Centerfield: The Obama Coalition Is Historically Weird

July 21, 2008

The Obama Coalition Is Historically Weird

Most democracies in history has had, at the very least, big perpetual divisions that included between parties of the people and parties of the elites. Athens had their demos and aristoi, the UK has their Labour and Tories; we have Democrats and Republicans. The first set is the party of the people, and the second set is the party of the elites. Of course, those are only nearly-useless generalizations, but still, there's something real there.

This year, Obama's coalition an absolutely historically WEIRD fraction of elites on the (D) side. And, if you remember, during the primary, he was having some trouble with getting ordinary folk to vote for him - in a weird way, he was running more as a Republican than as a Democrat. I doubt Obama will have such a problem with Joe Ordinary in November. There are plenty of things he can and is already doing, but still, he's likely to end up with a smaller fraction than, say FDR or LBJ had.

The Democratic Republican Party (now just Democrats) started as the party of civil liberties, social progressivism, small government, and small and simple debts. It also included a belief in strictly limited gummint power, and of letting locals be free to oppress slaves, neighbors, and whomever is unfashionable locally.

Its founders, notice, were all big farmers. Most early Democratic Republicans were also farmers. Most of its early elites were rich farmers like Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and later Confederate president Jeff Davis. But, relatively speaking, that wasn't nearly such a small share as today's farming society has.

The Federalist Party, which was the Republican Party's first incarnation, started as the party of elitism, higher education, defense, infrastructure, high taxes in the form of high tariffs to "protect" local industry. At the start, Federalists and then Whigs and then Republicans were urban and frontier liberals (I'm both). Their elites were those who had jobs doing thoughtful stuff.

Once President Andy Jackson reached office, he swapped civil liberties for the Federalists' militarism. At that point, the coalition he won on looked alot like Bush' (ok, no Latinos) - the Southern and conservative sides.

It's no great mystery that the first Republican president, Lincoln, was a liberal progressive type, since his major issue was antislavery and his major success in history being the abolition of slavery here. The Nation and NYT were on his side. He also passed the Homestead Act, another progressive measure.

There's been nearly an 180 switch since then. And, elitewise, it's been working badly for the GOP because there are few rich farmers and more urban elites, so they're almost down to defense and a minority share of urban elites.

In this election, the combination of the perception of Obama's eptness and persuasiveness, contrasted starkly with more and more Bush Administration corruption, illegal conduct, and ineptness coming out every week, are combining to bring an overwhelming majority of urban elites on Obama's side, against what started as the "Party of the Elite."

So, what are YOUR thoughts on this, and how we got there?

Posted by Jon Kay at July 21, 2008 02:30 AM

Comments

Jon, I'm a little appalled at you accepting so readily the GOP chestnut of Democratic elites.
I don't consider most people who support Obama as elites, unless you talk about the poor black elite, the poor student elite, the poor hispanic elite, the poor white elite etc etc. etc. or lower middle-class elites like me. Granted the democrats have their wealthy patrons but they do tend to have a more inclusive mix of American society.

Awful term that lacks grounding in reality.

If you want elites, to use your term, the GOP is rife with them as any lookback at the footage of GOP conventions can attest to. Wealthy white people with economic and political power. If you want to know who cut sales taxes on yachts, it was Gingrich and his fellow republicans. As far as I know that Yacht tax exemption hasn't helped too many poor people. Likewise the tax cuts since Reagan, basically reducing by more than half the top tax rates, have mostly benefited the wealthy and the powerful, in this case corporations, or the "corporate elite" if you want to call it that while the combination of income taxes and SSI contributions have gone UP for the rest of us.
Not to mention the increases other societal costs that we tend to incur.

Bush's tax cuts BTW failed to generate the 344,375 new jobs per month that his Council of Economic Advisers projected in 2003. The real average growth rate was only 175,000 jobs per month, less than the overly optimistic CEA projection for no action on taxes.

Posted by: Marcus at July 21, 2008 08:43 PM

The NYT was on his side? I believe they favored a pardon for a slave trader caught. The typical slap on the wrist. You know those progressive types looked the other way when money was involved...LOL Then Licoln refused and had the man hung. I believe that was when the NYT changed course and followed suit.

Now almost a year ago the NYT declared Iraq was lost and we should pack it in, No trying to stop a civil war. Today they refuse to publish an op ed by McCain, while trying hard to make Obama look like he had the right stuff about Iraq. Wasn't he against the surge? Didn't he say peace would come only after we leave? NewSpeak Jon and I thought you read the book.

eptness...LOL. Try covering fire by media. If I remember they got him through every weekly gaffe and blunder. Now he grabs Hillary's positions having called her untrustworthy for talking similar lines. You left out such a crucial element.....the media who clamor for more Press protection.

And I think Federalists were the first to back abolition in 1791 while Jefferson and Madison went mum. Sure Obama might reach the average Joe with the help of media casting his net. Maybe they can take the bitterness out of em..

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 22, 2008 01:14 AM

I think you're a good bit mixed up about the Federalist Party being the "first incarnation" of the GOP. The Federalists died with their opposition to the War of 1812 and the exposure of their secessionism and surrender attempts.

The Whigs were never more than fragmented and factionalized populists who formed in opposition to the Jacksonian-era Democrats more than a decade after the Federalists faded out, and being elected as a Whig president was an unlucky thing. They imploded in the face of slavery, with the southern factions being wholly absorbed by the Democrats.

The GOP began as THE anti-slavery party in the wake of the implosion of the Whigs and the resulting power vacuum in the North. They weren't their successors (or the Federalists') in much of anything other than being the opposition party to the (pro-slavery) Democrats.

Posted by: Tully at July 22, 2008 02:44 AM

A lot depends on what you mean by the term "elites". Do you mean people who own/run companies? Then maybe yes, the Republicans mostly have them currently (although certainly not all). Or do you mean people who inherited their money? Then it's rather split -- think of FDR and JFK, just for two, and tell me all "old money" goes Republican. Or do you mean college professors? Then you have to break things down by department. You will get a very different view out of the Sociology professors than out of the Engineering professors - no matter which college you are looking at. And even by department, you will still get some variation.

So what are we talking about here really?

Posted by: wj at July 22, 2008 09:32 AM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

July 21, 2008

The Obama Coalition Is Historically Weird