The Northern Strategy Explained
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 02, 2021, 08:47:13 PM

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  The Northern Strategy Explained
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: The Northern Strategy Explained  (Read 10388 times)
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2017, 03:04:11 PM »


Future elections will probably be more about the coasts (globalists) vs middle america (white nationalists) than north vs south.  Republicans needed to go the populist route because there aren't enough white Christian conservatives out there to win elections and their numbers are depleting every year.  The next logical extension of their base would be working class whites who are less religious (former union people, etc.).  They gladly traded white college educated suburbanites for this because the suburbanites they are losing are largely in states they had no chance in anyways. 

I do think this strategy is fine for them in the short term, but will kill their party in 20 years, especially for the White House and the House.  The Senate will probably be their last bastion of support.

I agree with this, but get this: many non-whites over time could also find themselves on the Republican/Nationalist/Populist side of the spectrum, provided the Republicans can avoid the Richard Spencer wing of the alt-right and actually start talking to minorities who feel increasingly betrayed by the Democratic Party.  As the GOP becomes more economic populist, the big business conservatives will drift over to the Democrats, a party that is already controlled at its core by urban/coastal (mostly white) elites.  Bernie-type Democrats who are genuinely disadvantaged, could move over to the GOP, including even some inner city minorities.  Hispanics for that matter, I think are naturally becoming swing voters over the next 20 years.  They are already not monolithic, if The Wall and the ensuing media onslaught couldn't make Hispanic-identifying voters monolithically anti-Trump, nothing will.

There's an interesting article here, about what the 2 parties could look like in 15-20 years if trends continue:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/time-for-a-realignment.html?_r=0 



-Problem: minorities elected Hillary Clinton to the position of nominee of the Democratic Party. So while this is a plausible future, it'll have to wait a while.
Logged
blacknwhiterose
Rookie
**
Posts: 93


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2017, 03:33:13 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 03:55:59 PM by blacknwhiterose »


Future elections will probably be more about the coasts (globalists) vs middle america (white nationalists) than north vs south.  Republicans needed to go the populist route because there aren't enough white Christian conservatives out there to win elections and their numbers are depleting every year.  The next logical extension of their base would be working class whites who are less religious (former union people, etc.).  They gladly traded white college educated suburbanites for this because the suburbanites they are losing are largely in states they had no chance in anyways. 

I do think this strategy is fine for them in the short term, but will kill their party in 20 years, especially for the White House and the House.  The Senate will probably be their last bastion of support.

I agree with this, but get this: many non-whites over time could also find themselves on the Republican/Nationalist/Populist side of the spectrum, provided the Republicans can avoid the Richard Spencer wing of the alt-right and actually start talking to minorities who feel increasingly betrayed by the Democratic Party.  As the GOP becomes more economic populist, the big business conservatives will drift over to the Democrats, a party that is already controlled at its core by urban/coastal (mostly white) elites.  Bernie-type Democrats who are genuinely disadvantaged, could move over to the GOP, including even some inner city minorities.  Hispanics for that matter, I think are naturally becoming swing voters over the next 20 years.  They are already not monolithic, if The Wall and the ensuing media onslaught couldn't make Hispanic-identifying voters monolithically anti-Trump, nothing will.

There's an interesting article here, about what the 2 parties could look like in 15-20 years if trends continue:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/time-for-a-realignment.html?_r=0 



-Problem: minorities elected Hillary Clinton to the position of nominee of the Democratic Party. So while this is a plausible future, it'll have to wait a while.

Yes, blacks especially nominated Hillary, they had a choice between the Clintons (who had name recognition and a long relationship with the black community) and a then-little-known socialist senator from Vermont.  Bernie gained partial traction with blacks once he started winning primaries and his policies became more well known.  Hispanics also became less of a lock for Hillary as the Sanders campaign became competitive, younger Hispanics were favoring Sanders almost as much as their young white contemporaries in some of the primaries.   

It will take a while, though, that is true.  I do believe that if this globalism vs nationalism trend is seriously going to define the future political landscape, and we have a Trump-esque GOP vs a Hillary/Neoliberal Dem party, issues of economic substance may once again become the primary factors in determining who's a Dem and who's Repub, and then we'll see more than another wave of white Reagan Democrats finding themselves on a different side.   
Logged
JoshPA
Rookie
**
Posts: 239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2017, 03:41:44 PM »

Being against "SJW" stuff (ie gender equality, lgbt equality, racial equality) is socially conservative. It is just a less-religious form, but don't kid yourself about the GOP becoming any more tolerant due to a decrease in religiosity.
All the democrats on this forum do is kid themselves. about the blue wall
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2017, 03:43:46 PM »

Here's the link regarding young Republicans' beliefs on abortion.  They actually support legal abortion even less than older ones:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/11/young_republicans_are_even_more_likely_than_old_republicans_to_oppose_legal.html


Also, the Hispanic and black congresspeople in majority-minority districts vote almost identically on social issues to other whites.

There are actually a few social conservative black and Hispanic Democratic politicians.  I think some of the Texas Hispanic Democrats fall into this category.  There is also Reuben Diaz.  IIRC a good number of local Hawaii Democrats are socially conservative as well.  If these people were in mostly white districts in MA or VT they would have been primaried.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of the reasons for this is that Evangelicals are more numerous than socially conservative minorities.  Add to that the fact that a lot of socially conservative Hispanics already vote Republican.

I would dispute your claim that immigration has not made our country more socially conservative, just look at what happened in your state in 2008.  IIRC the majority of whites voted against Prop 8, but it passed anyway.  The West is becoming less and less religious while the rest of the world is not (if anything it could be getting more religious).  As this trend continues, provided immigration isn't shut off, it will have a noticeable impact.  Let's say that in 2040 only 25% of the native-born population holds views that we would consider "socially conservative" today.  Let's say that number is 65% for new immigrants.  Social conservatism would be associated with immigrants, especially in large urban areas where the locals are even less religious/socially conservative.  I heard someone once say that the future of American Evangelicalism is in immigrant communities.

Immigration won't be enough to counter the increasing liberalism of white America.  Consider the contempt that much of middle and upper class America has for "Jesusland."  This contempt extends to many upper class Republicans as well, they might love the votes they get, but they laugh at Evangelicals in private.  I just can't see them being too comfortable when religious immigrants with socially conservative views come to their cities in large numbers.  While the GOP in Tennessee will continue to appeal to religious conservatives, the GOP in New York will be railing against the "backwards" views of new immigrants.
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2017, 03:46:21 PM »

"Right-wingers in the Netherlands are already promoting themselves as the defenders of social liberalism."

Yeah, see, the problem is that the right-wing hates social liberalism. It's hypocritical for them to claim that they defend it. In reality, they're using xenophobia to drive a wedge between social liberals and immigrant groups who would ally with the socially liberal parties on economic issues.

It seems to be helping the far-right in the Netherlands gain traction.  I don't see why it won't eventually work in America.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm convinced that the next wave of immigration will be from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2017, 04:22:09 PM »


Future elections will probably be more about the coasts (globalists) vs middle america (white nationalists) than north vs south.  Republicans needed to go the populist route because there aren't enough white Christian conservatives out there to win elections and their numbers are depleting every year.  The next logical extension of their base would be working class whites who are less religious (former union people, etc.).  They gladly traded white college educated suburbanites for this because the suburbanites they are losing are largely in states they had no chance in anyways. 

I do think this strategy is fine for them in the short term, but will kill their party in 20 years, especially for the White House and the House.  The Senate will probably be their last bastion of support.

I agree with this, but get this: many non-whites over time could also find themselves on the Republican/Nationalist/Populist side of the spectrum, provided the Republicans can avoid the Richard Spencer wing of the alt-right and actually start talking to minorities who feel increasingly betrayed by the Democratic Party.  As the GOP becomes more economic populist, the big business conservatives will drift over to the Democrats, a party that is already controlled at its core by urban/coastal (mostly white) elites.  Bernie-type Democrats who are genuinely disadvantaged, could move over to the GOP, including even some inner city minorities.  Hispanics for that matter, I think are naturally becoming swing voters over the next 20 years.  They are already not monolithic, if The Wall and the ensuing media onslaught couldn't make Hispanic-identifying voters monolithically anti-Trump, nothing will.

There's an interesting article here, about what the 2 parties could look like in 15-20 years if trends continue:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/opinion/time-for-a-realignment.html?_r=0 



-Problem: minorities elected Hillary Clinton to the position of nominee of the Democratic Party. So while this is a plausible future, it'll have to wait a while.

Yes, blacks especially nominated Hillary, they had a choice between the Clintons (who had name recognition and a long relationship with the black community) and a then-little-known socialist senator from Vermont.  Bernie gained partial traction with blacks once he started winning primaries and his policies became more well known.  Hispanics also became less of a lock for Hillary as the Sanders campaign became competitive, younger Hispanics were favoring Sanders almost as much as their young white contemporaries in some of the primaries.   

It will take a while, though, that is true.  I do believe that if this globalism vs nationalism trend is seriously going to define the future political landscape, and we have a Trump-esque GOP vs a Hillary/Neoliberal Dem party, issues of economic substance may once again become the primary factors in determining who's a Dem and who's Repub, and then we'll see more than another wave of white Reagan Democrats finding themselves on a different side.   

-Winning 20-30% of the Black vote (as opposed to 10%) is not how I define "traction", even partial. Bernie still only won 34% of the Democratic vote in the most Hispanic county in California. Weak! The fundamentals of the primary were curiously stable from beginning to end. HRC won Iowa; she won South Dakota.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,482
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2017, 05:08:05 PM »

Immigration.  While the GOP has been the party of immigration restriction since the 19th century, the rhetoric is clearly different.  Take the issue of Islamic immigration.  During the 2000s much of the opposition to Islamic immigration came from "America is a Christian country, Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays!"  In 2017 the argument against Islamic immigration is that Muslims are a threat to secularism, to women's rights, and to gay rights.  An irreligious man who typically votes Democrat will ignore the former argument but might be worried about the latter.

Transgender bathrooms.  Trump said that transgender people can use whatever bathrooms they want.  I think it's safe to say that the majority of Republicans along with many Democrats and independents, disagree with Trump (see Houston).   Compare this with how Republicans reacted to the legalization of SSM in Massachusetts in 2004.  Republicans made gay marriage a central campaign issue and it probably got Bush reelected.  Furthermore, in 2004 the Republicans used social issues to appeal to minorities and immigrants.  This is a significant change.

I disagree with this part. Sure, America is becoming more secular in a formal and broader sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that individual beliefs - whether the motivation still is overtly religious or not - aren't rooted in them. With that being said, your average Trump Democrat doesn't fit the demographic profile to be swayed by an argument of, essentially, "you're a noble social warrior: you don't want those Muslims taking away our hard-fought social progressive values, do you?". This was a clever act of concern-trolling by Trump and the GOP during the campaign, but I highly doubt it had any real effect. Short of Bill Maher, the only place you saw this argument being used by the masses was in right-wing blog comment sections. If they were motivated by a message rooted effectively in religious bigotry, then it's coming from the same place and striking the same chords as it did 10-15 years ago. If it didn't get them then, then it wouldn't have gotten them now, and especially in a less naturally potent context.

Which brings me to this: there are still religious people in the Democratic Party. Hard to believe for some, I know! But the fact is that there were and are plenty of people who have been voting Democratic for years that could have just as easily voted for Bush due to his gay marriage-bashing in 2004, but had different priorities and therefore voted for Kerry (and/or Obama). Sixty percent of the country opposed gay marriage in 2004; Kerry got 48% of the vote. You can't just pretend those people didn't (or don't) exist. Nevertheless, the types that eluded Bush in 2004 - of all years - weren't likely to be swayed by an even further leftist message rooting along those lines 10-15 years later...because any message ranting and raving against other religious groups is ultimately only going to be potent if it's coming from an evangelical or far-right position, which Trump didn't use (at least bluntly).

My main point here is that the people who would be susceptible to this kind of message would have been susceptible in 2004; if they didn't fall then, they didn't fall in 2016...or at least for this reason. It doesn't appear that the loss in 2016 was caused by a return to 2004 voting habits (look at where we fumbled).



However, the people who are more likely to be in that religious Democratic category are also more likely to be in a situation where their economic fortunes have faltered. While the country as an aggregate continues to improve, there are obviously rather large subsets of the population that have only seen their fortunes consistently decline since 2008. If you break apart the country into two groups - those who have improved or are holding steady for the past decade versus those who are sinking - I think the trend becomes clear. I think there is considerable overlap between the types who might harbor anti-Muslim sentiment (or pro-religious sentiment) and those who are hurting financially.

Trump embodied the agent of change in a world where they're only hurting more from year to year, and he said the right things to grab these otherwise pretty reliable Democrats - who up until now have been more than willing to overlook their religious concerns for economic ones. Because of that, I don't think 2016 was a "change election" for them in a real sense: they were still voting what they considered to be best for their wallets and pocketbooks. It just happened to involve voting for another party this time.



Additionally, Democrats have to realize that we've likely had a lot of GOP voters "on loan" for the past couple of elections. Obama was able to cut heavily into specific segments of the prior-GOP coalition and use it to (mostly his own) advantage in both 2008 and 2012. Sure, there are sizable chunks of this group that still remain with us - especially in suburban areas - but when you look at the Midwest in particular (2004-2016), it's pretty clear that enough of them reverted in places where it mattered.

It's easy to understand why Democrats assumed they had the upper hand, because generally, if you can lock down specific segments of voters for multiple elections, they tend to stay with you. However, this may have been more of an issue relating specifically to Obama as an individual and the caliber of GOP candidates he faced.



So in short: these religious voters didn't defect to the GOP because Trump sold them a socially-progressive message of religious bigotry. They would be more likely to respond to a Bush-era one if anything - because that is the root of such sentiment - but the real root of their behavior is locked in their economic fortunes. They defected because they felt Trump was the better economic choice in a world where the status quo has seen their fortunes consistently decline, and they're tired of it. Additionally, Democrats were too generous in their assumption that many of these voters (and others) were locked into our column after the wins in 2008 and 2012, failing to realize that a sizable chunk of Obama voters were in fact more likely to vote for GOP candidates - as they had been doing prior to his arrival - than they could have imagined.
Logged
blacknwhiterose
Rookie
**
Posts: 93


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2017, 05:23:55 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 05:45:10 PM by blacknwhiterose »

A lot of misinformation in this thread.


1. White Evangelical Christians make up less of a percentage as a whole of the nation, but Evangelical Christianity is still out there.  Studies show that Catholic and mainline protestant congregations have experienced population loss (particularly Episcopalians), but evangelical/non-denominational churches are still filling their pews.  For every white millennial who drops their religious observance, there's a white ex-Catholic, Hispanic, or some other immigrant-type to take their seat.

2.  Most conservative Christians/evangelicals wanted Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump.  Well, a good chunk also voted for Trump, and a few voted for Carson and Rubio, and that was enough vote-splitting in an already wide field for the fairly secular New Yorker to bust through the social conservative firewall.  The Republican Party is more diverse than some people think it is.

3. America is a different animal from Europe.  Europeans stopped attending church when large secular governments took over their war torn, cynical countries and they still had their nationality, ethnicity, deep history, and soccer hooliganism to keep themselves united and happy.  While it's true that many Americans have ditched church, many more (white) Americans continue to keep religion as a central part of their identity, social life, and worldview.  This is because America is bigger and more diverse than Denmark, and people need some sort of community/identity/faith/something-to-keep-them-happy.  For this reason, I don't see religion ever completely tanking in the USA the way it has in Western Europe, even amongst white Americans.   

4. It is also important to note that Christians/churches are having a crisis from within.  The future of Christian doctrine itself hangs in the balance.  You have the obvious moderation in tonality and tactics from Falwell/Robertson/Graham to the Rick Warrens of today.  Then you have the Joel Osteens, the accusations of the watering-down or outright liberalization of Christianity.  Christians have their own "cuckservatives" to fight on the inside (read Dalrock's blog).  I've met some unabashed progressive Christians who would not disagree on one major issue with the average secular American leftist.  Then you have the ones who still want to fight the culture wars.  And then there's the ones who are personally traditional/conservative, but just plain apathetic on politics.  Whatever happens inside of churches and what a "Christian" looks like in the future, I think the Religious Right is definitely less of a united political force today, so OP's proposal of an avowedly secular Republican Party sounds plausible on paper, but even Donald Trump had to say "we're saying Merry Christmas again folks!".       
Logged
libertpaulian
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,439
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2017, 03:02:48 PM »

A lot of misinformation in this thread.


1. White Evangelical Christians make up less of a percentage as a whole of the nation, but Evangelical Christianity is still out there.  Studies show that Catholic and mainline protestant congregations have experienced population loss (particularly Episcopalians), but evangelical/non-denominational churches are still filling their pews.  For every white millennial who drops their religious observance, there's a white ex-Catholic, Hispanic, or some other immigrant-type to take their seat.

2.  Most conservative Christians/evangelicals wanted Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump.  Well, a good chunk also voted for Trump, and a few voted for Carson and Rubio, and that was enough vote-splitting in an already wide field for the fairly secular New Yorker to bust through the social conservative firewall.  The Republican Party is more diverse than some people think it is.

3. America is a different animal from Europe.  Europeans stopped attending church when large secular governments took over their war torn, cynical countries and they still had their nationality, ethnicity, deep history, and soccer hooliganism to keep themselves united and happy.  While it's true that many Americans have ditched church, many more (white) Americans continue to keep religion as a central part of their identity, social life, and worldview.  This is because America is bigger and more diverse than Denmark, and people need some sort of community/identity/faith/something-to-keep-them-happy.  For this reason, I don't see religion ever completely tanking in the USA the way it has in Western Europe, even amongst white Americans.   

4. It is also important to note that Christians/churches are having a crisis from within.  The future of Christian doctrine itself hangs in the balance.  You have the obvious moderation in tonality and tactics from Falwell/Robertson/Graham to the Rick Warrens of today.  Then you have the Joel Osteens, the accusations of the watering-down or outright liberalization of Christianity.  Christians have their own "cuckservatives" to fight on the inside (read Dalrock's blog).  I've met some unabashed progressive Christians who would not disagree on one major issue with the average secular American leftist.  Then you have the ones who still want to fight the culture wars.  And then there's the ones who are personally traditional/conservative, but just plain apathetic on politics.  Whatever happens inside of churches and what a "Christian" looks like in the future, I think the Religious Right is definitely less of a united political force today, so OP's proposal of an avowedly secular Republican Party sounds plausible on paper, but even Donald Trump had to say "we're saying Merry Christmas again folks!".       
I see the future leaders of American Christianity being people like Rachel Held Evans and Matthew Vines as opposed to Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell Jr., and John Piper.
Logged
CELTICEMPIRE
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,826
Georgia



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2017, 06:10:23 PM »

Interesting feedback.  I think my mistake is that I predicted this to happen too soon.  I think that what I predicted will happen eventually, but maybe a few more decades down the road.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,556
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2017, 10:01:40 PM »
« Edited: March 15, 2017, 10:03:36 PM by Technocratic Timmy »

I think people on here are overestimating evangelical christians.

This northern strategy doesn't mean that the GOP can't stay prolife, plenty of secularists and atheists are pro life (although the caveat for them is that they're fine with contraceptives and birth control). Christopher Hitchens, myself, and my older brother would all be examples of this. The GOP can stay pro life but evolve on birth control/contraceptives as a way of keeping evangelicals in line while also breaking through with socially moderate secularists; as this is a common position with many conservative parties in European countries.

The LGBTQIA issues will fade with time. Evangelicals care far more about abortion at this point than they do about gay marriage or transgender people. They'll never abandon the GOP while the Democratic Party is pushing for pro choice policies.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,502
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2017, 08:37:57 PM »

Very relevant article to this discussion:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/

Also here's a question: does increased secularization mean pro-life positions will become less popular? Moral opposition to abortion is predominantly (if not entirely) rooted in religious doctrines against it. There aren't any secular reasons I can think of to classify something (a pre-viable fetus) as a legal person (something which it currently isn't and hasn't been in states which have never banned abortion).
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 50,975
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2017, 05:06:51 AM »

Interesting feedback.  I think my mistake is that I predicted this to happen too soon.  I think that what I predicted will happen eventually, but maybe a few more decades down the road.

Yes, the time span will be much longer.


For one thing that is an essential aspect that was overlooked and bridges the gap between "Evangelical strength in primaries" and the GOP becoming more secular.

Look for instance at Trump's strength among down market evangelicals. The key to this strategy is the gradual shift, and running candidates who can still get a slice of that vote, largely on economics but also promising judges and so forth. But the necessary slice decreases with each cycle.
Logged
Big Joey
Abdullah
Atlas Politician
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 2,725
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.10, S: 2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2021, 09:37:56 AM »

In this post I will attempt to explain the Northern Strategy that I have talked about for several months now.

The Northern Strategy must be understood in context.  After Romney's defeat in 2012 (which wasn't exactly the height of Obama's popularity) Republicans, from the rank-and-file to the party elites wanted to know exactly where the Romney campaign went wrong so the problem could be fixed.  This sounded easy in theory, but no one could agree on what the problem was or the solutions.  The first explanation to come out was that the GOP was too white.  Republicans needed to appeal to the black community, the Hispanic community, or both.  Many people saw Marco Rubio as the candidate to do this.  The second explanation was that the GOP was too socially conservative.  People arguing this pointed to Todd Aiken's defeat in Missouri along with the polls in 2012 suggesting a majority or plurality in favor of same-sex marriage for the first time in history.  These were the more mainstream theories.

Other less accepted theories were that the Romney campaign wasn't conservative enough and he lost because conservatives stayed home.  After all, Romney was pretty moderate.  Ted Cruz was seen as the answer for people who believed this.  There was also the theory that the GOP needed to be more libertarian.  I argued this point during 2014 on this forum.  The idea was that Romney lost because his foreign policy views were too aggressive and out of touch with Americans and he didn't attack Obama on surveillance/civil liberty issues.  Rand Paul was the obvious choice for the libertarians.

All throughout right-wing political forums and comment sections, Republicans argued over how to take back the White House.  It is worth pointing out that many people argued a combination of these theories.  The libertarians were dealt a serious blow after the rise of ISIS and when the GOP rallied against the Iran Deal.  After this, the battle was between Conservatives and moderates.  But then, in June of 2015, everything changed.

On June 16, 2015, Donald John Trump gave a speech announcing his intention to run for President.  At first, most people laughed.  I didn't take it seriously at the time.  I assumed he would finish 5th in Iowa at best and then drop out.  But he defied expectations and won the nomination, despite being despised by many in his own party.  His path to the White House still seemed narrow.  He had to appeal to people that voted for Obama in 2012 if he wanted to win.  Doubly so considering that many Republicans wouldn't vote for him.  The question was, how would he do it?  Minority outreach obviously wasn't going to work for him.  And he couldn't play the "true conservative" card like Cruz could.

His only option, therefore, was the Northern Strategy.  He would appeal to white Democrats.  He would talk about social issues as little as possible while still keeping religious conservatives (who generally didn't support him in the primaries) on board.  He would then use economic populism and fear of Islamic terrorism in order to win over white voters who typically vote Democrat.  And the strategy worked, in no small part due to Hillary's unpopularity.  What most people don't realize is how much of a departure the Northern Strategy is from how Republicans campaigned in the past.

Immigration.  While the GOP has been the party of immigration restriction since the 19th century, the rhetoric is clearly different.  Take the issue of Islamic immigration.  During the 2000s much of the opposition to Islamic immigration came from "America is a Christian country, Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays!"  In 2017 the argument against Islamic immigration is that Muslims are a threat to secularism, to women's rights, and to gay rights.  An irreligious man who typically votes Democrat will ignore the former argument but might be worried about the latter.

Transgender bathrooms.  Trump said that transgender people can use whatever bathrooms they want.  I think it's safe to say that the majority of Republicans along with many Democrats and independents, disagree with Trump (see Houston).   Compare this with how Republicans reacted to the legalization of SSM in Massachusetts in 2004.  Republicans made gay marriage a central campaign issue and it probably got Bush reelected.  Furthermore, in 2004 the Republicans used social issues to appeal to minorities and immigrants.  This is a significant change.

The Republican Party of the future will continue to pursue the Northern Strategy.  2016 proved that it could get a candidate as unpopular as Trump elected.  It also proved that there are still a large number of minorities that will vote Republican.  By the mid 2020s the transformation should be mostly complete.  Sure, there will still be libertarians, social conservatives, etc. but they will be increasingly marginalized as populism becomes the official ideology.  America will continue to be less and less religious, and regular religious attendance will become associated with immigrant populations.  Republicans will position themselves as saviors of secularism against immigrants from the third world.  In other words, the American right is becoming like the European right.  Hardcore fiscal conservatism will fall out of favor as well, and the GOP will move to the left on economics.

Thoughts?

Very interesting, CELTICEMPIRE.

With four more years of reflection, how have your views on the "Northern Strategy" and its adoption changed?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 12 queries.