Quo Vadis GOP?

[Valmy]

If Latinos are all trending Republicanwards then why aren't California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas becoming more red? If this was some kind of nationwide trend then surely that should be the case, no?

I know this is true in Florida but that is a very different population than the border states.

[grumbler]

If Latinos are all trending Republicanwards then why aren't California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas becoming more red? If this was some kind of nationwide trend then surely that should be the case, no?

I know this is true in Florida but that is a very different population than the border states.

I agree that the evidence of a rightward shift is ambiguous at best.  George Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, far more than Trump got in 2020.  I do think that Democrats should be worried, though, because on issue polling the various Latino populations seem to be shifting from a focus on economic issues (still the biggest issue, but by decreasing margins) to culture issues.  The Republican kulturkampf may increasingly draw Latino voters to vote against their own economic interests.

[Sheilbh]

I agree that the evidence of a rightward shift is ambiguous at best.  George Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, far more than Trump got in 2020.  I do think that Democrats should be worried, though, because on issue polling the various Latino populations seem to be shifting from a focus on economic issues (still the biggest issue, but by decreasing margins) to culture issues.  The Republican kulturkampf may increasingly draw Latino voters to vote against their own economic interests.

I think it's been fairly consistent since 2012. And for all the talk of the culture war I think part of it may be the economic stuff.

Trump did not deliver infrastructure week etc and did deliver tax cuts and judges. But rhetorically he was absolutely supportive of Social Security and Medicare. He has already this year warned Republicans that if they want to win not to cut a single penny from those programs. Similarly Bush ran on "compassionate conservatism". I think that's part of what draws Latino votes while the Romney/Ryan style Republicanism fails. And more generally Romney/Ryan Republicanism is a dead end.

From everything I've read the Latino vote (and the Asian-American vote) really need disaggregating because different communities are moving in different directions. But I think my point is more that if the GOP coalition shifts - and there are signs it is - then their politics will too. As I say in general I think we're in a period of re-alignment and things are in flux - coalitions will re-coalesce at some point and when they do I think there'll be a shift in policy positions they take.

The Left finds it more difficult to coalesce around bumper-sticker policies because it is so much more intellectually fractured the bumper-sticker politics would alienate more of their current voting bloc than it would draw in more of their former voting bloc.  "Defund the police" was a disastrous stab at that.

I was thinking about this again. The best politician in my lifetime at simplifying complex policies to explain it to people, making it relevant to voters and making them care is still Bill Clinton.

And I do slightly wonder if part of it is that there's a risk that if you are defining your opponent as simplistic, populist etc that in response you accidentally trap yourself in thinking that technocratic, wonkish, politics by post-grad seminar is in itself better. The stylistic difference replaces the substance. I think Elizabeth Warren (who I  generally really like) is maybe an example of that because there was definitely a point in her 2020 campaign when it went from being about "this is my plan for x" to "I have a plan" - as if the significant thing was the existence of plans and the style of politics that indicated rather than the content.

I wonder if there is a generation gap going on as well because the politicians I associate with that skill in simplifying issues, making them relevant etc are Clinton, Bernie and Biden who are all quite old now. Maybe there are other young Democrats I'm not aware of or can't think of who are really good at this?

I think with "defund the police" for example you then had quite long arguments about how some people absolutely meant it and other people didn't but it referred to a range of ideas and it was on you (the voter) to "do the reading" and again that seems like an example of that post-grad style in politics and comms that seems to be a big thing on the American left.

I know I've said it before and I think things are changing on this - but the same goes for the term "Latinx". I always remember in November 2020 when it was clear Trump was doing better than expected in Latino areas a progressive asking Ruben Gallego "as a progressive Latinx Congressman who's run a successful campaign what do we need to do about this". Gallego saying "first of all stop using Latinx" and then loads of other progressives online re-tweeting their disappointment in him

[DGuller]

I think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.

[Sheilbh]

I think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.

Yeah - and also I think it just needs to be flipped.

People on high salaries who vote for left-wing parties are I think often sympathised with as genuinely motivated and well meaning, inspired by liberal values, or what they think is best for society - while working class people who vote for the right at best need to be explained away by false consciouosness, at worst are idiots who've been duped. It strikes me as incredibly patronising. Even here, I imagine there are a fair few people on Languish who are not necessarily just voting in their economic self-interest for primarily cultural and social reasons.

Having said that I am a bit of an old lefty on this and I do generally think economic reality is what shapes political forces. So my instinct is that the cultural and economic are not necessarily in as much tension as people think they are.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.

basically it comes down to:

when push comes to shove culture will trump economics (most of the time)

[Josquius]

I think part of the problem that posters here are exemplifying is the perception that economic policies are what smart voters are interested in, and cultural issues are a distraction to trick voters into going against their interests.  I think that's a really bad misreading of what matters to many voters. 

The reason culture matters is because the degree to which your personal values are aligned with cultural values directly impacts the degree to which you feel included or excluded in society.  Exclusion, like fear, is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions matter.

I've heard this criticism a lot.
Its just way too convenient and really misses the core point to concentrate on a side issue that can be spun better.
The key issue isn't that people are being tricked into supporting cultural issues over economic issues.
It's that things that things that aren't issues at all are being blown up out of all proportion and blamed for economic problems.

If someone genuinely is willing to take a significant pay cut so they don't ever have to hear Spanish then fair play to them. That would be a valid exchange and a reflection of different priorities at work.

What you've got instead is a story being weaved that it's the fault of immigrants that their life isnt wonderful. This kind of thing rarely holds up analysis.
Very often the very thing they claim to prioritise is directly damaged by voting a certain way. Case in point the republicans opposition to the fundamentals of American values.

[Valmy]

I think with "defund the police" for example you then had quite long arguments about how some people absolutely meant it and other people didn't but it referred to a range of ideas and it was on you (the voter) to "do the reading" and again that seems like an example of that post-grad style in politics and comms that seems to be a big thing on the American left.

I know I've said it before and I think things are changing on this - but the same goes for the term "Latinx". I always remember in November 2020 when it was clear Trump was doing better than expected in Latino areas a progressive asking Ruben Gallego "as a progressive Latinx Congressman who's run a successful campaign what do we need to do about this". Gallego saying "first of all stop using Latinx" and then loads of other progressives online re-tweeting their disappointment in him

Ok but this kind of thing is activist stuff and not stuff cooked up by the Democratic Party. There is no central authority we can appeal to to get rid of the tendency of activists to want things and say things that are politically problematic.

Meanwhile I guess prominent Republican office holders can call for war with Mexico and that's cool. So if the Republicans are going to get the benefit of the doubt for the things their leaders say while we are going to get punished for things randos say then obviously they are going win. I am just skeptical that that is actually the case.

[Sheilbh]

Ok but this kind of thing is activist stuff and not stuff cooked up by the Democratic Party. There is no central authority we can appeal to to get rid of the tendency of activists to want things and say things that are politically problematic.

Meanwhile I guess prominent Republican office holders can call for war with Mexico and that's cool. So if the Republicans are going to get the benefit of the doubt for the things their leaders say while we are going to get punished for things randos say then obviously they are going win. I am just skeptical that that is actually the case.

Sure but we were talking about how the left communicates not the Republicans. Grumbler had an example of language that alienates more of your current coalition than it draws in.

I added to that another example of a key and growing demographic may be drifting away from them. I think one point is that too many people on the left talk about that community in a word that is not widely understood or used in that community, that they've been warned against by successful progressive politicians and that instead seems to have originated in academic or activist circles.

Republicans haven't done well in recent elections and they deserve to keep losing. But political cycles are a thing, there's always the risk of an October surprise style event tipping the scales - so Democrats should always be looking to bring more people in and expand. I also think it's their style historically too and a better approach than trying to work through non-democratic institutions (not least because the GOP have taken over the courts). Success in governing is the best way of doing that (and I think Biden's been the most impressive President I can remember in terms of actually doing stuff), but also not just talking to themselves but outwards is key especially because they've got good stuff to talk about. I think Biden gets that (as is Bernie, weirdly) - I'm not so sure about other leading Democrats.

[Admiral Yi]

Howdy Hoss. It's been a minute.

[crazy canuck]

Years ago (before the culture wars in the US really got going) we had a discussion about right wing politics appealing to working class people in the US.  I posed the question of why American working class voters often vote against their own self interest.  I think it was Grumbler (and maybe others) who explained the complex issue of how race relations factored into the issue. 

That seems to continue to be the case, but with the added complexity now of the culture wars.

[Valmy]

The economy is what is going to sink us ultimately. I keep hoping for good news but this recent bank thing can't be good.

[crazy canuck]

The economy is what is going to sink us ultimately. I keep hoping for good news but this recent bank thing can't be good.

Meh, venture capitalists pile their money into an unregulated bank.  If regulated banks start failing we would all have valid reasons to be concerned.

[Barrister]

Years ago (before the culture wars in the US really got going) we had a discussion about right wing politics appealing to working class people in the US.  I posed the question of why American working class voters often vote against their own self interest.  I think it was Grumbler (and maybe others) who explained the complex issue of how race relations factored into the issue. 

That seems to continue to be the case, but with the added complexity now of the culture wars.

This is just a side point, but I always found the argument that "working class voters often vote against their own self interest" is kind of insulting and demeaning.  You wouldn't argue that wealthy voters who vote for parties that would increase their own taxes are 'voting against their own self interest' would you?

Maybe financial self interest isn't the most important factor on how people vote.  In fact I think most people would be offended if you said that personal financial self interest is the only thing motivating their vote.

[Valmy]

This is just a side point, but I always found the argument that "working class voters often vote against their own self interest" is kind of insulting and demeaning.  You wouldn't argue that wealthy voters who vote for parties that would increase their own taxes are 'voting against their own self interest' would you?

Why wouldn't you? Wealthy people who vote blue get clowned on for just that.