A few questions for my politics savvy fellow Americans

I feel that a little context is in order so please allow me to explain. My family is all from the Northeast, Pennsylvania to be specific, and all of them are heavily involved in politics although none hold political office. When I was speaking with my grandfather, two uncles, and a few other relatives over the weekend when I was up there for a visit my one uncle is a staunch Liberal Democrat which is no surprise to anyone in the family while everyone else is Republican.

What I noticed was something strange compared to the traditional landscape of American politics, all of them unanimously condemned President Bush and all the Republicans which have governed since his election. They claim that an ideological rift began to develop back in the 1970s after they became frustrated with the policies of Richard Nixon.

My grandfather told me he had voted for Nixon in 1960, the first time he was legally allowed to vote, and was proud to do so. He abstained from voting in 1964 because he felt both candidates were horrible. 1968 he said he voted again and was proud to cast his vote for Richard Nixon and did so again in 1972. But come 1976 he said that the Republican Part began to lose many of their core constituents in the Northeast, while many still remained loyal to the GOP in their area he voted for Jimmy Carter, the first and last Democrat he ever voted for.

1980, 1984, and 1988 he voted for the main Republican candidate but said that in 1992 he felt the Republican Party no longer truly represented the Northeast faction of the party and that voting for George H. W. Bush again would be a mistake so he cast his ballot in the primaries for Patrick Buchanan due to the massive loss of manufacturing in the metro area and unemployment hovering around 15-20%. He did not vote in 1992 but did in 1996 for Bob Dole and in 2000 for George W. Bush. Now according to him, and in agreement with everyone else in the family, they say their vote for Bush was far worse than their vote for Carter. 2004 and 2008 he did not vote.

So this intrigued me, they remained loyal to the Republican Party but they claim that the Republican Party had not remained loyal to them. For me it is very interesting in a person-to-person interaction of the subject because I am used to studying it via education sources. I began to pick their brains (figuratively) and learned many interesting positions which they claim the GOP of yesteryear would have undoubtedly supported.

1. They are very much fiscal conservatives who do not support deficits or high taxes.
2. They are against free-trade and the globalization which rapidly occurred after the fall of USSR.
3. They are angry with environmentalists and the EPA for putting nature before families.
4. They supported Clinton’s welfare reform, and unanimously opposed the use of government assistance, demanding that the welfare state be drastically scaled back. Bringing up memories of how they worked 2-3 jobs to make ends meet with 5 kids and never asked for government help, they all said it only makes people weak and lazy while making everything else more expensive.
5. They all said that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are far too large and believe that they would be best handed over to the states.
6. All of them agreed that the federal government is far too large and needed to be drastically scaled back.
7. All of them agreed that the Christian Right, while noble in their cause, are only trying to waste tax money and invade people’s privacy with their constant government intrusions in pornography, drugs, etc…
8. They all condemned the Iraq war, some said the Afghan war was important at the beginning but we should have pulled out years ago and said that the Republicans never supported intervention around the world for any reasons.
9. They all said that our goal should be to create more manufacturing jobs, spur private investment, and lead a nation effort to restore and rebuild our infrastructure.
10. They all said that people should be left to their own abilities to rise or to fall except with a small safety net at the bottom for those who truly need the help.

Those were 10 things they all agreed on that I could easily put together in the shortest amount of sentences.

After I heard everything they had said it made me wonder, I asked them if they had heard of Ron Paul, all of them have yet most do not know much about him. I went on to explain and they said that he is a little extreme but generally that is why they believe in, his same principles, just without dismantling all of that government just about 90% agreement with Paul.

Now they are all worried about the upcoming elections in 2012, they know that Obumbles is a buffoon and do not want him to have a second term but they also do not want a moron like Huckabee, Gingrich, or Palin to be elected either but still do not want to stay home in 2012. I asked them about a third party vote and they said it would be a possibility for them but it would be a last resort.

After analyzing what they had said and discussed it made me think about what happened within the GOP in the 1970s that set the stage for Northeasterners to exit the party. So I searched the internet and the History of the Republican Party to find before my eyes something entitled the “Southern Strategy”. Of course the North and South never seen eye-to-eye on most issues. I thought “this has to be it!”

When I was finished reading about the Southern Strategy I had concluded this was what sent the Northeastern Republicans out of the arms of the GOP and sent the GOP into the arms of the Christian Right. It is sad that they all still cling to the GOP of what it once was, the party of manufacturers, businessmen, social moderates, fiscal conservatives, limited government, and protectionism, but I thought “what is the possibility of the North gaining a foothold in the GOP again?

Think about it, Bush had virtually put the nail in the coffin of Northern Republicanism but maybe it was just under his administration? We are in a post-Bush GOP where another rift is developing and with the election of several Republicans in the Northeast maybe this is their chance of taking back some power in the party which has now become controlled almost completely by Southern Protestant Whites, or at least its policies and temperament is aimed towards winning over Southern Protestant Whites.

So here are my questions to you politics savvy Americans.

1. What are the chances in your opinion, of the Northeast Republicans gaining a foothold in the GOP again?
2. Do you think that Northern Republicans can make a comeback by joining in with the Tea Party or will the Tea Party chase them away once-and-for-all?
3. Are you, is your family, or is anyone close to you what would be termed a ‘Northern Republican’?
4.What do you think will happen in 2012 should the Northeast have a large uptick in Republican affiliation? Which GOP candidates would receive the largest Northeast Republican votes?
5. Do you think the Southern Strategy was a bad and divisive idea aimed at manipulating Southern white men at the expense of black, northern, and moderate Republicans?

Southern Strategy

Just giving the thread a BUMP

reply to post by Misoir


Remember 1920 womens suffrage, Wilsons betrayal, race riots, meat packers strikes and 1964 in general

Ah and where did the union use to be very active way back when, which party ruled that region???

Where did all these ideas settle?

My Grandparents and parents told me about all kinds of political transformation between the parties, this has
created Frankensteins.

reply to post by Janky Red


Neither party at the time however was pro-union, the Republicans were and always had been the party of business. However the Republican Party also had the largest unionized workers support until the New Deal. But it was only because Unions had limits on their expectations such as good work hours, sanitary conditions, etc… They did not ask for Corporations to pay excessively high incomes, all these welfare style perks, and the like, the unions which were respected kept their demands within the realm of supporting business and worker interest.

Today this understanding is lost, the unions and the union workers have been alienated largely by demonization but also through their failed lust for more and more, if they were to return in a manner where they respected business while demanding fair treatment for workers I doubt any fiscal conservatives would complain. But unions are not asking for that, they are asking for the opposite, they want workers powers ahead of business interests which in turn harms the employees are more than the employers.

I do not argue against unionization or union workers I think that is fine, hell even Archie Bunker from ‘All in the Family’ was a union worker and he was as Conservative pro-Nixon as they come. When the division came to the point that you are either simply pro-business or pro-union that is when everything fell apart as both try and claw their way into power rather than negotiate and work together.

Pro-union people will tell you the businesses demonize them and want to take away their power and make them work in sweatshops while pro-business people will tell you the unions demonize them and want to nationalize them and seize all their profits. The solution is simple, keep government and unions away from each other, respect the worker-business idea that businesses and business interests are crucial for wealth and employment while at the same time workers and worker interests are crucial for respect and representation.

If we lean too much to one side we destroy ourselves. I am admittedly more pro-business than pro-union but I respect that a balance must be met for us to truly prosper. But the problem is more pervasive than just the union-business argument it is about trade, corruption, power, welfarism, and the like which is destroying us.

Just think about this for a moment, with all the taxes and regulations in California or New York, for what reason would a manufacturing company want to open their doors there in a state which is hostile to their financial interests. The business can always find somewhere else to go, the same cannot be said for the worker.

Also if you do not mind could you explain more about your families take on this issue as mentioned at the end of your reply? I definitely prefer the first person type of explanation than the book style.

rember that someone said

Originally posted by Misoir
...But it was only because Unions had limits on their expectations such as good work hours, sanitary conditions, etc… They did not ask for Corporations to pay excessively high incomes, all these welfare style perks, and the like, the unions which were respected kept their demands within the realm of supporting business and worker interest.

Today this understanding is lost, the unions and the union workers have been alienated largely by demonization but also through their failed lust for more and more, if they were to return in a manner where they respected business while demanding fair treatment for workers I doubt any fiscal conservatives would complain. But unions are not asking for that, they are asking for the opposite, they want workers powers ahead of business interests which in turn harms the employees are more than the employers....

I quoted a large portion mainly for other purposes; those that I will attend to later. In the mean time, I want to address the above. This is quite on the mark. Regular, down to earth conservatives (not of the Christian right) don't want to demonize unions. Most just believe that their power has swung into a realm that has garnered too much power (similar to the Executive branch...as evident in your personal polling with your family!)

Striking a balance between two parties and their interest is never easy, but there is a give and take. Currently and years that past, there has only been take; with complete disregard to the consequences of the taking. Unfortunately, such austerity measures always seem drastic and meet high resistance to those that are on the taking side. Should people be allowed to collectively bargain? Yes, absolutely. Even on the public level. Should that collective bargain hold the taxpayers hostage to their services if demands are not met? Nope. As evident with President Regan, the world moves forward if we fire public servants that hold the tax payer hostage.

What I despise about the Republican movement (especially during the Bush years) was the rise of the Christian right. I have not a problem with their beliefs; for they are their own. I do however have a problem with them attempting to impose their beliefs upon the rest of America. All while proclaiming that the United States of America is a Christian nation and their polls confirm it.

Those polls, which have been skewed and manipulated to fit their ambitions. While the peoples of the United States maintain a majority within their beliefs as Judea-Christian; the political structure is as it has always been...secular (which I might add, should be.) This of course is not to discount that the people is what makes up the government here in the United States. So invariably, many of faith reside within the halls of government. No constitution nor law could ever decree the people from holding personal faith and public office. It is the fact of life. What can be limited is the whole body of government acting upon that personal faith and imposing it upon the masses.

I mentioned that I quoted a portion of your post for a reason. Reason being is that the level of discussion and discourse amongst the people has reverted to a black/white stance. Meaning if I say I am against the current health-care reform that the president has singed into law, I must be for killing old people and children. This type of debate is never winnable. It is however, able to be countered. Similarly, take for instance a debate amongst my family (particularly my brother who is all for complete government control.)

We recently were discussing how there needs to be reforms on the regulatory level in regards to health care. We both agreed that something must be done. But as soon as I started to point out that all the facts are going against the current law, he immediately labeled me a sheep and only wanted people to die. What a testament to someone without knowledge or understanding (sorry bro!) of how the current law fixes nothing!

I tried to explain to him that insurance, in itself is a huge contributor towards soaring medical prices. I tried to explain that doctors must obtain highly expensive malpractice insurance to cover themselves from frivolous lawsuits. I tried to explain that I am all for fixing the system and bettering it for all people; not just those who cannot qualify for a waiver!

To no avail, in the end I was a child hating, old person killing, right winger that only wanted what was best for themselves. He was almost mostly right!

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe putting aside a small amount just in case. I believe in building some sort of savings account outside of government control. I believe that the individual is best suited to make the best choices for themselves and their families. I believe that the country is not as divided as portrayed by our political class and media cohorts (they reside on both sides if you ask me!)

I know I ventured onto a tangent. I will further contemplate your musings Misoir. You have brought up yet a valid and important topic for discussion!

I do not argue against unionization or union workers I think that is fine, hell even Archie Bunker from ‘All in the Family’ was a union worker and he was as Conservative pro-Nixon as they come. When the division came to the point that you are either simply pro-business or pro-union that is when everything fell apart as both try and claw their way into power rather than negotiate and work together.

Pro-union people will tell you the businesses demonize them and want to take away their power and make them work in sweatshops while pro-business people will tell you the unions demonize them and want to nationalize them and seize all their profits. The solution is simple, keep government and unions away from each other, respect the worker-business idea that businesses and business interests are crucial for wealth and employment while at the same time workers and worker interests are crucial for respect and representation.

If we lean too much to one side we destroy ourselves. I am admittedly more pro-business than pro-union but I respect that a balance must be met for us to truly prosper. But the problem is more pervasive than just the union-business argument it is about trade, corruption, power, welfarism, and the like which is destroying us.

Just think about this for a moment, with all the taxes and regulations in California or New York, for what reason would a manufacturing company want to open their doors there in a state which is hostile to their financial interests. The business can always find somewhere else to go, the same cannot be said for the worker.

Also if you do not mind could you explain more about your families take on this issue as mentioned at the end of your reply? I definitely prefer the first person type of explanation than the book style.