A Brief History…

A book came out in 2002 that was based on Bill Clinton’s experience in electoral politics. It was called The Emerging Democratic Majority and its premise was that Clinton had created a new coalition of interest groups that would keep the Democrats the majority for years to come.

In support of their thesis they argue that the electorate is becoming increasingly diverse, with growing Asian, Hispanic and African-American populations-all groups that tend to vote Democratic. On the other hand, the number of white Americans, the voting population most likely to favor Republicans, remains static. Further, according to the authors, America’s transition from an industrial to a postindustrial economy is also producing voters who trend strongly Democratic. Judis and Teixeira coin the word “ideopolis” for the geographic areas where the postindustrial economy thrives. They also argue that other changes, specifically the growing educated professional class and the continuing “gender gap,” will benefit Democrats, whose political ideology is more consonant with the needs and beliefs of women and professionals.

This was a reasonable premise and Clinton had done well with it. Now, there is an analysis of the Obama election on this party coalition. The two off year governor elections are analyzed, especially that in Virginia.

But this group remained at least in play for the Democrats. Clinton inherited a coalition consisting of minorities, liberals, urban voters, and a decent remnant of Jacksonian voters in the Ohio River Valley and the South, who still preferred a moderate-to-conservative Democrat to a Republican. This coalition became a majority coalition when Clinton used a combination of fiscal conservatism and social moderation to bring suburban voters on board. This was a huge innovation for Democrats; suburbs like Nassau County, NY, Orange County, CA and Fairfax County, VA had fueled the rise of the Republican parties in those states. Clinton moved them substantially toward his side. This coalition allowed him to win by eight points in 1996; absent Perot and a last-minute fundraising scandal, he probably would have won by more.

Clinton intuited that suburban voters are, generally speaking, culturally cosmopolitan – they don’t like it when you call someone “macaca,” and aren’t crazy about the religious right. But they’re generally not particularly socially liberal either, and are fans of “law and order.” They like taxes low and appreciate economic growth, but like good schools and a clean environment. Having to balance a bunch of spending priorities with somewhat limited income in their daily lives, balanced budgets are the ultimate “good government” indicator for these voters.

I think this is true and, had the Democrats continued with Clinton’s example, they might well be looking at a long period of ascendency. Instead, they chose the progressive route and it is affecting the political future.

By 2008, Democrats held most of the suburban districts around major metropolitan areas, and were threatening in the exurbs. The right Democratic candidate probably could have put together a massive 2008 Presidential majority, combining minorities, liberals, Jacksonians, Catholics, and suburbanites. The mood of the country was certainly right for a 1920/1932/1952/1980 result.

But the Democrats nominated Barack Obama. The party’s grip among Jacksonians had weakened since Clinton left the stage, but they abandoned Obama completely. Jay Cost and I have detailed this here. This movement is why Obama received 53% of the vote, instead of the 60% or so we might expect given the voters’ attitude toward Bush’s Presidency.

Of course, the left will call this evidence of racism. I think it is ideology but we will see what the result is.

You only get to elect the first black President once, and governing a coalition of suburbanites, poor blacks, and upper class liberals isn’t easy. It is hard to keep that enthusiasm up. And with the Jacksonian wing of the party gone, if that enthusiasm dissipates, or if one of the coalition groups becomes disgruntled and starts to shuffle out the door, the party isn’t left with much.

I think this is correct and he hasn’t even mentioned the union problems that Democrats will have to face as pensions bankrupt municipalities all over the country. His premise is that the “Emerging Majority” of 2002 is looking already in decline. There is considerable detail on the politics of the two states in the article and it is worth reading in full. He has a discussion of the effects of the health care bills that I have linked in another post.

The Democrats seem to be on several precipices at the same time.

Tags: Clinton, Obama, politics

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.