Democrats as a whole becoming more like the Progressive Caucus

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 16:26


What percentage of Democratic voters are one or more of the following?

  • Self-identified not-"white non-Hispanic" (39%)
  • Self-identified non-Christian (28%)
  • Some form of vegetarian? (14%*)
  • A union member (13%)
  • Not self-identified heterosexual (7%)
(* With 10% of the country following some form of vegetarian diet, this number is based on the assumption that vegetarians break Democratic 3-1, which is a margin very similar to the LGBT community, non-Christians, and not "white non-Hispanic."

Also note: Women are also disproportionately Democratic.  However, unlike all the other groups listed here, women make up a significant percentage of Republican voters, too.)

Even though there is some overlap between these categories, the vast majority of Democrats fall into at least one of these five. And by "vast majority," I mean "over 70%."

Now, of course there is still a not-insignificant straight, meat-eating, non-union, white Christian contingent within the Democratic Party rank and file.  However, that group is older than the rest of the party, and as such continues to shrink as an overall percentage of Democratic voters. Non-whites, non-Christians, LGBTs and vegetarians are all disproportionately under the age of 50, which will make future incarnations of the Democratic Party even more skewed toward these groups.  This process is accelerated even further by Republicans targeting their messaging, and making the vast majority of their gains, among Americans who do not fit into one of those five categories.

I write--or at least attempt to write this--in a value-neutral sense.  It isn't good or bad, it is just who the Democratic Party is at this point.  It is significantly not-"white non-Hispanic," and the "white non-Hispanic" segment is significantly vegetarian, non-Christian or non-straight.  Among Democratic voters who fit into neither of these groups, it is significantly union.  Further, demographic and political trends will only make this more so in the future.  The end result will be a Democratic Party that looks much more like that Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a Republican Party that includes the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.

More in the extended entry

Chris Bowers :: Democrats as a whole becoming more like the Progressive Caucus
This departs from my prognostications in the past in that I now see it more as a description of the future of the Democratic Party than a likely future progressive governing majority.  Through a combination of a long-term decline in immigration (already underway), and by capturing an even larger percentage of the white Christian vote (a process that is long underway), Republicans and conservatives can stay competitive with Democrats electorally for a long time to come.  However, this will also necessitate that states and congressional districts currently occupied by Blue Dogs and Senate Conservadems shift toward Republicans, remaking the demographic and cultural composition of the Democratic Party.

Over the long-run, Democrats in Congress will look more like the Progressive Caucus.  Right now, the CPC is only group of Democrats in Congress who are representative of the Democratic rank and file.  At least 74.7%, or 59 of 79, of the full-voting House members of the CPC are one or more of the following: non-white, non-Christian, or non-straight.  Among all other full-voting Democrats in the House, that percentage is only 23.5%, or 42 of 179.

That is an astounding gap.  It is also temporary.  With such a large percentage of the Democratic rank and file fitting into the five categories described at the top of this post, almost inevitably more Democratic candidates for higher office will fit into those categories, too.  Gradually--or maybe not so gradually, if a major Republican wave takes out hordes of Blue Dogs and New Dems in 2010--Democrats in Congress will become demographically and culturally more like members of Progressive Caucus.

This shift is also partially responsible for the current disconnect between Democratic leaders and the Democratic rank and file.  The vestigial Blue Dog wing of the party bears little cultural and demographic resemblance to rest of the coalition.   In fact, as we have written in the past on Open Left, in this regard it is far closer to the Republican Party than to other the Democratic Party.  This is both why there is a major problem in passing progressive legislation right now, and why that wing of the Democratic Party is eventually going to be largely swallowed up by Republicans.

It is in this sense that President Obama can actually be understood as a transitional figure.  Obama is able to connect the non-white, cultural progressive, and New Democratic branches of the Democratic Party all at the same time.  He has also altered the national political landscape, in that the areas with the largest concentration of white Christian Democrats--which happen to coincide with the areas represented by Blue Dogs--are now the most Republican voting areas in the country.  It wasn't long ago that Democrats were competitive in places like Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia were competitive in Presidential elections.  Now, those are 5 out of the 14 states that John McCain won by 13% or more.  Don't expect them to come back to the fold on the national level anytime soon, either (although the situation is very different in most other parts of the South).

Finally, this shift will also result in figures like Sarah Palin will playing a larger role in the future of the Republican Party. Digby points out that, despite her shortcomings as a candidate in other ways, Palin is good at making jokes about liberal cultural adherents, such as vegetarians, and how this endears her to the social conservative base.  As the two parties become even more divided along cultural and demographic lines, more of the successful, conservative, Republican figures will demonstrate this ability.

It is also possible that the coalitions will rearrange themselves, and new dividing lines may form.  In fact, this is inevitable, as it is a process that has occurred throughout American history.  But from the vantage point of the now, the outlook of the two major coalitions over the next twenty or thirty years points almost entirely to an expansion of the cultural and demographic divide we are already witnessing.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Disconnnect (4.00 / 1)
This shift is also partially responsible for the current disconnect between Democratic leaders and the Democratic rank and file.  The vestigial Blue Dog wing of the party bears little cultural and demographic resemblance to rest of the coalition.   In fact, as we have written in the past on Open Left, in this regard it is far closer to the Republican Party than to other the Democratic Party.  This is both why there is a major problem in passing progressive legislation right now, and why that wing of the Democratic Party is eventually going to be largely swallowed up by Republicans.

This is all true, and important. But the bulk of the disconnect is organizational. Even if this demographic disconnect is resolved, it only makes it easier to bring the rank and file and elite closer, it won't make it happen. And there is plenty of work to be done now.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


Diversity isn't value-neutral (4.00 / 1)
it's a protective phenomena: when you have one neighbor who is catholic, one muslim, one a jew, one a hindu, one an atheist, one a new ager, one a protestant, one a zoroastrian etc. it is less likely that you will be rounded up and put into a camp for being different.

Same is true for genotype and politics.

Jim Madison had the right idea, "multiply faction", he just f-ed up the implementation.


Well, that does it, then.... (4.00 / 2)
As if being a Democrat in the age of corporate sellouts wasn't already hard enough, now I've gotta become a vegetarian too. I wonder if there's a place among the Socialist Workers for me and my chicharrones. :-)

Neither the upper middle class (0.00 / 0)
vegans or the filthy rich wolf and dove shooters in Sarah Palins camp have much appeal to the working class.

[ Parent ]
and now you understand why it is SO important to keep as many of the middling conservadems in the party as long as possible (0.00 / 0)
every single vote they cast in order to be on the right team, is one less vote that republicans get from someone who wants to be on the right team.  now is the moment of the big tent - we want as many nonrational reasons for people to vote for that party that looks like the progressive caucus as possible - for people to be wondering, as i did for a long time, why these white southern men (or their equivalent) were voting for Democrats - even though I still thought those Democrats largely sucked.

the best progressive strategy is to build power, consolidating within as you move along, but never too quickly.  you're also understanding why, if obama is remotely progressive, this is probably along the lines of what he is thinking.  still a big if though - his class politics truly suck.


What a bizarre headline and argument - In These Times! (4.00 / 3)
You argue that the composition of the Democratic Party, the demographics of the party, which includes sex, race, age, income, disabilities, degree of mobility, educational attainment, home ownership, employment status, and even location (thank you Wikipedia), will change over time:

You write:

Over the long-run, Democrats in Congress will look more like the Progressive Caucus.  Right now, the CPC is only group of Democrats in Congress who are representative of the Democratic rank and file.  At least 74.7%, or 59 of 79, of the full-voting House members of the CPC are one or more of the following: non-white, non-Christian, or non-straight.  Among all other full-voting Democrats in the House, that percentage is only 23.5%, or 42 of 179.

Gradually--or maybe not so gradually, if a major Republican wave takes out hordes of Blue Dogs and New Dems in 2010--Democrats in Congress will become demographically and culturally more like members of Progressive Caucus.

First, it will take a generation, a minimum of 20 years for a new wave of voters to apply. Second, and this is my more important point, the new rank and file are likely to be low income and uneducated.

This is because the health care reform bill that's about to become law will, in all probability, pass with language that codifies the 1977 Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funds to be used for abortion.

Up to this point, Hyde had to be asserted and approved every time it was applied, according to debcoop here on Open Left. If the health care reform bill passes, Hyde, or worse, the Stupak amendment, will become the law of the land.

Since only poor or low income women rely on the federal government to pay for their abortions, the continued use of the Hyde amendment guarantees, with the exception of occasional tokens and gay/lesbian people who might adopt, continued generations of low income rank and file, assuming a correlation between educational attainment and income.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a low income rank and file. Poor people have a vote, but we all know how much influence money has, and we all know how low income is correlated with lack of access to the system.

On the bright side, if Obama's EPA successfully counters the monied interests in Mountain Top Mining, Progressives (Democrats) are likely to find voters in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia, states which you say used to be competitive in Presidential elections, but in 2008 were states that John McCain won by 13% or more.

In conclusion, I think you need to factor income to your analyses.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


Yes I am more interested in those types of economic (0.00 / 0)
stats than veganism and "not self identified heterosexuals?" WTF.

[ Parent ]
Wait, what? (4.00 / 3)
The vestigial Blue Dog wing of the party bears little cultural and demographic resemblance to rest of the coalition.   In fact, as we have written in the past on Open Left, in this regard it is far closer to the Republican Party than to other the Democratic Party.  This is both why there is a major problem in passing progressive legislation right now, and why that wing of the Democratic Party is eventually going to be largely swallowed up by Republicans. {emphasis added}

The reason why we can't pass progressive legislation is because these Blue Dog Democrats are too conservative; it has nothing to do with the fact that they're all white guys.  Just because there's a correlation between being a white guy and being a conservative doesn't mean that it's their white guy-ness that makes them conservative.  They could be purple space aliens for all I care and they'd still be a pain in the ass.

I think the point being made here isn't terribly salient. There's nothing stopping people of whatever minority from becoming conservatives on an individual basis, so their demographics are largely irrelevant.  And quite frankly, I'd rather be ruled by a government that's 100% white, male and liberal/progressive than a rainbow coalition of conservatives.


Your post is not responding to the current diary (4.00 / 1)
First, I don't know where your quote comes from; it's not the current diary.

Second, you are in denial about the world we live in if you think that race doesnt' matter. This is evident by your comment:

The reason why we can't pass progressive legislation is because these Blue Dog Democrats are too conservative; it has nothing to do with the fact that they're all white guys.


Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


[ Parent ]
Right there: 4th graf after the jump, second sentence (0.00 / 0)
Next question: Just how do conservative non-white elected officials help build progressive society?  

[ Parent ]
Running for higher office (0.00 / 0)
See Harold Ford.  His replacement is much better.  Artur Davis figures to do the same thing.

Maybe they will realize that people who want a conservative Senator or Governor will vote Republican.  


[ Parent ]
It doesn't (4.00 / 1)
Diversity can be a trojan horse used by the establishment to sell the same old status quo. Ward Connerly comes to mind on affirmative action. Certainly, President Obama being neoliberal in economic outlook is another example. Kay Baily Hutchinson may be a woman, but she's still an arch conservative. Clearly, the core issue are the ideas rather than diversity. Diversity is a different scale from ideas. It is important for different reasons. But, they are conflated here.  The assumption is also falsely made regarding LBGT communities (to name one).  

[ Parent ]
Democrats (0.00 / 0)
Sorry but the assumption is still made that women, gays, and people of color are progressive.  What if they are not?  When one reads about Indians-from the Subcontinent-being all enthusiastic about Ayn Rand, one finds this more and more dubious.  We are writing off whole sections of the population too easily, and are too involved in our own "traditional" (since this has been going on for 50 years now) prejudices and preconceptions.

Statistical query (0.00 / 0)
How can you extrapolate that vegetarians go Democratic at the same rate non-straights, non-christians, or non-whites do?

I appreciate that you're trying to talk about a cultural coalition that can be difficult to define, but while vegetarianism might offer an appealing quantifier in that you have a statistic handy, I don't see any compelling evidence that they should vote the same as the rest of the cultural coalition you're talking about. 7th Day Adventists, for example, are vegetarians but certainly not Democrats (they don't vote at all, right?)

But I think this raises an interesting point -- what IS it exactly that we're talking about that those non-hispanic whites share? Non-christian is part of it, but that excludes progressive evangelicals, unitarian universalists, peace churches, and other christian communities that vote more Democratic. I think the Urban/suburban and rural divide might be a better place to start.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search