If Reagan Democrats existed, they're gone for good
By Steve Benen Tuesday May 27, 2008 7:30amWe’ve been hearing for about a generation now about “Reagan Democrats” — white, working-class voters who voted Republican in the 1980s, and who pundits believe Democrats have to get back if they hope to be competitive on the national level again. (That the Democratic candidate has won more votes than the Republican candidate in three of the last four presidential campaign does not seem to affect this analysis.)
With this in mind, Ezra Klein had a great item the other day about the myth of Reagan Democrats, and the futility of chasing ghosts.
Recent political history often seems startlingly immediate, its effects rippling easily into the present (as evidence, I’m spending the week reading a history of Nixon’s election.) But it’s worth remembering that Reagan was elected almost three decades ago. He won California, New York, Massachusetts, and even Vermont. Reagan Democrats were hardly the problem. It was Reagan Country. The sort of vote he put together was unique to that moment, that candidate, and those circumstances.
The electorate, its composition and universe of possible winning coalitions, is quite different now. Many, many Democratic pundits and strategists connect their party’s decline to Reagan’s win, so a tremendous amount of mental energy is expended theorizing how they can take back what he wrested from them, and which candidates can win back “the Reagan Democrats.”
But the battle isn’t to reconstruct the coalition that was dominant in the 1980s. It’s to envision and form the majority that will endure for the next ten years.
I’ve long hoped astute observations like this one are obvious to the party and the chattering class, but recent discussions lead me to think everyone needs to take Ezra’s reminder very seriously.
Digby, adding to Ezra’s piece, offered a real gem:
People who drifted to Reagan in 1980 were driven by nationalism and animus toward social change. While they may have been sympathetic to equal rights in the abstract, things started to get dicey when their own lives were impacted by busing and housing integration and women’s rights. They made themselves heard by voting with the guy who ran as the one who would “make the country proud again,” which they interpreted to mean he would make the country like it used to be.
After the smoke had cleared a few of them drifted back when a less charismatic Republican took office and a few more when the Democrats offered up Bill Clinton in 1992. But those who’ve stayed until now have stayed because they found they felt extremely comfortable in modern Republican tribal culture and they aren’t likely to leave short of a cataclysmic 1932-style realignment
Up until quite recently, it was understood that a new Democratic majority was going to be built upon the base of African Americans, unions and liberals, then capturing the hugely important growing Latino bloc while getting out the liberal youth vote (particularly young, single women.) Of course the Democratic party (the party of unions, fergawdsake) cares about the working class voter and need to get some slice of that demographic to win, but the focus would be on working class women who have been far more willing to swing Democratic than the majority of (white, non-union) working class men have been in recent years — and have proven so in this primary campaign.
The modern winning coalition for Democrats isn’t put together by getting the Reagan Democrats back. They’re long gone. But every damned election we have to obsess over getting the votes of a bunch of true blue Republican men like they’re the holy grail. They’re welcome to come over, of course, but after 30 years of pandering there’s no reason to believe they’re ever going to do it.
Any questions?
Login or Register to post comments.
FRIST
Maybe if we dig up Ronnie Raygun and HANG him now for his treason, then we can be done with the Ghoul.
And maybe the Clinton Republicans will stay? I just wonder how much Bill is behind all the Hillary stuff? So Bill – let’s talk. Puh-lease let Hillary step aside with dignity. Okay, fair enough - when she is ready. But don’t make it more difficult than what it should be. There is no “cover up”. Except if we can call your spin since Monica and now the “Hillary working class hero” and “wrap up in June” bull. Back off Bill. You had your chance. No be a good ex-President and go talk to someone who cares. http://angryafrican.net/2008/05/27/bill-just-back-off-will-ya/
Prediction: Obama will get the nomination and he will have a decisive perhaps even huge win.
Makes perfect sense. More Dems are voting this election and a boatload of GOPers are so pissed off that they are going to say, "fuck it" and vote for Obama.
Well, if Ezra Klein says it, and Digby seconds it, it ABSOLUTELY MUST be true.
The Democratic Party don't need no stinkin' white working class voters.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Many people say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. For decades we have been using the same formula to try and elect responsible leaders into government; it is not been working. Time to do something different.
If that means we stop chasing willfully ignorant buttheads who continue to vote against their own self interest, so be it. Forget about them. They clearly are not interested in a better America. Ignore them, they will die soon enough of natural causes or environmental destruction.
Barring some miracle turning around the economy in the next 5 months I'd say the Republicans are in trouble. But the main things the Democrats need to remember is ... the Republican are ruthless, immoral and unprincipled killers of Democracy. For them the bottom line is not about America, it's about Corporate profits.
Those white males who left to cheer Reagan are the same ones who vote against their own financial interest every year, that lapel-pin, yellow-magnet crowd who claim to be believer in a god who is all good while they live bigoted hateful lives.
That is a great article and I totally agree that the politics of the present often seemed to be defined by the past. I have made this argument with some of my republican friends that this general election is going to be changing in many ways and the electoral demographics of America are going to be redrawn after Senator Obama takes the win (hopefully).
Scott Nolan @ 6:
we think alike.
Those "Appalachians" took time to vote against that "colored", they will not be around to vote for Hillary, Barry, or any non-social conservative in the fall. Obama will win Pa, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan. They will vote their pocketbooks over their prejudices. W Va, Ky, Tenn,etc...are a little slower on the uptake and will take a while longer to figure out that they're shooting themselves in the wallet.
Nope, no questions. Reagan Democrats are Republicans. That's all folks.
Forget some unions. The UMWA endorsed Obama, but if you think the rank and file are voting for him, you're mistaken. Some of them might have voted for Hillary.
To accurately gauge a union, one must look at the region, the state of the industry, and the political landscape before determining that the leadership's endorsement will translate to votes, and in this election, Democrats can count the UMW out.
moondancer @ 10:
What I'm saying is that WV doesn't have to vote it's wallet this year. Coal is at record highs right now. This place is BOOMING.
Comparing the willingness of Appalachians to vote Democratic to 1932 is dead-on.
"Reagan Democrats?" Now there's an oxymoron. They're just segregationist southerners who don't have any place in modern society. For the last twenty years, they've enjoyed the irony of taking over "the party of Lincoln". They're part of the problem, not the solution. I say screw 'em!
Bobzim @ 13:
WV Booming? LOL, is that why they are competing for the honor of being the poorest most uneducated state in the nation?
Interesting bit of synchronicity: next to this article is an ad for the book, "The Politics of Truth".
The myth of regaining Reagan Dems as a desired political objective ranks right up there with the myths of Reagan as the Great Leader, Republicans as Strong on Defense, Dems as cowardly, Republicans as the holder of the Mantle of Family Values, and an assortment of looney Alice in Wonderland absurdities.
Can we please get to the point where we recognize this period of insanity as something we no longer need to accept as unavoidable Truth? And soon, while there's still something left to save.
Bobzim @ 12:
Yeaaaah, because if someone are going to be voting republican in droves are the Union peeps. Riiiiiiiight.
I just sick and tired of hearing anything about Reagan. That was then, this is now. Things have changed in ways we never would have considered even seven and a half years ago. This campaign is nothing about Reagan or who voted for whom. This campaign is about our future and if we are going to have one worth working for and worth living in.
The Dude @ 17:
Dude, what are you trying to say?
rooth hussein @ 19:
That the likelihood of Unions voting republican this election cycle is as high as pigs flying in the near future.
The Dude @ 15:
I know shuttle car drivers that barely graduated high school but will make over $100,000 this year. Seriously. They make $30/hr and know full well to make hay while the sun shines, which means they're working 80 hour weeks. They really havn't had to vote their wallets since 96.
And every article that points out the "2 in 10" statistic, the lack of education, and the general impression of ignorance in Appalachia gives that many more voters to the Republicans. Flies and Honey and all that, right?
I disagree with the premise of this article. To me, it says in essence, "don't worry about white working class men." That's nonsense and insulting to working people. Howard Dean proved that a 50 state campaign will succeed and that their message does resonate with people of all stripes.
Senator Jim Webb is a perfect example of the type of person that Kline says we shouldn't worry about. So... there goes Virginia, and the Senate majority.
If the Democratic party starts ignoring whole sections of the country and large swaths of the population, they will be just as out of touch with reality and the needs of the country as the Republican party.
Nascar dads and soccer moms didn't exist in the 80s...
Jim Webb did an interview on Fresh Air the other day. He says HE'S a Reagan Democrat. The interview is worth listening to.
want to win in november obama fans? get your candidate to vow that by the end of his first year in office all of the troops will be withdrawn from iraq and afganistan, and that one of his first jobs will be to bring charges of treason against the bush cheny gang, then get him to say that nafta and cafta and the give away of our jobs will be ended permantly, any company who manufactures products made elsewhere that used to belong to american workers will not be allowed to sell them here , and that any and all lobbiests trying to buy a senator or congressman will be prosicuted and get time in prison, have him say that giveing our tax dollars to israel every year has ended, declare that all tax exemptions for churches have been ended , promiss that the first year the patriot act and all the rest of the thefts of our constitutional rights will be restored , unless obama is willing to say this and keep his promisses nothings going to change , and ive allways said thiers no such thing as a reagan democrat , thiers just fools who turned republican,
Sorry guys, but just because Howard had the insight to forge a 50-state strategy it doesn't mean that these 'people' will vote for a black man in November. They would say 'you done gone to meddlin'.' Call it like it is, whether they are 'Appalachians', Dixiecrats, poor-working-whites, or just plain Rednecks, they won't be there for Obama...we'll just have to win without 'em.
Carolyn Kay @ 5:
It is the working class that doesn't need the Democratic party, or the Republican party either. It certainly doesn't need to be mis-characterized as "white" or any other particular race. What it needs is it's own party standing in solidarity with every worker against the predation of both parties of Capitalist exploitation.
This democrat who voted against Regan will not vote for Obama and as to the cult-aide drinkers who think he can win without older workers ask Jimmy Carter, or John Kerry how that worked out. You see Bob Barr has entered the race and he is at least honest unlike bambi.
Reagan-Democrats?
Why don't we just call them what they are -- republicans -- and tell them to stay the hell away from our party.
I'm not interested in having my party kiss the asses of the very jerks who are responsible for the mess this country is in today.
There were never any reagan democrats.
Billy Shears @ 29:
I agree, if you vote for republicans, you're a Republican, not a "Reagan Democrat"
PadrePio @ 28:
please! don't hide your hatred. and while you're at it, call obama supporters 'hateful' and 'divisive'.
While I can appreciate the analysis, I think that to overlook the impact of Reagan in the south (read Florida) and in the midwest (read Ohio) is to make the same political mistakes. Reagan also won California (traditionally a Democratic state, but one in which he was governor, and a fairly popular governor at that).
The Dems will win in November, and big. But that will not mean that the political map has changed. It simply means that the country was ready for change, in a BIG way, just as it was at the time that Reagan won.
DirtyDawg @ 26:
before you completely capitulate, why don't you do some math? what percentages are you talking about? Democrats get 43-47 percentage of working class white votes, so it's the non-"white working class" voters who make up the difference. stop your fatalistic delusions. It ain't about Obama being black, it's about who the fuck is going to try to save this country and pull it back off the ledge.
Billy Shears @ 29:
Pretty bad attitude there. After this election cycle, a new term will be coined: Obama Republicans
Get used to the idea we're entering a new era of collective progress, moving away from the blind and selfish partisanship which has defined the Bill and George years. If you really want to see Obama in the White House, then continue to insult Republicans and conservatives to your own detriment, and to the detriment of our country.
They've been replaced by Obama Republicans. That has a nice ring to it. Much better than say Hillary Appalachians.
PadrePio @ 28:
Good luck with that.
displaced @ 23:
yes they did. but pollsters and pundits found a way to identify and isolate them, then manipulate them into voting against their better interests.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 38:
Exactly. If you want to understand why WV will vote Republican nationally, take a stroll around the Friends of Coal site.
Anyone who voted for Reagan was a reactionary dope.
peaceful easy feeling @ 35:
If you think that you can enter into a "new era of collective progress, moving away from the blind and selfish partisanship which has defined the Bill and George years" by kissing the asses of the very people that defined and delivered that "blind and selfish partisanship" -- then you are living in utter delusion.
after reagan killed the fairness doctrine reagan 'democrats' could more accurately be called talk radio democrats, a large segment of the population living in those areas of the country that had few alternatives to the coordinated uncontested repetition of the GOP talk radio monopoly and either listened to it or were immersed in it's environment.
they still exist and effect elections and are a big part of the reason clinton is still in the race. if anything, they move with limbaugh and hannity, absorbing parts of the blowhard reality created daily accross the country by a small minority of GOP PR professionals and propagandists whose daily faxes and emails are dedicated to attacking anything progressive and excusing anything republican, like Paul Reveres in reverse.
reagan 'democrats' have also been used to explain election swings toward republican candidates and causes that might more accurately be classified as election theft.
Bush may have succeded in pushing economic collapse into 09...and look for gas prices to decline just before election. If gold falls it could decrease governments monetary reserves worldwide including ours...God help us all when it happens.
Lonny @ 36:
Even if the Appalachians have less education, doesn't mean they are stupid. Clinton had better name recognition and won the state. They know they are not better off than they were 7+ years ago. You also have to consider the fact that the MSM only broadcast the snippets they want you to see. They showed the WVs with the most negative responses. Don't be fooled. The media is part of the problem.
Squirejons @ 22:
I agree. It seems we (or some of us) have lost our way. We are supposed to be the party of the working class. We will not win without them ur, uh, people like me, I AM the working class. Now some of ya'll want to throw them under the bus? WTF? If Obama does not reach out to these people, many whom supported Clinton, he is lost.
Once again, Jim Webb is a Reagan Democrat. Ya'll love him right?
Billy Shears @ 41:
You're the one who is deluded to think blind and selfish partisanship only affects one side of the coin.
It's people like you with a 'score to settle' who are going to discourage moderate Republicans and conservatives from crossing over to vote for Obama.
pissed off patricia @ 18:
------------
If you consider a depression era worth living in.
The talking heads love to obsess over Appalachian Reagan Dems, but they never take the time to talk about how a large voting bloc, once know as Rockefeller Repubs, overwhelmingly now vote Democratic.
The Republican party is for all intents and purposes dead in the northeast.
Another example of lazy, biased reporting.
I grew up amongst those Reagan Dems. Most of them will only vote for a white Bubba. That is just the way it is. They get most of what the need from the religious right and the Southern Strategy.
they
Ron @ 44:
Absolutely! There were smart people with smart comments in the very same room as the woman Jon Stewart made fun of, but they didn't fit the narrative. I'm telling you as I sit in the middle of Appalachia, that every time someone brings up the "2 in 10" crap you piss off the other 8. Stop that.
c. atrox @ 40:
Reagan presided over a 'basing period' where the country absorbed what was good about the changes in the 60s and 70s, such as great strides in civil rights, and rejected the negative aspects, such as the erosion of social mores. Deal with it.
henry wallace @ 43:
---------
Some form of economic depression is on the way. Banks are hiding bad debts off the books. The FED is hiding which banks are insolvent, by allowing them to borrow at a private window, using junk debt as collateral.
This threatens the Federal Reserve's solvency. When the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury says that congress should allow him to borrow 10's of billions from the government and hand it over to the FED, what he is saying is that the FED is facing insolvency.
Reagan Democrats? I'm sick!
pissed off patricia @ 18:
Mornin' POP
I disagree, (and usually I am in complete agreement with you). They are very busy revising the Reagan Years of Treason into the cannonization of St. Ronnie, and we really need to stop it before it gets carved into Mt. Rushmore.
Reagan was a traitor who sold weapons to Iran AFTER the hostage crisis, (to fund his illegal wars in South America). He did business with Hussein, knowing that he was a murderous dictator - kind of ironic that it was ok to profit off of evil dictators, even to the point of selling them chemicals and weapons they could and would use on us and now they have the balls to say that it's appeasement for a Dem to even talk to a regime we don't like - but then what they lack in ethics and common sense, they more than make up for in hypocrisy and cahones).
Meanwhile, we are still paying today for what Ronnie hath wrought. And the path to Bush's crimes was made easier by the fact that Ronnie was not only never held responsible, but is being disingenuously venerated. This must stop, it is an essential battle in the war for our future.
We should be outing Reagan everyday, as a very real example of why Bush must not be allowed to walk. If we don't, McCain's 100 year war in the Middle East will be a foregone conclusion - if we survive that long.
And I don't know about you, but I am done with quietly putting up with being handed a shit sandwich and told that it's steak.
"They’re welcome to come over, of course, but after 30 years of pandering there’s no reason to believe they’re ever going to do it."
Digby is right on as usual.
The Dude @ 20:
Ohhhhh, ok.
Any questions?
Yeah Sweetie hold old were you during the Reagan Farce anyway?
Okay Reagan Democrat? What might that be?
This would be my best guess.
http://tinyurl.com/578yx3
Obama Webb '08
rooth hussein @ 59:
LOL 95% of the voting public doesn't even know who Webb is.
Man this is really getting surreal.
Question? Sure. When do we rid ourselves of the Milton Friedman mindset that any government is bad government? That will cement the demise of Thatcher/Reagonomics and be the final nail in the coffin of the working class ex-dem turned pride filled Rambo Republican.
I would guess that "Reagan Democrats were older more conservative Democrats at the time, and with twenty years passing, there may be less around to appeal to.
The future is a good place to start. Candidates like Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all used ideas about the future in their campaigns, embraced futuristic ideas, yet made it less scary for the electorate. Though many of us would easily go bouncing into the 21st century blindfolded, a wider demographic has a lot of the future. They won't allow change because they are scared to bejeezus about everything, other races, new technologies, those weird liberals with their colored hair and funny ideas, and the next big enemy.
rooth hussein @ 59:
will go a loooonnng way towards turning Appalachia blue. If VA had a R governor, I'd say no, but that's a winning ticket.
lilorphant @ 63:
Welcome to the "New 1950's"
The only difference is the American people have, in one fell'n swoop, given George Bush the power of Caesar -- control of the public purse beyond the dreams of avarice.
L.A. Confidential @ 60:
Really? Speak for yourself. The guy is a best-selling author, former Secretary of the Navy, and the guy who brought down a racist Republican, (Macaca Allen), in an Appalacian state. They know who he is there.
And since when has national name recognition been a qualifier for a veep candidate?
face it... reagan/bush democrats are republicans with an IQ too deficient to know the fucking dif.
Bobzim @ 64:
Agreed. Webb has already won pissing contests against Bully Bush, I'd love to see him on the campaign trail taking on McInsane's military fetish: "My firends, I will never leave Iraq, I will never leave Iraq."
In the world of political good cop/bad cop, let Obama sell the dream and the future, while Webb is fully capable of knee-capping the opposition. And we're going to need that. We also need someone who won't be blindsided by the smear machine. And Webb has had a child on the ground in Iraq. He gets it, and he can speak about service in a way few other candidates can, not only believing in it, not only having served, but having children who have served under the current regime.
And, like Obama, the man is very well-spoken. After years of trying to decipher the unintelligible ramblings of a lying ex-addict, what a change that is. McSame cannot compete with either Webb or Obama as a speaker and I don't see any Repub McLame can pick as a veep who can.
Bobzim @ 13:
No disagreement here, but I'm talking more about social services. Social Security is wildly popular here as is Medicare etc...
Coal boom or not, there is more people relying on government services than Peabody Coal and others.
L.A. Confidential @ 65:
When I was a kid I used to wonder how Germany had ever fallen under the spell of the Nazis. How had they allowed that to happen? God willing, our children will have turned this around and will have come far enough to wonder the same about the Bush years.
moondancer @ 69:
Also agreed. Nick Casey has said that no one has ever had their gun taken from them, but a whole hell of a lot of people have had their health care taken. That's a winner.
So, as a recap:
-Obama/Webb ticket
-Stop bad-mouthing Appalachia
-Talk about health care. A lot.
And some new points:
-Talk about strengthening MSHA. That's one area in which Clinton let us down.
-Talk about improved reclaimation regulations - it drives up employment.
The Reagan Democrats came home when Jim Webb et al were elected.
Those who stayed with the GOP don't deserve the title Reagan Democrats.
They should instead be called what they are.
Willing Slaves.
"Reagan-Democrats" were moderates and left-leaning Americans who voted against their best interests.
THEY SURE AS HECK AREN't OBUMMER DEMOCRATS THEY CAN'T STAND this airbrain.
CD @ 73:
What won that election for Webb was the side by side photos of Allens 3000 dollar cowboy boots and Webbs worn-out combat boots originally worn by his son. Both wore those shoes constantly as symbols of their campaigns: swagger vs substance. Shows the GOP is really pretty stupid doesn't it?
Marge @ 75:
Why are you bringing bush into this discussion?
Marge @ 75:
Congratulations! THAT'S the most IGNANT thing I've read today!
I always thought that Reagan Democrats were primarily nonSouthern, predominantly white, union or blue collar workers who claimed they felt unrepresented by the Democrats because the party was full of East Coast elites at the top, who cared only about the concerns of minorities, while disdaining the values of the middle class.
The incursion of the Republicans into the South was related, but a different and larger issue.
The question doesn't seem to be whether the individuals who identified as Reagan Democrats are influential, but whether the demographic has the same resentments as it did 30 years ago. There seems to be plenty of evidence that white working class voters have favored Clinton, and some evidence that it may be partly based on the same sorts of considerations that led this demographic to Reagan. However, the importance of this is highly debatable. McCain isn't Reagan. Obama isn't Carter or Mondale (although some find his coalition to be similar to Mondale's). Reagan ran against an incumbent who was struggling with a difficult economy and the hostage crisis, and then ran as a peacetime president with strong approval ratings. McCain is following the most unpopular president in the history of polling. Not even a politician as skillful as Reagan could hold onto the Presidency in this climate.
amen, living in the past is like bing crazy.
of course the MSM always say that we need to "win back the reagan dem's.
but that's because they want to see the dem party chasing ghosts.
as fir blue dog dems..... you are just dumb repugs. enlightnen yourself or go away.
Marge @ 75:
Large Marge....angry as usual I see.
Sherry @ 79:
Yes, you are largely accurate. I grew up in a part of Michigan which was once deemed "Reagan Democrat" country (i.e. the tri-country area). This area was largely middle class moderates who went to Church regularly, hunted and fish, believed in environmental issues, and were largely pro-union.
Surprisingly, Reagan Republicans can be ground up and prepared as a delicious and
nutritious meatball wrap, with NO artificial ingredients or flavorings.
Also, their fat can be boiled down and converted into biofuel for fleets of SUVs,
or at least, Vespas.
The GOP may turn out to be useful for America, after all.
peaceful easy feeling @ 46:
It is not the onus of the Democratic party to kiss those people's asses and try and coax them to vote Democratic. The Democratic party has two obligations: Tell the truth, and come up with the policies they believe will work best for the country.
The people I want voting for the Democratic ticket are people who believe in Democratic party policies. The republicans have their party, and they should have the integrity to sleep in the bed they made -- or, not show up to vote at all -- or, vote for a real Democrat, and don't expect them to kiss your dishonest republican ass.
It has been my experience that "Reagan" Democrats are Republican wimps who are ASHAMED to call themselves Republicans, so they cling to the "friendly" label. Of course, they aren't even bright enough to realize that a "Reagan Democrat" by definition means "traitor" to the working man. Why? Reagan was KING OF THE UNION BUSTERS.
The most important historical point in this story is that it took 3 TICKETS to outdo Carter. It took a DISINFORMATION PROGRAM FROM THE PENTAGON AND A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE AND VOTE JIMMYING AND MOLES INSIDE OUR PARTY to win that one.
So what are we going to do about it?
moondancer @ 10:
I lived in Appalachia (Western North Carolina) for a number of years and my experience with the conservative locals is that they are a indeed hateful and intolerant.
The social conservatives I dealt with day to day considered me nothing more than a damned yankee liberal because I didn't ennunciate my words like a cousin f-er, had long hair, and they didn't know my gran'daddy.
Unless your family has lived in an area for generations they won't talk to you.
The southern Appalachia stereotype is sadly for real.
These people live in a very generalized and ideological world. Reality means little in the faith based world.
The so-called Reagan Democrats are the Redneck Republicans.
,Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 4:
I know a boatload of those former GOPer's, and they are ALL democrats now!
Turns out, when chimpy the psycopath instituted full blown corporate fascism and wiped out their jobs, they finally figured out those repuke tax cut crumbs they were getting were not worth the price. They no longer hate government either, just republican government. Thanks for destroying your party chimpy, it's the only decent thing you have done in your useless, catastrophic, self-absorbed life!
Marge @ 75:
Hey Marge, Hillary sure got her ass kicked didn't she? Oh well, the better candidate certainly won - don't ya think?
I had always heard that "Reagan Democrats" were as much relatively well-off whites motivated by the conscience-free greed Reagan promoted as they were bigotry-motivated working class whites. Not that it matters now, when the consciously destructive policies Reagan imposed have become the law of the land, lauded by Republican and Democrat alike.
rooth hussein @ 54:
My feelings exactly. So much could be added to this list of Reagan's list of crimes, to my mind the most damaging of which has been the creation of a vast and aggressive right-wing culture in the US that makes it hard to even have reasonable conversations in the country anymore, let alone change things for the better. And of course there's his creation of an unprecedentedly huge prison system in which people of color have been overwhelmingly placed, innocence and justice notwithstanding; his encouragement of a cultural dumbing down of the entire population, particularly the young; his unprecedented slashing of social services and education resources; his corralling of the population into liberal and conservative; being the first president to be blatantly anti-environmental; the first president to bring Armageddon-hungry fundamentalist Christians into positions of power; reviving the discredited idea of the Cold War (remember detente in the 70s?); destroying a wide range of 3rd World liberation movements; on and on. And his actions effectively redefined the word conservative to mean violently aggressive, but because the public retains the idea that the word means wisely cautious and interested in preserving things of value from the past, they think all the changes Reagan brought in are longstanding.
So, uh, yes, Reagan's crimes need to be recounted at every opportunity.
Here's a great and mighty TRUTH for you...
People awaken into the democratic party, but unless you're a fairly die hard liberal or Union supporter...people AGE out of the democratic party.
Benjamin Franklin said it best..if you are not liberal when you are young, you have no heart. And if you are not more conservative when you are old, you have no brain.
It's like the difference between stocks and bonds..Higher hopes and willing to take more risk VS. More need for security and unwillingness to take risk.
The "Reagan Democrats..AGED out of being democrats, and when presented with an appealing reason to go towards the more conservative party they did so.
Many of the older females Clinton is claiming as her "BASE" will indeed go vote McCain..because they are no longer democrats anyway. I cannot possibly be the first person to realize that Clinton sounds more and more like a republican every week. Moderate my backside!
Thevail @ 92:
Um, didn't the knuckle dragging conservatives attribute that saying to Winston Churchill?
Either way, sounds like total bull shit to me.
Timmy_D11 @ 93:
It was most certainly neither Franklin nor Churchill, and it was way more inflammatory. The quote is sometimes said to have originated with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929). His own political views were more or less left of center, and he is said to have remarked, on being told that a nephew(?) had joined the Communist Party, "If he had not done so at twenty-five [the nephew's actual age], I would have disowned him. If he is still one at thirty-five, I will do it then."
The aphorism can also be turned on its head, like this: "Anyone who is not an Objectivist at twenty has no head. Anyone who is still one a thirty has no heart."
There are no Reagan democrats. There never were! This is all a myth by the republicans. They are great at misssleading the opposition!
Thevail @ 92:
Y'all are confusing the meaning of the adjective conservative with the advertising label brand meaning Republican strategists have given the word. Yes, the common adjective implies the kind of wise caution that comes with age, which is why Republicans and Libertarians applied the word to themselves, but like the name of a marketed product, the word does not reflect content, especially when applied to Republican policy since 1980, which has been anything but wise and cautious. If post-1980 Republican policy is what you're suggesting people "age into", we've got some pretty reckless elderly right-wingers in the US. For more detail on this, read Dean Baker's "The United Since 1980." Or don't, if you'd rather cling to your unsupported beliefs.
Login or Register to post comments.