Henry Olsen’s piece in National Review is a tour de force and worth reading for those interested in the future of the political parties and particularly the dangers that Republicans face in the coming years.
I agree with his advice to Republicans, and most of his analysis of the situation.
First, the analysis. Olsen is right that Republicans have significant demographic challenges ahead. He essentially agrees that there is an “emerging Democratic majority,” a thesis put forth several years ago by Ruy Teixiera and John Judis in a book of the same name. In a nutshell, the thesis is that Democrats have strength in growing demographic groups such as Hispanics and professional educated voters, while Republicans’ strengths are concentrated in the shrinking groups, the elderly and white working class voters. Olsen also in on the same page as Karl Rove and George W. Bush in identifying the need of Republicans to find a way to attract a greater share of the Hispanic vote to go with their existing coalition. Olsen’s account of the Whigs’ inability to knit together their voters and the new German and Irish immigrants points to how a party can not only falter, but self-destruct under such circumstances.
But Olsen does not draw out how difficult a project it will be to create this broader coalition. Bush made strides in this direction, attracting significant Hispanic support in Texas and in each of his presidential elections (particularly in 2004). But the populist vs. elite camps of the party are deeply divided on immigration and may make Olsen’s broader tent impossible.
Olsen’s identifying the immigration issue, plus his call for a conservative pragmatism, seems right. The GOP needs more Bob McDonnells and Scott Browns, not wide-eyed, good government types or stodgy conservatives, but people with a mix of conservatism and at least a part of the populism that is mainstream in the middle class. Of course, it is always good advice to find candidates who can unite your base and reach out to some fellow travelers. And it is easier when your party is in opposition and different factions can unite around what they are against rather than what they stand for.
The part of Olsen’s thesis I am more skeptical of is his account of a growing middle of unaffiliated voters. Olsen notes this divide, the possibility of future Ross Perots and other populist Independents who appeal to the space between the two polarized parties. Here, Olsen is right that we are seeing a growing share of the electorate not identifying with one party or the other. But it is also true that most Independents have strong tendencies toward one party or the other in their voting histories. There are still very few voters who are completely up for grabs from either party. Our campaigns then focus on turning out base voters and Independents who lean toward their party, rather than persuading an undecided middle.
So Olsen’s advice for Republicans makes a lot of sense, but the danger for Republicans is not so much from a middle party taking their support, but rather from the demographic challenges that they face over the next 20 years. Republicans are not likely to self-destruct like the Whigs and be replaced by another party. More problematic for the GOP is the possibility that the Democratic base (both its core members and Independents who lean toward it) grows slowly over time and the Republican base shrinks so that only in very good Republican years can the party hope to win the presidency and command a majority.