JONATHAN COHN NOVEMBER 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Did the 2010 election demonstrate that the electorate is moving to the right? I thought the answer was obvious, but my colleagues Ed Kilgore and Ruy Teixeira have argued that it did not, or did so only marginally. Jay Cost, who along with Sean Trende, dispenses political wisdom for Real Clear Politics, takes issue with Kilgore and Teixeira. Who is right?
I think to understand the dispute, you have to distinguish between two very different questions. First, did the election demonstrate movement to the right? On that question, I agree with Cost and not with Kilgore and Teixeira. But second, did the electorate, in moving to the right, lay the groundwork for a natural Republican majority? On that question, I agree more with Kilgore and Teixeira. So let’s separate these two questions.
Has the electorate moved rightward? Kilgore and Teixeira acknowledge that the percentage of conservatives in the actual electorate this November—and their proportional support for Republicans—increased dramatically by ten percentage points from 2006. But Teixeira, whose analysis Kilgore quotes at length, introduces contrary evidence. According to a Pew poll, the percentage of conservatives has only increased three percentage points among registered voters from 2006. So conservatism among registered voters has not gone up “much more” from 2006 to 2010.
Still, an increase of three percentage points (in contrast to a three percent increase) is not chopped liver, and Cost cites the Gallup Poll showing a larger increase. But there is a more important point buried here. The fact that the conservative tilt was much stronger in the electorate that actually voted than among registered voters is not insignificant: it indicates that conservatives were more energized than their liberal or moderate counterparts. And intensity has much more to do with political outcomes than the sheer numbers that opinion polling registers.
If half the 41 percent of the electorate that is conservative is marching in the street, crowding local political meetings, and raising money for their candidates, and only a tenth of the moderate and liberal electoral is similarly agitating for their causes and candidates, the conservatives’ influence over election outcomes and over the political debate in the country will be much greater. And that’s a lot of what happened in 2010. Outside of a few Washington organizations, the liberal electorate that took to the streets in 2006 and 2008 was demoralized and demobilized. And the results showed not just in the election, but in the political questions that are currently being debated in the press and in Congress. It’s not whether to have a single-payer health care system, but whether to have a national system at all. It’s not whether social spending should be increased, but whether it should be frozen or cut.
Has the rightward shift laid the groundwork for a new Republican majority?If the conservative trend among the electorate endures for a decade, yes, then Republicans will be back in the driving seat in American politics. But the conservative trend after 2008 was not the result of the gradual erosion of the liberal-moderate majority, but of the failure of the Obama administration to stem the downturn that began in 2008. If the economy revives, or if it doesn’t, and if a Republican president and Congress take office in 2012 and fail to revive it, then the trend toward conservatism will halt, and you may even see the kind of shift leftward that took place in 2006 and 2008. Of course, Cost could argue that the kind of programs that Republicans are proposing will revive the economy and enjoy the same kind of popularity as social security. I have my doubts that these programs, which mostly consist of turning back the Keynesian clock, will do the trick.
Cost argues that redistricting, which will be under Republican control in many states, could help to ensure a GOP majority in Congress. Certainly it’ll help, but the Democratic redistricting as a result of the 1990 elections didn’t prevent Republicans from capturing the House and the Senate in 1994. As I suggested in my post-election piece, the Obama administration’s failure to seize the political opportunity afforded by the Great Recession has not necessarily opened the way to a new Republican majority. More likely, it will lead to a period where the two parties exchange power, and where neither can establish a long-lasting majority.
7 comments
I question the definition of a "conservative" being used in the cited polls. If the definition is something like smaller government and lower taxes, then I want to know if the same group of people believe that government should or should not have played a role in preventing the Bush Crash? Or, if it does not appear that the current lowered rate of taxes with numerous credits is providing increased employment, does the same group believe fiscal policy should play a role in improving employment? Because, if the current Republican tide is tied to the failure of government to improve the economy, then what does that mean?
- Nusholtz
November 26, 2010 at 7:44am
"Outside of a few Washington organizations, the liberal electorate that took to the streets in 2006 and 2008 was demoralized and demobilized." This is one reason for lower turnout among liberals. But there's another cohort that didn't turn out because they're generally satisfied with the direction that Obama and the Democratic Congress took over the past two years. Dems had pent-up anger with Bush in 2006 driving them, and then 2008 was a presidential election year, so many more tuned in. Many 2008 Democratic voters are young and typically don't turn out in great numbers for mid-term elections. I'm quite surprised that your article doesn't even mention these factors.
- interloper
November 26, 2010 at 7:57am
Another uninsightful doodle from Judis. First there is the problem Nuholtz identifies. All placement on a continuum is relative. You have a radical right oik in office, even if you are "conservative", you might well describe yourself as "moderate" by comparison, or simply to distinguish. You have "moderate" Blue Dogs supporting Health Care, and you don't, you might well think of yourself as a "conservative". Not to mention that definitionally, a grouping ("conservative") that includes tempermanetal Burkeans, theocrats and libertarians is hardly a philisophically coherent - and thus lasting - coalition. But there is more. Is it not possible that the "electorate" did not become more "conservative" between 2006 and 2010, but rather, to justify how they voted, some describe themselves as less or more conservative or moderate or progressive or vegan or whatever? I was angry in 2006 because of Iraq, so I voted Democrat - and in my mind I was not conservative, because conseravtives don't vote Democrat unless they are missing a few planks. In 2010, I have a generalised anger about the state of the economy, or specific concerns about the direction of the country; Democrats are in power and I want to throw the bastards out; and "moderates" can't vote for O'Donnell without appearing like fools, so I put myself in the "conservative" column. In short, post hoc rationalisation rather than consequential ("I am conservative therefore I vote Republican") labelling. Oy ...
- icarusr
November 26, 2010 at 10:36am
"Cost could argue that the kind of programs that Republicans are proposing will revive the economy and enjoy the same kind of popularity as social security. I have my doubts that these programs, which mostly consist of turning back the Keynesian clock, will do the trick." That's the Lincolnian "nub of the problem". Repubs are agressively anti-Keynesian and Democrats, starting with Obama, at best incompetently confused and terminally timid re Keynesian economics. Electing such Dems gains little with respect to macroeconomic recovery. In the next 3-12 months, a serious financial crisis is a real possibility if Keynesian economic solutions are not applied, perhaps beginning in the EU and then spreading--. especially to the US if we don’t initiate the crisis here. That is, given that so few understand or accept Keynesian macroeconomics and hold sacred the belief that reducing taxes has no effect on gov’t revenues and debt--- but gov’t spending cannot boost the economy and gov’t revenues and reduce debt in a liquidity crisis when the private sector doesn’t spend. Hence, the Tea Party demand that our debt ceiling should not be increased and/or spending drastically reduced. The result is a possible US default and/or depression rather than the current Obama super recession [And yes, Obama and the Dems will be blamed and held accountable by the electorate-- and not undeservedly so from both a political and economic perspective.] Keynesian economics now has sufficient data to say it IS the only valid macro-economic theory available today (and no, it doesn’t contradict Adam Smith or Ricardo or "free enterprise" and the Capitalist system, but rather saves both from foolish alternatives.
- drofnats1
November 26, 2010 at 4:52pm
Is the Tea Party a "False Dawn" for Conservatives? "Did the 2010 election demonstrate that the electorate is moving to the right?" John Judas' conclusion is measured: "the Obama administration’s failure to seize the political opportunity afforded by the Great Recession has not necessarily opened the way to a new Republican majority. More likely, it will lead to a period where the two parties exchange power, and where neither can establish a long-lasting majority." Arthur Thompson, the CEO of the John Birch Society, thinks that the Socialists in Congress weathered the storm: see:http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6539-the-elections-and-the-fed-here-we-go-again Thompson notes that in the face of a tremendous victory for the Republicans, only three of the seventy members of the “Social Democrat Party” (translation: Progressive Caucus) were defeated. The “core of the Socialist movement within Congress remains, from Kucinich to Bernie Sanders, and they are organized.” The newcomers are not very well organized. They are individualists… are going to have to learn to organize to combat the Socialist organization within Congress.” Art Thompson is not exactly celebrating this Republican victory. He has seen it before, he claims, and knows it can be derailed. We should be so lucky.
- LawrenceGulotta
November 26, 2010 at 5:00pm
How about competence in governing as a factor. Isn't that what independents, and probably most of the swing voters who are registered as R's or D's looking for? Competence means getting legislation passed (something Obama can say he's sone, even if he did allow the insertion of a poison pill in the health care bill by the negligent omission of a severance clause); getting effective people in place in government positions who will advance the ideas that got you elected int he first place; looking like you're are succeeding so that the public knows you are competent (anyone think Obama and the Democrats have done that well?); and inspiring the public so it does not turn on you as soon as the wind shifts, but rather it gives you time to work things out (Obama should be grateful that this week's foreign policy disasters— North Korea's unveiling a new enrichment facility and shelling South Korea and the discovery that David Petraeus ignored his own intelligence people and spent several months negotiating with a Quetta shopkeeper posing as a Taliban poo-bah— have not received the play they might otherwise get in a non-holiday weekend). I think that is where the R's are challenged. I am tired of reading what guys like Kilgore and Teixeira tell us about what people think. It takes sight off of governing, which is what keeps you in office once you are there. THe question is with 19 or so months left can the D's show they have the stuff to make people feel good about have D's in control. I am hopeful, but not optimistic.
- SFergessen
November 28, 2010 at 10:44am
The most telling polling datum just before the election was from the Washington Post. It disclosed that, among unlikely voters, the electorate preferred Democrats 59% to 31%, an amazing differential. Among likely voters, they preferred Republicans 49% to 44%. Low turnout always helps Republicans (note voter suppression activities). Low turnout is also a hallmark of midterms, and the economy made Democrats' situation worse. A major shift? I don't think so. Add in the problem demographics pose for the Republicans. The white male vote shrinks proportionately every election.
- dstatton
November 29, 2010 at 2:43pm