The Republican History of the Last 30 Years

I want to open this post and state that it is an assessment of strategy and a view of how that strategy works/ has worked.

I am not stating an opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of the strategy, however I believe I would be lying if I said there was no bias.

Without further ado...

In the 1980s, the Republican party began taking on the pro life issue. In the 70's, this was not a core component of the republican agenda.  In the 80s and 90s, this agenda grew to an almost single hot button issue that fueled white religious conservative voters to vote Republican.

This worked well with the moral majority, which was a powerful voting block.

Move forward 20 years.  With increased fundamentalism and hateful rhetoric dominating the topic of abortion and other ethics issues over 20 years, non-Evangelicals, unaffiliated voting groups, and minorities have grown increasingly wary of the white Evangelical message and its politics. 

It is now safe to say that the white moral majority has now officially become a minority.  The reasons of this are out of scope of this discussion, but I think we can agree it is a true statement.

Increasingly through the early 2000s, Republican candidates have taken more moderate or liberal stances on abortion.  This has created a slow rage amongst white Evangelicals, in part leading to the Tea Party. 

The Tea Party is attempting to re-conservatize the Republican party (at least that is the primary element that I see).

In the 2010 election, the Tea Party routed some Democrat and even some moderate Republican incumbents.   The result was a surprised Democratic party, and an enlivened Evangelical base.

In 2012, we see Barack Obama re-elected, an increase in Democrat seats in the Senate, and increased Democrat seats in the House.  The senate maintains Democrat majority, while the House retains Republican majority.

The 2010 elections led to a sense that Democrats had overspent their political capital with Obamacare, and the Republicans were poised for a new surge in 2012.  So, what went wrong?

First off, non-presidential election cycles are notoriously small voter turnout compared to presidential election years.  With the grassroots efforts of the Tea Party, and millions poured into the efforts by the Koch brothers and their like, the Tea Party dominated local and regional ads.  It worked in 20010.

The Democrats were surprised by the grassroots efforts of mid election cycle Republicanism.  Yet, so were moderate Republicans (some of which were ousted).

What followed was 2 years of even more divisive politics, with House Tea Party Republicans using their filibuster and new found power to block most anything that came out of the Obama Administration and House Democrats.  This creates an interesting paradox.  Obama couldn't pass anything that may have given new rally cries to the conservatives.  It served more to harm Republican reputation, and paint them as bell ringers that were preventing anything from passing.

This led to an increasingly anti-Tea Party sentiment with moderates and liberals.

Within these same two years, the political capital of the Tea Party waned as there were no new 'socialist' experiments’ by the Obama administration.  Medicare began to see doughnut holes shrunken, Osama Bin Laden was killed, the Iraq war was brought to an end,  Afghanistan was being drawn down toward a planned end, and the unemployment rate began to see small improvements.

All of these elements helped Obama, while the only major hate cry that the Republican party had against Obama was Obamacare which was from back in 2010 and a claim that the economic recovery hadn't proved successful enough. 

Additionally, Obamacare became less of a hateful point, especially as Obama adopted the term and began taking control of the Obamacare narrative, decreasing the sting of using the term.

In addition, for all the hate against Obama, he has not proven to be a liar or disingenuous, at least not to the general public.  He has principles and ideals that define his presidency. He has stuck to those principles and they have guided his actions.  It was not politically advantageous to press forward with Healthcare Reform. It almost cost him a second term.  But he stuck with his principles, was not shady, and stayed the course.

This gained him additional votes over Romney, who repeatedly backpedaled statements that came out along the way.  Romney flip-flopped on issues, and attempted to transform from a conservative to moderate as he went from Republican primary candidate to general election candidate.  What's more, the hardcore right was left a little confused when, for the second election in a row, the faith of the Republican candidate couldn't be a rallying cry. Instead it was something to be left in the closet, for fear of negative reaction.

2012... Election night.  High voter turnout, with Democrats focusing on key groups to get out the vote. This worked despite Republican efforts to quell Latinos and the poor from voting through greater voter ID regulations.  

Romney didn't even know what was happening because he didn't believe in the 'facts' of non-partisan pollsters, so he hired his own 'yes' men pollsters. That left him writing a concession speech at the last minute when it all came crashing down.

<Biased Viewpoint>

One concern I have is that, in an attempt to do right, a portion (white Evangelicals) of American voters has lost sight of the real goal of a political party... To win.   

</Biased Viewpoint>

Now, what does it really mean?

1. The Moral Majority (now Minority) has spent most of its political capital legislating morality, and is left deflated after losing to a Democrat that was not highly successful economically, and highly controversial in regards to healthcare.  This is an indicator that Republican party philosophy and/or the Republican candidate left something for Americans to desire.

2. The Republican party proper is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Tea Party conservatives. The  Tea party is proving to be a lightning rod, and seems more interested in blocking legislation than allowing government to efficiently work through compromise and negotiation.    I expect a further shift away from the conservatives over the next decade. 

3. Cities tend toward Democrat and rural tend toward Republican.  Suburbs have more independent or swing voters.

4. The Senate is state wide.  It is safe to say based on the Democrat lead that more states in a statewide fashion tend toward Democrat when the rural, city, and suburban populations are tallied together.

5. The House of Representatives is geographically oriented, so rural, suburban, and city districts get equal representation.  This tends to a Republican majority because there is more rural geography in US states than suburban or city geography.

6. The Republican Party is clearly anti-regulation, except on issues affecting the poor and minorities (which just so happen to be primarily Democrats).  

7.  Legislating morality does not work in the long run.  What's more, it eats away at the perceived character of the constituency attempting to legislate their views on morality.