The United States Needs a Strong Opposition Party
As I go through the results of the 2012 election cycle from a wide range of sources across the political spectrum, including The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and The Center for American Progress, I am getting … concerned.
We need an opposition party in the United States. It creates debate so only the best ideas win, it keeps politicians more honest than they would otherwise be, and it keeps the boat in a narrow center lane so we don’t veer off into extreme in either direction. The Republican party has been taken over by radicals, resulting in a catastrophic demographic and values problem that is now causing it to fail at that vital mission.
That is not good for the country. Whether you are liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, no good can come when the entire government is controlled by a single party or ideology that is blind to the needs of those who fall outside of its constituency. That is not the case now, but it certainly looks like we are on path for that to happen.
Republicans weren’t just beat in the 2012 election, which they truly thought they were going to win in a landslide despite the figures showing otherwise. They were destroyed. They lost the White House. They lost Senate seats. They lost House seats. They lost ballot measures. They lost judicial retention races.
How did they lose? Which demographics and voting blocs were responsible? Let’s take a look.
The Shocking Demographics of the 2012 Election
Consider that in the election held less than 48 hours ago, the Republican Presidential candidate:
- Lost 8 out of the 10 richest counties in the nation
- Lost 9 out of 10 of the richest states in the country
- Lost 53 out of 100 college-educated voters
- Lost 55 out of 100 women voters
- Lost 60 out of 100 18-to-29 year old voters
- Lost 71 out of 100 Hispanic voters
- Lost 73 out of 100 Asian voters
- Lost 80 out of 100 gay and lesbian voters
- Lost 93 out of 100 African American voters
A few pundits, like Rush Limbaugh, seem to think that this because Barack Obama is a “Santa Claus” figure. They are wrong. It is that kind of wishful, lazy thinking that led to this result in the first place. It makes self-reflection unnecessary and can only result in even worse results in the future.
Consider Asian Americans. As a group, they are much more likely to have far higher educational attainment, work in high prestige jobs that require niche skills, enjoy larger household incomes, and amass higher net worths per family than their counterparts. Likewise, looking at demographic data, the Hispanic community contains a significant Catholic majority that has an amazing work ethic, even when struggling in low-end jobs. Historically, those traits should have correlated with the Republican Party. They don’t anymore. That is a failure of the Republican party.
The Libertarian Streak of the 35-and-Younger Crowd
The Republican party has also alienated the next waive of parents and business owners. Hang out with 18-35 crowd that represents that youngest half of the median population. I am not a libertarian but I do have a very significant libertarian streak. For me, personal freedom is the single highest moral objective of a government.
I am not unique among my generation. We’ve grown up in a time that is all about individuality. Broadly speaking, we don’t listen to the radio, we have individual iPhones with playlists on them. We don’t watch one of three television stations, we have the option to check on hundreds of networks. We don’t read one newspaper, we can browse thousands of online publications and millions of blogs. As a general rule, there is a very significant libertarian streak in today’s youth because we are, in many ways, the most individual generation to ever be born. No matter how weird, quirky, or bizarre you are, you can find a group just like you and connect with them over thousands of miles.
That has an influence on politics. It results in a deep-seated “live and let live” attitude. Yet, the Republican party gets further and further away from libertarianism. It claims to be about small government but it’s not. It’s base wants: Restrictions on birth control. Restrictions on abortion in the case of rape or incest. Restrictions on marriage rights. Restrictions on immigration. Restrictions on personal medical freedom. Restrictions on constitutional rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Restrictions on privacy. An expansion in the size of our already unsustainable military expenditures at a time when the middle class is falling apart. It’s nothing but more power and more money. It wasn’t always this way.
The only area in which the GOP has done a good job supporting individual freedom is in the realm of gun control. That loses a lot of its relative luster when you realize that Obama has done very little to try and curtail gun rights, to the point the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a lobbying group that tries to push through restrictions on gun ownership, gives him an “F” on every issue it scored.
If Both Parties Offer Big Government, The One That Includes the Most People Will Win Every Time
And you wonder why young voters vote the way they do? If you’re going to get big government either way, it might as well be for medicine instead of bombs. If you are going to get big government either way, it might as well be one that is going to allow a woman the right to get birth control. If you are going to get big government either way, you might as well go with the one that will let your friends and family get married. If you are going to get big government either way, it may as well be for the party that doesn’t have a base that treats all brown people like they are criminals and instead welcomes immigrants with open arms like the days of Ellis Island.
Many people, when polled, do not want big government. If both parties are going to give us big government, we are going to go with the one that at least does it in a way that makes life better for more people.
In my lifetime, I’ve watched the Republican party go from the exciting days of Reagan’s “Morning in America”, fighting a righteous cause against communism and revitalizing an economic system stuck in malaise to a group of extremists so pure in ideology that not even Reagan himself could survive the primaries. The Republican party of today is defined by what it is against. You cannot live your life that way, nor can you run a party that way, because it is doomed to fail. You have to be for something. You have to work toward something.
The Focus Should Be on Individual Freedom, Smaller Government, and Balanced Budgets
There should be a genuine alternative to the Democratic party but the demographics and moral values of the nation, dominated by the rich Northern states, will never allow that to be one based upon restricting freedom or taking away rights. If they ever hope to win, the libertarians need to take back over the GOP, kick out the religious extremists, and start running on a platform of individual freedom, smaller government, and balanced budgets.
Although I did not vote for him, I never criticized Mitt Romney personally during the election, even defending him against attacks I thought unjustified. I think he is probably a good man, who loves his family, loves his church, and loves his country. Had he taken the White House, I would have done just fine, despite some small policy differences, and I would have hoped he had a very successful term. Mitt Romney did not lose because America hated him; it doesn’t. Mitt Romney lost because he spent years defining himself in a primary process where he had to alienate massive portions of the electorate in order to clench the nomination, supported a party platform that was one of the most evil documents to ever come out of a political committee, was on the same ticket as radicals like Todd Aiken, and wasn’t allowed to be himself for fear of having the American Taliban turn on him.
The typical younger voter is a combination unthinkable to older generations: Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. There is no party to represent that now. Either the GOP changes, or it dies as its base goes to the grave with each passing year and more voters celebrate their 18th birthday. The first step to making any change is to recognize reality, even when it is painful to do so. The GOP needs to do some serious soul searching or they are going to lose an entire generation.
The same, it should be said, goes for the churches. In my generation, a staggering 1 out of 3 people now consider themselves atheist or agnostic. That’s the harvest you reap when you’ve sewn nothing but Pharisaical divisiveness for decades. If the religious community really wants its influence to grow in the hearts of Americans, it should spend more time in the soup kitchen and less time trying to draft laws.
Reader Comments (21)
Comments are presented chronologically, with replies indented beneath the comments to which they respond.
James
November 8, 2012
How does that square with the fact that 30/50 states have Republican governors? And blue states are actually hiring GOP governors? Could it be the local GOP is some how different than the national GOP? Curious as to your take on that.
I was reading up on Gary Johnson after your comment about your parents so I did a little research and I think I might be a liberterian. I sure do agree with about 90% of his platform. I'm independent (voted for Ross Perot, twice) but lean republican because I'm a fiscal conservative but I do have to say there are extremists in both parties and I can't stand how the democrats kowtow to the unions.
I strongly agree about the need for a third party but am pessimistic it will happen in our lifetime. I still can't believe a Republican created the Department of Homeland Security. Ok, enough about politics...did you buy any stocks this week....I started buying some MickeyDees! $3.08 dividend per share...sweet! Now I hope those darn rascals in DC can figure out a way to keep the 15% dividend tax rate.
Jesse Seymour
November 8, 2012
Replying to James
This is my first time commenting here, but I have enjoyed the articles for such a long time. I used to be a big Republican supporter and I can give some perspective on how the local parties work in my neck of the woods. In the 2008 and 2010 cycles I spent 20-40 hours per week campaigning for various Republican candidates while working full time. These candidates are genuinely good people, but are hobbled by the party system.
In my area, the party focus is at the Congressional district level. This level is ran by a chairman, and the component county chairmen report to their district chairman. If a candidate wants to run in a partisan race as a Republican, it will have to get the approval of the district chairman, or the county parties will not provide assistance in the form of money or manpower. Therefore, whoever gets the nomination for races in that district have the stamp of approval from the district chairman. In politics, the three M's rule: money, manpower, and message. Candidates who have not gained the district chairman's approval usually do well on message, but are severely disadvantaged by money and manpower as the county parties will not contribute these resources.
During the 2010 cycle, I watched a primary battle between two Republican candidates. As a county chairman during that time, I was told that if I supported both candidates equally I would be removed from my chair and replaced by a chairman that would march in time with the district chairman. When I indicated that I would provide the resources I could to both candidates until either the primary was over, or my county officially endorsed one candidate, I was berated, challenged, and forcefully removed by a recall vote within the county party. In fact, the county party also went to lengths to ensure my defeat in the city council election that year.
The Republican party at the state level is decent enough as it has a lot more visibility than at the district and county level. However, once you get down to the grass roots, it is very much a mafia mindset. You do not take sides against the party leadership. Because of this, I withheld my support in both money and manpower from the Republican party, and completely sat out this election cycle. For a long time I struggled with coming to terms about how the Republican party is ran locally versus what their spokespeople are saying, and decided that there were more important things in my life than trying to please a group of people who obviously were so stuck in their ways that they could not see the value of the contributions of the 18-35 generation, which I proudly represent.
Joshua Kennon
November 8, 2012
Replying to Jesse Seymour
Welcome to the site! And such a great, informative first comment! I look forward to your posts in the future.
Joshua Kennon
November 8, 2012
Replying to James
I feel the same way ... I'm so glad this election is over but a lot of it has to do with the teacher in me. I don't care who someone votes for so long as they are voting rationally consistent with their own self-proclaimed values. What drives me nuts is voting with bad data; e.g., I actually heard someone the other day say they were voting for Romney because our defense budget has been decimated and needs to be rebuilt. Our defense budget is near an all-time high. That's the kind of stuff I can't stand.
It wears me out because I just want people to cast a ballot for whomever they actually would prefer but give them all the facts so they can make a fully informed decision. For example, even though it cancelled out my own vote for Obama, walking through the ballot with one of my older relatives, I actually told her she should vote for Romney because she would be happier if he won based on an issue-by-issue discussion we had. To tell her anything else would be intellectually dishonest and I can't do it. I cannot bring myself to behave that way.
As for your questions about governors, I think there are two primary forces at work:
1. There are 50 states and the population is not evenly disbursed among them so you would need to calculate "Governor Representation per Capita" to get an idea of the nation's values as a whole to put it on an apples-to-apples comparison with the Presidential election. That is, California has a single Democratic governor, he or she represents 37,691,912 people, whereas Wyoming has a Republican governor and represents only 568,158 people. Just because there are 30 governors of one party does not mean that 60% of Americans prefer that party.
2. The geographic-social effect: A Republican in New Jersey (Chris Christie) would be a raging liberal somewhere else (Mississippi), whereas a Democrat in Georgia might be a Republican in New York if you are talking about specific beliefs on specific issues. In real world terms, I can see how someone could vote for Chris Christie and support him enthusiastically, yet still hate the GOP national party and candidates.
You're right about there being extremists in both parties. On the left, I cringe every time I hear Bernie Sanders speak in Congress. If he had his way, I think he'd tax 75% of our income. He advocates, in my opinion, theft by violence of another means, using a pen instead of a gun.
I've been looking at McDonald's lately. The dividend yield is certainly rich. I'd like to pick up some shares for the long-term portfolio but I have been holding off making new purchases since I added a significant amount of cash last month to the portfolios to fund the purchase of everything from oil companies to financial service businesses (and some British companies too, which have been on my radar for awhile), wrote a very large check to the IRS, and then had to fund the buyout of the other shareholders in some of my businesses. I want to rebuild the excess liquidity reserves that I used to fund those things, which will take a few months, and I'm not willing to call the bankers to borrow money since I hate debt. My conservatism with the balance sheet wins out over good opportunities, which drives me nuts, but that's how I roll.
I've had my eye on some non-traditional assets for awhile but I might not start dabbling in those until after the first of the year because they will complicate my tax filings.
On the upshot? If the 15% dividend tax goes away - which I will hate - it will probably drive stocks down so you will at least be able to get much fatter yields in your retirement plans and other tax shelters. Depending on your asset mix and net worth, it might actually result in higher income for you.
(On a related note, I wish they'd just do away with the corporate tax entirely and tax us as individuals. It would make most of the games disappear and level the playing field. You wouldn't get a billionaire paying 10% and a small business owner paying 35%. It also wouldn't punish investors for success and require them to do acrobatics to drop the effective tax rate.)
Ian Francis
November 9, 2012
Replying to Joshua Kennon
Ok, so you triggered the nerd in me. I have tabulated the results of the "Governor Representation Per Capita". Using estimated population for 2011, newly elected Governors (assuming the Dems hold onto Washington state), all 50 states + DC, and data sourced from Wikipedia. Republican GRPC: 0.5872 (58.7%), Democratic GRPC: 0.4128 (41.3%). Josh, I am sending you the spreadsheet to confirm my numbers as I did not have time to double check it.
Interesting results though. Surprisingly close to 60%.
Ian Francis
November 9, 2012
Replying to Joshua Kennon
RI Is Independent, so actually its 49 states + DC.
Ian Francis
November 9, 2012
Replying to Joshua Kennon
Sorry, one more correction. Accounting for RI being Independent, the numbers have been revised: Rep: 58.52%, Dem: 41.14%, Ind:0.66%
Joshua Kennon
November 9, 2012
Replying to Ian Francis
Ha! Thank you!!! That is great to know. I feel like we should have some music motif on this site whenever the inner nerd gets summoned and people start crunching numbers.
Gilvus
November 9, 2012
Replying to Joshua Kennon
This. Hardcore and sinister, just like our inner nerds (fast forward to 2:17).
Doug
February 16, 2016
Replying to Joshua Kennon
Joshua,
Love your blog. I really enjoy your very logical discussion based on facts and not emotion, which I think is sorely needed these days.
I was very pleased with your recent article on Scalia, and was wondering if you could do an article soon on the economic ramifications of a Bernie Sanders presidency (mentioned in your comment above) vs. a Donald Trump presidency, as both seem to be outsiders to the status quo parties.
I've spoken recently with friends concerning Bernie's plan to increase taxes on Wall Street transactions (and the terrible effects that would come about) and would love to hear your take on both of these candidates.
Gilvus
November 9, 2012
Replying to James
Internet high-five, James! Though I think you mean "I'm an independent who happens to agree with the libertarian platform this election cycle" rather than "I'm a libertarian." The parties can morph over time (as described in the main article, and by looking at 225 years of U.S. history), and one of the worst mental ruts to fall into is "I support party X, so I'll continue to vote party X." Plus, your beliefs and values can change as you're exposed to memorable or traumatizing experiences as well.
James
November 9, 2012
Replying to Gilvus
Yes, that is definitely what I meant. I'll remain independent but the platform Mr. Johnson presents is more my style than the platform of the Dems/Repubs. Thanks Gilvus.
Andrew
November 9, 2012
First and foremost, let me say I enjoy the site and find not only the posts informative and thought provoking, but the comments and discussions are excellent as well. I am a registered Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and I don't have liberal social views. With that being said, I'm not sure how the GOP is preventing women from getting birth control or how they hate legal immigrants...
Joshua Kennon
November 9, 2012
Replying to Andrew
Welcome to the site! I look forward to seeing you around in the future!
James
November 9, 2012
I think the Democrats would be wise not to misinterpret the election results. No question the Republicans need to retool their message and some of the people that deliver that message but I'm concerned from what I hear coming from some of the leaders of the Democratic Party. They are some how claiming a "Mandate". I'm going to show them what a mandate looks like:
1980 election Reagan 43,903,230...1984 election Reagan 54,455,472...+10,552,242
2008 election Obama 69,456,897...2012 election Obama 61,209,778....-8,247,119
Even if you give Obama another 200,000 for uncounted votes you still get about -8M.
Joshua Kennon
November 10, 2012
Replying to James
For me, I think the only clear message from the election is that the American people want both sides to work together and stop bickering.
Looking at the election in its entirety, the numbers tell me that Obama does not have a mandate, but virtually all of the Democratic party platform proposals with the exception of tax increases and health insurance do enjoy broad general support that represent the values of the nation. The Democratic platform won the White House, increased power in the Senate, increased power in the House, resulted in drug legalization, a complete sweep for marriage equality, and destroyed nearly all extreme anti-abortion candidates.
For example, consider restrictions on birth control and all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. Before Todd Aiken ran in my home state, Claire McCaskill was the least popular Senator in the United States due to the dislike of Obama in the rural parts around here and she was associated with the President. Yet, she destroyed Aiken by an almost 10 point margin. The same happened around the country with the other rape and birth control candidates. In my own family and circle of friends, even the most pro-Romney people were voting against Aiken's philosophy. It is clear that the Congress and President have wide discretion in making sure those rights can't be taken away from people.
The tax story and the health care story are much more complex. Some states voted strongly for cutting taxes or not approving new taxes, but others did increase taxes. Here is a good run down of the state-by-state results on everything from taxes to drugs.
Speaking of Reagan, I'm working on a post about Reagan's presidency. One of the things I find fascinating is the revision that is happening where people the past few years somehow think he was bad or unpopular despite scoring the largest electoral victory margin during his reelection in history. I think the psychology of what is going on is a combination of several mental models, including mere association and the halo and horns effect. Looking at polling data, the modern Republican party, in the mind of most youth, conjures up images of racists, bigots, and extremists. Young voters who weren't around during Reagan's time see that these same people idolize Reagan. Therefore, they ascribe these general characteristics to Reagan, not realizing the very real threat communism was to the existence of free societies like Canada, the United States, and Great Britain.
LKM46
November 10, 2012
I am so excited to have discovered your blog. Thank you!
Joshua Kennon
November 10, 2012
Replying to LKM46
Welcome to the site!
Marco Moreira
November 14, 2012
"The typical younger voter is a combination unthinkable to older generations: Fiscally conservative and socially liberal." - Spot on, maybe we could have more than just 2 parties like, oh, every other healthy democracy on the planet!? Why is it that monopolies are not ok in business but great in politics...?
John Jones
April 12, 2013
Replying to Marco Moreira
The United State of America is NOT a democracy, it's an independent republic.
BukaHanersib
March 23, 2014
I am late to this party. Still, I want to thank you for writing this.
Having a viable national candidate who loosely represents my views (fiscally conservative yet socially liberal) would be almost miraculous, at this point. Therefore, voting comes down to a process of selecting the option least offensive to the issues I feel are most critical. This is depressing, in and of itself.
Based on personal experience, as well as conversations with my kids and their peers, this dearth of real options is a huge factor in overall apathy and low voter turnout. It's easy to characterize non-voters as unpatriotic or otherwise negatively. In reality, they are being pragmatic in that they see all candidates as equally evil.