| (Cross-posted at Election Inspection
I happen to be reading around on the blog when I find a response written by Ta-Nehisi Coates to Matt Yglesias's response to an article written by Pat Buchanan concerning whether or not the best bet for the Republican Party is to give up any pretext of doing well among the non-white vote. Here's the basic point behind Buchanan's argument:
In 2008, Hispanics, according to the latest figures, were 7.4 percent of the total vote. White folks were 74 percent, 10 times as large. Adding just 1 percent to the white vote is thus the same as adding 10 percent to the candidate's Hispanic vote.
If John McCain, instead of getting 55 percent of the white vote, got the 58 percent George W. Bush got in 2004, that would have had the same impact as lifting his share of the Hispanic vote from 32 percent to 62 percent.
But even Ronald Reagan never got over 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Yet, he and Richard Nixon both got around 65 percent of the white vote.
When Republican identification is down to 20 percent, but 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, do Republicans need a GPS to tell them which way to go?
Why did McCain fail to win the white conservative Democrats Hillary Clinton swept in the primaries? He never addressed or cared about their issues.
These are the folks whose jobs have been outsourced to China and Asia, who pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. These are the folks who want the borders secured and the illegals sent back.
Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled.
And McCain might be president.
Basically, Buchanan is arguing that the Republicans are engaging in a vain effort to make nice with Latinos (and Blacks, for that matter) when they should be playing hardball on these types of issues (particuarly concerning Judge Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to the Supreme Court).
Matt Yglesias seems to agree with Buchanan's reasoning (even if he thinks the reasoning is scuzzy):
At any rate, while Buchanan is being repugnant, I do think this is something conservatives are going to want to think about. Consider the case of Jeff Sessions (R-AL). We're talking about a guy who's too racist to get confirmed as a judge, but just racist enough to win a Senate seat in Alabama. And it's not because Alabama is a lilly white state. With 65 percent of its electorate white, and 29 percent of its electorate African-American, Alabama is much more demographically favorable to the Democrats than is the country at large. But while McCain pulled 55 percent of the white vote nationwide he scored 88 percent of white vote in Alabama. And this is what you tend to see in the Deep South, white Americans exhibiting the kind of high levels of racial solidarity in voting behavior that you normally associate with African-Americans in the US political context.
Consequently states with small white populations like Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi can be solid GOP territory. Under the circumstances, it's not entirely crazy for Republicans to believe that the right way to respond to shifting American demographics is by just trying to amp-up the level of racial anxiety in the shrinking white majority. An analogy might be to religion. When the country was overwhelmingly Christian, Christianity didn't play much of a role in our politics. But as the Christian majority shrank it became more and more viable to explicitly mobilize Christian identity for political purposes.
Yglesias seems to buy into Buchanan's argument, that it might be a politically smart move to attempt to shore up the white vote against the non-white vote (basically Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Indians, etc.). I disagree with Yglesias's reasoning for a few reasons. Ta-Nehisi Coates pretty much sums up part of my disagreement with Yglesias:
The second problem is that it likely turns a significant portion of white people also. The GOP's problem isn't that it needs to shore up Alabama--at least not yet. It's problem is, well, basically everywhere else that isn't Alabama. I don't know how bashing Sotomayor makes you more competitive in, say, Colorado or Oregon. I'd assume the opposite.
Coates points out that the White vote, like the Latino vote, is simply not a homogenous group in the same way the Black vote is (although the GOP's racist rhetoric regarding Latinos could turn the Latino vote into a more strongly Democratic vote than it is now). Though I do think that there are states where this could possibly pay dividends for the GOP outside of the Deep South, there are also plenty of states where this sort of tactic won't work, and in some cases can backfire. Think about this for a second, take away the states of North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania from Obama and give them to McCain (67 electoral votes), Obama would win the electoral college with nearly 300 electoral votes (298 votes, 297 if you take away NE-02 from Obama's column). That's assuming that you'd make net gains among the White vote in those states, when there is plenty of reason to think otherwise. Looking at Ohio, the quintessential bastion of the White Working Class that Pat Buchanan is so obsessed with, Obama won the state by only marginally improving among the less educated group and improving greatly among the more educated compared to Kerry's performance in 2004. Something which Buchanan and his ilk have failed to understand is that one of the reasons that the GOP has been collapsing has little to do with their strength among blue-collar Whites, rather it's been because the Republicans have been doing worse and worse with better educated White voters and with minorities in general, and one thing that these two groups have in common is that they're more likely to turn on groups who use the type of polarized voting that Buchanan advocates.
The second problem with Buchanan's (and Yglesias's) logic is that even if this strategy would help them out in the short term (a view which I strongly disagree with) in the long term, it would probably spell the end of the Republican Party. Think about this for a moment, Barack Obama only lost the state of Georgia by 5 points, compared to John Kerry's embarrasing 18 point loss to George Bush, yet Obama did this despite doing as well with white voters as John Kerry did. This is the main problem with the Republican gambit, many states which form the core of the Republican Party's base in the electoral college (Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Arizona) have populations which are becoming more and more non-white (Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi will probably be majority-minority states in the next decade or two). If McCain had lost the four states which I mentioned before (without taking back any of the other states I mentioned before) then he would've only had 108 electoral votes. The Republican Party may very well succumb to the demographic tide which is moving against it, but Buchanan's advice would speed up the schedule very quickly. |
