on social conservatism like the kind we see down South so much.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:50:41 PM EST

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

That's a good point.


by Matt Stoller on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 04:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (3.00 / 1)

It's vital if the Democrats want to keep the momentum going that they not make this about Bush, but instead about the brand of conservatism that has swept the GOP. You probably shouldn't call it southern, but definitely make the point that its conservatism rather than just Bush.


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

Great point: the real foe is conservatism.  The conservative brand must be tarred in the same way that liberalism has been tarred.


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Complicated business (none / 0)

I'd say there were a mass of factors behind the GOP's current downward trajectory, and it's too early to segregate out the temporary and cyclical factors from the secular.

I don't believe, for instance, that the GOP is eternally wedded to administrations as incompetent and vainglorious as the Bush regime.

In fact, I'd expect their defeat in November to give the forces of relative sanity in the GOP an opportunity to make some unspectacular headway in persuading the representatives of the religious nut and corporatist elements of the party to moderate their expectations.

There's no guarantee, of course, that that will have any effect, but I don't think the Dems ought to assume that it won't.

As far as foreign affairs, are concerned, again, the regime may saddle up their nukes à la Slim Pickens and kamikaze Iran.

But the Dems should, I think, err on the side of supposing that the election loss plus overstretch plus the rundown of Bush's second term will mean less gung-ho in the next couple of years.

Dem honchos should be (secretly) applauding the result whilst loathing the way it came about.

(My fear is that, even with Socks out of commission, advisors representing a strong current in Dem foreign policy thought approve the PNAC plan for world hegemony, and want their chance to succeed in implementing it.)

Electorally, there is no way that a GOP confined to the South is stable under the American system; such a party would be foredoomed to perpetual minority, and our old friend Duverger's law says that that state of affairs can't continue.

As an apparatus for vote-getting and contribution-grubbing, the GOP is still in decent shape, I think. All it needs is personnel and a Luntz-type slogan.

A natural fit would take in disillusioned Dem centrists, plus some Western populists.

Would the religious nuts agree to dial back their Schiavo slavering? Could the party machinery work without their labor if they decide to return to their caves?

All this will take time - perhaps several cycles. And I'm not sure that the GOP couldn't win control of either house or the WH during that transitional period.

But it should be a sustained period of Dem dominance.

Though assuming it will last would not be a wise move for Dems, I'd say.


by skeptic06 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:12:48 PM EST

What's-changing-in-Kansas? (3.00 / 1)

I don't think we can depend on "shoulds". I mean, Chafee "should" still be Senator, instead he has become a Democrat.

As you say, moving back to the center makes sense before the Party dies completely, and I would never underestimate the higher-forces that pull the Republican levers. But, their right-wing has been ascendent so long, that it has become the main power center in the party.

It isn't just in Kansas. The Colorado Republican Party is dominated by the wingers, religious and paleo. The three remaining US reps in Colorado are from the most extreme side of the GOP. How is the Republican middle supposed to regain ground, when so much of the carnage from the 2006 elections is chopped-up moderate Republicans.


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's-changing-in-Kansas? (none / 0)

Their movement just doesn't represent the interests of the majority of Americans. Their anti-gay/abortion zealotry married to an equally fervent drive for deregulation just doesn't resonate any longer. It became so ridiculously warped during the Bush years, and as you say, it's hard to see how it gets tempered. As Frank pointed out in his Kansas book, the social right-wingers have adopted unabated pro-business legislation into their philosophy, and they have pushed out nearly all opposing viewpoints from their Party. This is a national trend, and it is this nuttery that provides the mechanisms for their mobilization operations.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:47:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP Base Broader than just "The South" (none / 0)

Electoral success does require winning 51% of the vote in 51% of the districts. The South as a region is an important factor for the Republicans to regain power.

But, in the metaphorical sense, there are a lot of "southern republicans" in other states. In particular, there are whole swaths of Mid-Western and Western states which live by "southern-republican" values and vote similar to the South.

In the demographic dimension (in contrast to the geographic implication in the label "republican South"), there are a lot of "southern republicans" with strong minority power in purple or pink districts. This gives power to the GOP extremist-base, even in a purplish state like Colorado. You'd think Republicans in Colorado "should" move back to the middle, but middle-of-the-road Republicans have no place to go... so a lot of them are going over to the Dems.

This isn't necessarily a good thing, as it pressures the Democrats to move to the center. The Democratic politicos in Colorado are pretty centrist, even if the Democratic base is pretty liberal.

One party state?


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Complicated business (none / 0)

talking to a GOP activist in NE today- she said  she thinks it will take a decade for the GOP to recover


by bruh21 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

I don't know how easy it will be to connect "corporate America" into a progressive populist movement. The interests of big business just seem opposed to many of the interests which have been important parts of our coalition for so long.

One obvious movement of ours clashing with corporate America is the labor movement. Corporate management is inclined to try to maximize its own profits, which is great because its the main thing that keeps our economy and country moving forward. However, one of the ways they do this is trying to depress the wages they pay their employees; unions exist to act as a counterforce to this tendency. When a Democratic Congress (and, hopefully, a Democratic President) acts to re-empower labor, there will be a natural conflict with the management of corporate America, no matter how we frame the issue. And somehow I don't see our Party selling out some of its most loyal footsoldiers to a group which is the backbone of the opposition (call me an optimist...).

A second subset of our movement in direct conflict with corporate America is the environmental lobby. Once again, the main drive of a corporation is to maximize present and future profits, and another way of doing this is to minimize the costs of production of the product they are putting out. This often involves increasing the amount of some sort of polluting agent that gets improperly dispensed into the environment, which in turn angers those with interest in preserving the environment. Once again, it would be electorally foolish for the Democrats to sell out these loyal constituents in hopes of campaign dollars from "corporate America."

Also, many of the ideological pursuits of the Progressive Movement are incompatible with the bottom line drive of the corporatists. Universal healthcare, expanded access to higher education by increasing affordability, and a balanced budget are all examples of Progressive reforms that corporatists will see as an assault on their ideology and way of life. Even if we point out that more people going to college will expand the nation's economy in the future and help avert structural unemployment, many in corporate America will only see that there has to be a way to pay for it, and that way will likely come from closing tax loopholes or eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. (As a side note, I think it is important that we establish in our rhetoric in fighting for Universal Health Care that it will be beneficial for small businesses.)

Finally, one thing a successful populist movement in a country as diverse as ours must do is define an "other" which all members are being repressed by, and therefore can band together in mutual opposition toward. It may be foreign control/lack of self-determination, as was the case in the Revolutionary War. It may be corporate/elite domination over the individual, as it was in the Bryan movement of the 1890's or the New Deal of the 1930's. It may be a liberal establishment that favors the interest of minority groups over that of "regular folks", as it was posited by Nixon, Reagan, and Gingrich. However, without the prescence of a dominating, repressive "other" to move against, it is hard to define mutual interest to various groups in an American populist coalition (how else could impoverished conservative white Evangelicals be working in concert with the richest of the rich and big business?). For our movement, the very thing we may be rebelling against is, once again, the favor Republicans have shown toward the business at the expense of the individual. And that puts us at odds with corporate America, making it impossible for us to incorporate them into our movement.

In closing, I would like to point out that the main incentive driving the behavior of corporate executives is maximizing the profitability of the company and the amount of profit they reap personally. This is not a bad thing at all, because it drives innovation and moves society forward. However, even though corporations are run by people, they are run by people looking out primarily for themselves and their bottom line--there is no intrinsic feeling of a "duty" to society or anything of the like inherent in the corporate philosophy. Since I guess I've made a lot of really obvious points, and this may be nothing but a list of platitudes and bland observations, but I think it shows the hurdles we're up against in ripping corporate America away from the Republican fold. In my view, unvarnished corporatism is simply the defining characteristic of their Party, and in the past 6 (or 12, or 26, or 38) years.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:26:00 PM EST

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

I think that getting corporations on democrats side would not be hard.  All you would have to do is change the laws that govern corporations.

If you change the incentives that lead corporations you change the corporations.

I would disagree though that maximizing profits automatically leads to innovation.  Often the opposite is true.  


by sterra on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

Corporations currently 'maximise their profit' by shifting costs to the public commons. Health-care...nah, let the workers depend on the emergency room and free public clinics. Your company pollutes as it makes it's products? Dump it on the highway at night or in the sewer.

Too many people have bought into the Corporatist meme that 'maximising profits...' is the 'way to go'.

Profits doing what?

Profits for who?

The era when 5% of the world could safely consume 25% of the natural resources is over.

The entire economic structure of our nation is build on unsustainable growth.

Let me repeat that: Unsustainable growth.

The issues are a lot bigger than including corporatist fools into the Progressive Movement.

As Al Gore has pointed out the clock is running on our entire civilization.

We need to keep hammering the ReThugs into scrap while we re-imagine and rebuild our entire society on a sustainable model.

Educating ourselves will be a big part of this.

About what we want...hint, being an economic serf for corporate fools like Murdoch, Trump or Big Pharma or Big Oil or Big Medicine...Not me.

As for the military...

We need to cut that shit waaaaaaaaaaaay back. Nobody seems to be able to figure out that the massive military industrial complex we built to whup the Russians don't scare OBL one fukin' bit.

Presnint ButtHead just heped his daddy christen a new aircraft carrier recently.

OBL was laughin' his head off at that I'm sure.

One last thought about the military.

If we are so big and powerful...

Name one war we've won since WWII.


by Pericles on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 06:43:29 PM EST

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (3.00 / 1)

Bringing the military into the progressive fold is possible but I don't think it can be done by "selling" a political point of view to the military.  A different approach is necessary because the military conforms to the national security strategy of the day.  So, for starters, we need a progressive national security policy that integrates the military, political, and economic instruments of national power to act in a coordinated manner to support and protect American national interests.  But this first requires us to come up with a consensus or definition of what our national interests are.

Two points:  First, By "national interest", I do not mean I do not mean a "nationalist" approach or attitude.  Second, the economic interests of the United States are not those of the corporations.

Once we have a progressive consensus of our "national interests", then they can be characterized as political, military, and/or economic, and sub-policies can be crafted for each.  But, right now, there is a big problem.

National security policy (which becomes national security strategy upon implementation) is the purview of the National Security Council, military policy (strategy) that of the Department of Defense, and political policy (strategy) that of the State Department.  The big flaw is the lack of a cabinet-level department to shape and implement a national economic policy (strategy).  The corporations do as they please and the U. S. government is their lapdog or, worse, their agent.  Corporations act in their financial interest, not in the national interest.  Overseas, their actions can be and are perceived as official policy of the United States Government, often to our detriment.  The overseas conduct of corporations needs to be regulated just as their domestic conduct does.  A "Department of Economics" could be the governmental agency to implement their regulation.  Maybe the Department of Commerce can be retooled to fit this mold.  

Once we have a coherent national security policy with economic, political, and military components, then we can present a progressive national security policy platform.  No doubt it will be in stark contrast to whatever the GOPigs try to cobble together.  We can use such a national security policy platform to increase progressive political power, and turn the policy into a strategy with a progressive in the White House.  Only after that happens can the military be brought into the fold and be restructured accordingly.  


by Airpower on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:50:29 PM EST

Hear! Hear! (none / 0)

This is absolutely true.  Both corporate America and the military-industrial complex are in need of a complete restructuring, based on a complete revisioning of what their purpose needs to be.  And trying to woo people over without doing that first will only make matters muddled beyond belief.

The military side of this should have been done when the Cold War ended.  But that would have required elementary logic, and we haven't had any of that since, well, don't get me started on that one.

Anyway, better late than never. Right?


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

I grew up during that all too brief period in the mid to late 70's when the Republican party was a national joke, represented in many peoples' minds by the corrupt, mean-spirited, megalomaniaical and recently deposed Richard Nixon, the benignly inept Gerald Ford, and the increasingly feckless moderate Rockefeller wing of the party--and the future of the party, Ronald Reagan, was still a bit of a joke among the punditocracy and wide sections of the electorate. And with Carter's election in 1976, the future seemed to belong to the Democratic party. Of course, we all knew how that one turned out...

Still, it's hard for people 35 and under to realize that Republicans weren't always the dominant party--not in the way that they've been since 1980, with the ascendance of the Conservative Revolution ushered in by Reagan and renewed by Gingrich and Bush II. So it must be kind of disorienting for people in the their 20's and 30's to realize that we're back in charge again--only congress for now, but that, I believe, will change soon (and perhaps sooner than people think). And I suspect that many must be feeling a bit apprehensive and nervous about our success in this election.

Is it real? Did we really do it? Was is a fluke? Will it last? Does the country really prefer us over Repubs? Will Dems do what they need to do, or will they "go along to get along" once again, despite being in the majority? Will Rove pull a rabbit out of his hat and undo our advantage--if not our gains, in '08?

I admit to having such thoughts and fears myself occasionally. But I believe that this election was no fluke, and that we're in the midst of a major political transformation, the kind that only comes along every generation or so, and that it will last for a long time. But I have my memories of a previous era, in which Democrats dominated, to reassure me, something younger people don't have. Yes folks, this is really happening, and Democrats really are in charge again. This is going to be fun. Tought as hell, but still fun--which being on top tends to be.


by kovie on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 09:18:13 AM EST

Re: The Regionalization of the GOP (none / 0)

The Democratic party has a way to go before they can say they are a majority in the Great Plains or most of the Mountain West.  Even if Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming are added to the South as the "Republican region".  

There are regions that are Democratic--the entire West Coast and New England.  The population of the Democratic regions exceeds that of the Republicans.  The battlegrounds are the Midwest and Mountain West.

The Republican party has taken a large hit.  If Democrats display competence, and Bush continues to flounder, Democrats have a more than level playing field for control of Congress and an equal or better chance to win the White House.


by flatblade on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 08:15:44 PM 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.