So I was reading this article by Nate Silver. It’s a good read, and you should look at the whole thing, but the last paragraph in particular caught my eye.
The bigger risks, however, are probably for the Republicans. We’re not in What’s the Matter With Kansas anymore: the left’s economic populism has the potential to be an extremely strong counterweight to the right’s cultural populism. The Republicans seem wholly unprepared to deal with it, having put forward a budget that transparently slashes taxes for the rich. If it wants to win elections, the right may need to learn to embrace an authentically compassionate, Huckabeean conservativism, and ditch the Romney-Bush-Boehner variety.
Far be it from me to disagree with the proprieter of two of my favorite websites, but I think Silver’s analysis here is incorrect.
It’s recently become fashionable, at least among the more intellectual actors on the right, to argue that the Republicans must win the votes of the working class to regain a GOP majority. Call this the Douthat model, after the former Salient editor and future New York Times columnist (how’s that for a combination!), whose Grand New Party lays out the model of payroll-tax cuts and healthcare reform to target workers. Defenders point to statistics, such as this poll showing Obama and McCain evenly split voters earning $50,00 to $100,000 and $100,000 up. Obama’s margin of victory came entirely from those earning under $50,000. Win that demographic and a Republican is president again.
Trouble is, I’m not sure how feasable this model is, at least in the electoral calculus. After all, income is a function of multiple variables. Let’s decompose it into two categories: those earning less than $50,000 because that’s the limit of their skills and those driven by some element of choice. In the first category, we would expect Republicans to struggle with non-college graduates, given that education well correlates with income. In fact, white non-college voters proved McCain’s best demographic; he won them with 58% of the vote. At the same time, however, Obama won non-white non-college with 83%. It seems hard to argue that economic factors are predominant in this scenario. If two people earn the same but vote diametrically opposite, where is the room for Thomas Frank? I do believe that Republicans have arguments to the demographic, but pocketbook issues cannot be the focus-they are not now the motivating factor.
At the same time, however. there are those who earn less than $50,000 by choice. The majority of these people are called students. This demographic split Obama 2 to 1 and shows no sign of turning red, even though they were from 1980 to 1992. Douthatian policies will not help those whose healthcare is provided first by university than by employer. Indeed, if college graduates do earn more, they will end up bearing the cost of GOP appeals to those working voters. At best economic populism will prove a wash for Republicans, at worst, it will diminish hopes of regaining control.
In the long run, the party of Lincoln must find the message that allows it to reach across America’s demographics. In the short run, however, college graduates should form its majority, as I will detail in my next post.