Since 1968, the discursive center of conservative electoral dominance has been a backlash narrative against people of color and "liberal elites." Over the past month, as seen in both the Jeremiah Wright and "bittergate" episodes, that narrative has also been the discursive center of attacks on Barack Obama. The double implication is that Obama is too black and too elitist to become President. This, of course, was always going to be the thematic center of attacks against Obama, given that he is an African-American university professor from Hyde Park. Given that Obama is the best demographic fit for conservative attacks against Democrats that has come along, possibly ever, it is pretty hard to fathom that they would abandon their tried and tested narratives now.
In The New Republic, John Judis is openly worrying that Obama is extremely vulnerable in a general election because these narratives will severely damage him among white working class voters. Meanwhile, the always helpful to Democrats Doug Schoen is urging Hillary Clinton, and really anyone running against Obama, to adopt these narratives against Obama 24-7. The basic premise in both arguments is that Obama is extremely vulnerable to these longstanding conservative narratives, and in fact using them might be the only way to defeat Obama. However, if there is one point I have tried to make in my blogging over the past three years, it is that the changing demographics of the electorate are rendering these conservative attacks increasingly ineffective, and that Democrats need no longer fear them as a result. We have reached a point where conservative backlash narratives against people of color and "liberal elites" appeal to such a small segment of the electorate, that Democrats no longer need them in order to win.
Consider the following:
- In 2006, Democrats won an 8.2% popular vote victory in House campaigns despite losing the white Protestant vote 61%-37%. Democrats even lost white evangelicals 70%-28%, but still had a banner year. In fact, Democrats won a landslide national victory despite splitting what many analysts have long considered the Holy Grail of swing groups, white Catholics, 50%-49%.
- In 2004, John Kerry took 41% of the vote among whites, and lost the popular vote by 2.46%. In 1988, Michael Dukakis took 40% of the white vote, but lost the popular vote by 7.72%. With only a 1% improvement among whites, John Kerry improved 5.26% overall (source).
- In 1992, whites were 87% of the electorate. In 2004, whites were 77% of the electorate, a 10% drop in just 12 years. Further, the three groups of whites among whom Democrats hold more than a 2-1 edge on Republicans, white union members, white non-Christians, and white LGBTs, are all increasing their share of the electorate and the white vote. Although not by a 2-1 margin, Democrats also do very well among white single women, who are also increasing their share of the electorate.
- Who don't Democrats do well among anymore? Straight, Christian, non-union whites who are not single women, do not self-identify as liberal, and are over the age of 30. Basically, that is just about the only group where the backlash narratives will still have wide appeal. While about 90% of the punditry falls into that category, and while Republicans win this group with more than 70% of the vote, it only represents about one-third of the electorate, and decreases in size every year.
There once was a time, not long ago, when credible charges of liberal elitism would be devastating to a Democratic candidate in a Presidential election. However, the effectiveness of these charges has also decreased throughout time. In 1972, McGovern won 37.52% of the popular vote. In 1984, Mondale won 40.56% of the popular vote. In 1988, Dukakis won 45.65% of the popular vote. In 2004, John Kerry won 48.27% of the popular vote. The basic reason for this is not consistent improvement of the quality of the Democratic candidates, but the changing demographics of the electorate that these candidates more acceptable to the nation of the whole.
In 2008, we have probably reached a point where the demographic tilt of the electorate favors those candidates by 50% + 1. If this is the case, then it would represent the end of the "liberal elite" and civil right backlash narratives as an effective anti-Democratic tactic on the national level. Obama is just about the perfect demographic test-case for this theory, and he is not losing ground against either Clinton or McCain nationally during a month long wave of attacks based on these narratives. As such, I think there is compelling evidence that we have indeed reached the end of "liberal elites" and civil rights backlash as a majority position in America. Hopefully, this will result not only in Barack Obama becoming President, but also in Democrats in general starting to realize that they are beholden to a very different sort of electorate then the one that handed them numerous resounding defeats from 1968-2004.
If you change which voters Democrats believe they must attract in order to win elections, you change the Democratic Party irrevocably.
|
