Social Conservatism Will Not Save the GOP

One of the more interesting sites that I read from across the aisle is Next Gen GOP. The site is a conservative counterpart to the more progressive politics we hold here at Future Majority, and on any given day you will see well researched and impassioned arguments for why and how the GOP should engage young voters. It reads very much like the emails, memos and research papers passed around on the Democratic side 3 or 4 years ago. In short, I respect the writers and what they are trying to do.

But I have to take issue with a recent post by Brad Tidwell, arguing against the prospect of 40 years of Democratic rule. It's not that I believe that we will have Democratic Presidents for the next 40 years. Just as with the Republicans I imagine that scandals will mount, as will corruption. Electoral conditions will fluctuate and 8 or 12 years from now we may well see a Republican President once more - or at least, a President from whatever arises out of the ashes of the current minority party that is the GOP. Rather, my problem is with his demographic assumptions and what a changing demographic tide will really mean for a recovering GOP.

Here's the main thrust of Tidwell's demographic analysis:

When considering the turnout, there is also promise of a future coalition for the Republican Party, starting with an emphasis on social conservatism. Right now for the Republican Party, “culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters” (Brownstein 2009). McCain did not represent these voters well- “It is likely that GOP voting decline started at the top of the ticket—with some of the culturally conservative Republicans not seeing McCain as one of their own” (Gans, 2008). A return to social conservatism will help get these voters to return to the party- McCain only led Obama with these voters by 58% to 40%, leaving much room for improvement (Brownstein 2009). Meanwhile, this increase in social conservatism will help the party make gains in minority groups where social conservatism is important- in California, around 70% of African American voters and 53% of Latino voters voted for Proposition 8, a measure limiting marriage to heterosexual unions (Harmon, 2008). Already, many key Republican strategists are working on how to appeal to these voters- Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, stated “We did not lose because of social issues. The vast majority of Republicans are anti-abortion. Voters in the state favored Obama, but they voted down gay marriage. And there is widespread opposition to illegal immigration.” Chuck DeVore, candidate for U. S. Senate seat has stated “The future of the Republican Party isn’t in white voters… That demographic is dying” (Wisckol, 2009). Clearly there will be greater attention paid to the minority voters- previous attempts to create such a movement have failed, but this does not have to be the case in the future- political parties have a way of coming back when all else seems to be against them.

I see a number of flaws in this argument:

• Culturally conservative, working class white voters are an ever-shrinking portion of the electorate, and Democrats no longer need that block to win elections. Chris Bowers has written extensively on the creation of the new demographic coalition Obama assembled, and notes that this coalition will only grow stronger as younger, more diverse voters come of age.
• Social conservatism is not a voting issue for minority voters, and it is repugnant to many younger voters, who make up an increasingly large share of non-white voters. Fully 40% of Millennials identify with one or another ethnic minority group. On social issues, like Prop 8, cited by Tidwell, they were the only age group to vote against the proposition. If the Republican Party becomes more conservative in order to appeal to older working class whites, they will only succeed in further alienating the next generation, who are disproportionately of color and socially progressive.
• Even among younger evangelical white voters, who would presumably replace the older white working voters on the older end of the electorate, social issues like choice and LGBT rights are neither the top priority nor are younger religious whites likely to hold similar views to their parents on those issue. In fact, white evangelical youth are increasingly receptive to progressive ideas.
• The GOP will never win Latino voters - especially younger Latinos - while they continue to oppose humane comprehensive immigration reform. John McCain was the standard bearer for such reform in the Republican Party. It's not clear to me how the GOP will win back Latinos - particularly younger Latinos needed to build a long-term voting block - by rejecting McCain's philosophies on immigration and spotlighting anti-choice and anti-LGBT messages.

The number of Millennials moving into the electorate is staggering: upwards of 80 - 100 million depending on how you set the boundaries. In 2008, they made up 18% of the electorate and broke 2 - 1 in favor of Democrats. As Millennials get older, they will vote in higher and higher numbers and occupy a larger and larger portion of the electorate. By 2016, they may account for 30% of the eligible electorate.

Do the math and the answer is simple: the GOP cannot climb out of its demographic hole by running to the right. The only way out will be to adapt to the current political environment and accept a wide range of progressive stances not just on social, but on economic, environmental, and foreign policy issues. If the GOP is to have a future, it's going to need to run to the left, not the right.