Coalition Governments and the Tent

In the parliamentary system, the two-party system is a little different; there is a government, and an opposition. Since, in the European political tradition, there tend to be a lot more political parties running around, they all have candidates for representative office. Once they get elected, it's pretty obvious that hundreds of parliamentarians and dozens of political parties aren't going to get along. So they form a government- the parties with the most in common, will team up to create a majority, and the ones who don't join, form the opposition.

Though this sounds foreign, we used to do it in this country, and the Democrats used to be damn good at it. When we got the different voter groups- the middle-class suburbanites, the urban poor, the rural poor- and got them under one big umbrella, things got done. Remember the 1960s? JFK's Democratic party was still heavily supported by the Southern Democrats. (You may remember those guys from such memorable historical moments as, the Civil War, and, Reconstruction.) Though the Dixiecrats jumped ship, and local heroes such as George Wallace weren't known for their support of the civil rights movement or the Great Society, they didn't call it the Solid South for nothing. Up until the late 1960s, the South was one big Democratic stronghold.

How was that possible? Was every Southern Democrat related to our own Zell Miller of today? I don't think so. The tent was big enough for everybody. The fact was that, though the people of the 1960s South didn't always see eye-to-eye with their President on some emotional and relevant issues, they knew that the domestic, social policies of JFK and Johnson were the right thing for them, and for the rest of the country.

The Democrats are collapsing across the country in 2004, and it's for two reasons, both involving the allegorical "tent." The first is that the Republican tent is getting bigger and bigger. Constituencies that used to be solidly Democratic are vulnerable to one of the many Republican messages. We'll start with well-educated, white-collar, middle-class suburban voters. These have been a swing population for both parties in the last decade, but they're slipping further and further to the Republican column, because the Republican party has done an excellent job of redefining the debate. Democratic policies appeal to doing what's right; Republican policies appeal to doing what's right for you.

George Bush was able to gain access to this voter group- which, I'm relatively certain, would have completely ignored him otherwise- through the post-9/11, war-on-terror, world-is-safer-after-Saddam scare tactics. But once he got through to them, he was able to deliver a much more appealing message; it's okay to vote your pocketbook instead of your conscience. When you convince a large voter group that a vote for you is a vote for Number 1, the underprivileged in society are not going to be having a good day. Or a good four years, rather.

The second reason the Democrats are collapsing, is also a "tent" reason. The Republican tent isn't just getting bigger- they're building it differently. It's what gave Bush his win last night. Ever since the late 1970s, the Republican Party has been able to skillfully shift the debate in rural America- the South, the Midwest, the western Plains states. Instead of talking about relevant issues- tax cuts targeted at the working class, serious reform and funding for education, and health care- the Republican Party focuses instead on morals.

What do they mean by morals? Something like 81% of Bush voters listed it as their highest priority. They want their candidate to share their moral perspective- to believe in the things they believe in, and to occasionally act on those beliefs. "I don't believe in gay marriage or abortion, and I'm Christian. Hey, so's my President!" It sounds reassuring, but if you're a poor, rural voter, it's the most articulate lie you'll ever hear, because, once you vote on your "morals," you are unwittingly joining someone else's coalition government.

The Republican Party has managed to become the new coalition government in America; a massive assemblage of poor, rural Americans largely concerned with preserving their moral values, and a smaller, more powerful group of wealthy citizens concerned with preserving that wealth. And they have everything to gain from each other.

Since Republicans have successfully made desperately-needed social programs seem like liberal, big-government intrusions to rural voters, they don't need to spend much money to ensure their support. Supporting a gay marriage amendment, violently condemning abortion, or excoriating the feminist movement don't cost anything. Instead of doing the right thing for your constituents (like securing health care and education) you can just paint yourself as morally principled, and then pack your bags for Washington.

And, if you're a wealthy Republican who wants to make sure his friends remain wealthy Republicans, all you have to do is espouse reactionary moral positions, and keep taxpayer money going to special interests. If you cut social programs, there is more money to cut taxes, and keep Republican special interests flush with cash. Hell, you can even call this a smart economic move, because there will be plenty of economists at the Weekly Standard to provide sound bites that making the rich, richer, is good for America. Somehow, the failure of Reaganomics didn't kill these people. Don't ask me why.

So, to recap. Poor, rural voters want their politicians to "share their moral values," and since last I checked, speeches on moral values didn't cost money, Republican politicans are happy to oblige. As long as those politicians convince them that the help the government could provide with health care, education and job training is actually an intrusive liberal boondoggle, they won't have to spend very much money on those rural voters. This maintains wealthy-voter loyalty.

The problem is not that the rest of the country is insane, though it sure seems like it. The problem is that the Republican Party builds better coalitions in 2004, than the Democrats do. The tragedy is that in the last 25 years, the rich, overwhelmingly-white base of the Republican Party has managed to distract rural, poor voters with meaningless non-issues. (How many Alabama Christians are going to ever see an openly gay person, or have an abortion themselves?)

They've built themselves one hell of a coalition, all right. The inclusiveness of their “big tent” is dependent upon brainwashing the American heartland, and it looks like that tent isn't coming down for a while.