Is the Republican party better or worse off in 2009 than it was in 1977?

[CJK]

Do you think that the Republican party is better or worse off in 2009 than in 1977?

[minionofmidas]

Worse. Is a bunny more or less cuddly than a rhinoceros?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is it a question

[Rob]

At least Gerald Ford carried Indiana.

[ChrisJG777]

At least Gerald Ford carried Indiana.

And Virginia.

[CJK]

Is it a question

I heard that party identification and congressional seating was pretty similar.

[ag]

Hard to say. Ex post, it's now clear that Reps were not that badly off in 1977: the Carter success was based on the temporary revival of the already shattered Southern D dominance, many of the traditional Dems who voted D that year did so for the last time (though they'd continue calling themselves Dems for quite some time to come). At present, the situation seems to be more stable: and the Republican party is clearly very weak in a big chunk of the country (weaker, than the Democratic party in the areas of Republican dominance). This is not a good stability for the Republicans: it's not clear where they'd grow.

However, I don't actually have a feel for how the situation appeared in 1977. Perhaps, 30 years from now things would be, likewise, ex post clear

[CJK]

Here's some statistics from 1977:

Identification: Republican 22% Democrat 47%

House of representatives: 33% Republican

Senate: 38% Republican

Percent of house vote: 42% Republican

Governors: 24% Republican

State Legislators: 31% Republican

[You kip if you want to...]

Here's some statistics from 1977:

Identification: Republican 22% Democrat 47%

House of representatives: 33% Republican

Senate: 38% Republican

Percent of house vote: 42% Republican

Governors: 24% Republican

State Legislators: 31% Republican

That actually says more about Carter than anything IMO. All that in 1977 and just two months before that year began, he squeaked out a win in the general.

[Mr.Phips]

Here's some statistics from 1977:

Identification: Republican 22% Democrat 47%

House of representatives: 33% Republican

Senate: 38% Republican

Percent of house vote: 42% Republican

Governors: 24% Republican

State Legislators: 31% Republican

All of these numbers were significantly depressed because Democrats still held a monopoly on everything in the South below the Presidential level. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Here's some statistics from 1977:

Identification: Republican 22% Democrat 47%

House of representatives: 33% Republican

Senate: 38% Republican

Percent of house vote: 42% Republican

Governors: 24% Republican

State Legislators: 31% Republican

All of these numbers were significantly depressed because Democrats still held a monopoly on everything in the South below the Presidential level. 

True - take the south out of those numbers (and today's numbers) and it gets very interesting.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Republicans are worse off today, if only for demographic reasons. They appeal only to white conservatives, a part of the population that is shrinking.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a stranglehold on blacks and are moving quickly towards the same point with Hispanics (thanks in large part to guys like Tancredo and Limbaugh) and Asians. Three groups which will become the majority of the US population by 2050. 

[Saxwsylvania]

From a governing standpoint, much better. 

[Mechaman]

Republicans are worse off today, if only for demographic reasons. They appeal only to white conservatives, a part of the population that is shrinking.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a stranglehold on blacks and are moving quickly towards the same point with Hispanics (thanks in large part to guys like Tancredo and Limbaugh) and Asians. Three groups which will become the majority of the US population by 2050. 

From a governing standpoint, much better. 

Both of you guys make good points. Republicans in Congress seem to be taking most of their orders from party leadership thus making them seem sellable only to white conservatives. However, on the state level Republicans seem to be doing surprisingly well making it to the governorship in states like Minnesota, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, California, and even Rhode Frikkin Island, all of which usually lean pretty Democrat. Why is this? Because when one is running for a state office they seem more likely to try to appeal to a wide demographic to get into office. I find alot of governors (both Democrat and Republican) to be quite moderate and I think that has to do with alot of states electing them to counteract the strong liberal/conservative bias in each given state. Now that is not to say that Republicans are kicking the Dems asses when it comes to state governorships, in fact the opposite is true. But right now it seems that the GOP's strongest place to sell is in governorships. All they have to do is encourage moderates to run in more traditionally liberal states to counteract the loons. Believe it or not there are plenty of people in those states who can't stand super liberal politicians, just like it is true in the South. As conservative as my state is (Oklahoma), we have a moderate Democrat as governor who won re-election with 65% of the vote in 2006. Just saying.

That is not to say they shouldn't try the same strategy on the federal level. The last thing the GOP needs right now is more crazies running for office. I think they should stick with their fiscal conservatism but maybe adopt some at least socially moderate positions if they want a chance in hell to not only regain traditionally red states they lost last election but also offices up north or even out west where loony left politicians are running or holding offices. Just a thought.

[pbrower2a]

Far worse in 2009.

The Republican Party of 1977  still reeled from the effects of Watergate, but that scandal infected only the Executive Branch. Blame for the Vietnam war could be cast upon both Parties, as could the stagflation. Ronald Reagan was able to exploit the anti-intellectual sentiments of non-college people and suggest tax and budget cuts as a solution.

In 2009 the GOP reels from an economic mess that results almost entirely from the choices of the President and the GOP Congress. It is at fault for the War in Iraq, and the Democrats can slough off culpability by claiming that the GWB Administration didn't give all relevant material upon which Democrats chose to go along.  

Watergate did not involve GOP members of Congress -- but Congress had scandals, some of which sent people to prison. Add to this the close connection between the GOP and the Religious Right, an opportunistic marriage of convenience that isn't so convenient anymore. The GOP has committed itself to a failed ideology that borders on fascism, at least in economics.    

[Beet]

It's hard to say about the Republican party, but conservatism as a whole is definitely far better off in 2009 than 1977.

The seminal achievement of conservatism in the past 30 years is the capture of one of America's two major parties, the Republican party, and of this achievement it is more secure than ever. It achieved this in 1980 at the Presidential level and in 1992 at the Congressional level. In 1977 there was still a conflict between moderates and conservatives over who would control the GOP; in 2009 the only question is whether there is any room for moderates left at all.

In 1977 there was no Federalist Society; there was no talk radio; there was no Fox News or Murdoch Empire; there was a National Review but there was no Weekly Standard. There was no organized religious right of any form; abortion was legal but there was no Operation Rescue or pro-life diaspora. There was no real conservative presence on the nation's campuses. The NRA was not yet a potent political force. Today all these things have come into being in a durable and long lasting way, regardless of how many seats any party possess in Congress.

Conservative ideas today are much more worn out than in 1977, and the Republican party seems equally spent. But the institutional presence of conservatism is stronger than ever, and this durable achievement puts conservatism, at least, on much stronger footing than it was three decades ago.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Republicans are worse off today, if only for demographic reasons. They appeal only to white conservatives, a part of the population that is shrinking.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a stranglehold on blacks and are moving quickly towards the same point with Hispanics (thanks in large part to guys like Tancredo and Limbaugh) and Asians. Three groups which will become the majority of the US population by 2050. 

Of course. It irritates me that anyone would actually deny this with a straight face and offer no counter-explanation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is it a question

I heard that party identification and congressional seating was pretty similar.

1977 was the definitive destruction of the democratic dominating coalition and the rise of republican party.

[pbrower2a]

It's hard to say about the Republican party, but conservatism as a whole is definitely far better off in 2009 than 1977.

Conservatism in the sense that one associates with Edmund Burke (go slow, respect tradition, and do not let political passions overwhelm you) will never go away except if its adherents meet nasty ends (as in Hitlerland and Stalinland). The 2008 election was not so much a rebuke of conservatism as it was of the Hard Right -- people who believe that the government has a right to interfere in reproduction, that government can wisely choose the already-rich and powerful as winners to the benefit of those that they squeeze, that government can safely align itself with religious fundamentalism to the benefit of the "Godless",  and those and that control of fuels and raw materials. The Hard Right has shown some fascistic traits that Burke would find objectionable due to their recklessness, haste, and extremism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note well: the Hard Right uses conservative  as a euphemism much as Commies used to use the word progressive. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

National Review at the least had the erudite and civilized William F. Buckley as editor-in-chief, and he was as anti-fascist as he was anti-Communist. There were ultra-conservative Fundamentalist pastors, and they did find their way to AM radio (stations with religious formats). I was in college in 1977, and I can assure you that there already was a conservative presence even in Berkeley. There was Young Americans for Freedom, and Sun Myung Moon already had a presence on college campuses. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conservatism will revive as either a reaction to major political changes of our time -- or even an attempt to preserve favored changes of our time. Whether the GOP will be around to take advantage of the opportunity is still without an answer.

[Husker]

It's hard to say about the Republican party, but conservatism as a whole is definitely far better off in 2009 than 1977.

The seminal achievement of conservatism in the past 30 years is the capture of one of America's two major parties, the Republican party, and of this achievement it is more secure than ever. It achieved this in 1980 at the Presidential level and in 1992 at the Congressional level. In 1977 there was still a conflict between moderates and conservatives over who would control the GOP; in 2009 the only question is whether there is any room for moderates left at all.

In 1977 there was no Federalist Society; there was no talk radio; there was no Fox News or Murdoch Empire; there was a National Review but there was no Weekly Standard. There was no organized religious right of any form; abortion was legal but there was no Operation Rescue or pro-life diaspora. There was no real conservative presence on the nation's campuses. The NRA was not yet a potent political force. Today all these things have come into being in a durable and long lasting way, regardless of how many seats any party possess in Congress.

Conservative ideas today are much more worn out than in 1977, and the Republican party seems equally spent. But the institutional presence of conservatism is stronger than ever, and this durable achievement puts conservatism, at least, on much stronger footing than it was three decades ago.

Seems to me that old fashioned conservatives are now viewed as libertarians. Although I would certainly agree about the new form of conservatism being stronger now than in 1977.

[pragmatic liberal]

Republicans are worse off today, if only for demographic reasons. They appeal only to white conservatives, a part of the population that is shrinking.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a stranglehold on blacks and are moving quickly towards the same point with Hispanics (thanks in large part to guys like Tancredo and Limbaugh) and Asians. Three groups which will become the majority of the US population by 2050. 

From a governing standpoint, much better. 

Both of you guys make good points. Republicans in Congress seem to be taking most of their orders from party leadership thus making them seem sellable only to white conservatives. However, on the state level Republicans seem to be doing surprisingly well making it to the governorship in states like Minnesota, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, California, and even Rhode Frikkin Island, all of which usually lean pretty Democrat. Why is this? Because when one is running for a state office they seem more likely to try to appeal to a wide demographic to get into office. I find alot of governors (both Democrat and Republican) to be quite moderate and I think that has to do with alot of states electing them to counteract the strong liberal/conservative bias in each given state. Now that is not to say that Republicans are kicking the Dems asses when it comes to state governorships, in fact the opposite is true. But right now it seems that the GOP's strongest place to sell is in governorships. All they have to do is encourage moderates to run in more traditionally liberal states to counteract the loons. Believe it or not there are plenty of people in those states who can't stand super liberal politicians, just like it is true in the South. As conservative as my state is (Oklahoma), we have a moderate Democrat as governor who won re-election with 65% of the vote in 2006. Just saying.

That is not to say they shouldn't try the same strategy on the federal level. The last thing the GOP needs right now is more crazies running for office. I think they should stick with their fiscal conservatism but maybe adopt some at least socially moderate positions if they want a chance in hell to not only regain traditionally red states they lost last election but also offices up north or even out west where loony left politicians are running or holding offices. Just a thought.

State politics tends to be far less polarized and partisan than national politics. Throughout the country (and throughout history) governorships are often competitive even when national politics aren't. So there are plenty of Southern Democratic governors, and Republican governors in places like Connecticut and Massachusetts.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Republicans are worse off today, if only for demographic reasons. They appeal only to white conservatives, a part of the population that is shrinking.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a stranglehold on blacks and are moving quickly towards the same point with Hispanics (thanks in large part to guys like Tancredo and Limbaugh) and Asians. Three groups which will become the majority of the US population by 2050. 

From a governing standpoint, much better. 

Both of you guys make good points. Republicans in Congress seem to be taking most of their orders from party leadership thus making them seem sellable only to white conservatives. However, on the state level Republicans seem to be doing surprisingly well making it to the governorship in states like Minnesota, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, California, and even Rhode Frikkin Island, all of which usually lean pretty Democrat. Why is this? Because when one is running for a state office they seem more likely to try to appeal to a wide demographic to get into office. I find alot of governors (both Democrat and Republican) to be quite moderate and I think that has to do with alot of states electing them to counteract the strong liberal/conservative bias in each given state. Now that is not to say that Republicans are kicking the Dems asses when it comes to state governorships, in fact the opposite is true. But right now it seems that the GOP's strongest place to sell is in governorships. All they have to do is encourage moderates to run in more traditionally liberal states to counteract the loons. Believe it or not there are plenty of people in those states who can't stand super liberal politicians, just like it is true in the South. As conservative as my state is (Oklahoma), we have a moderate Democrat as governor who won re-election with 65% of the vote in 2006. Just saying.

That is not to say they shouldn't try the same strategy on the federal level. The last thing the GOP needs right now is more crazies running for office. I think they should stick with their fiscal conservatism but maybe adopt some at least socially moderate positions if they want a chance in hell to not only regain traditionally red states they lost last election but also offices up north or even out west where loony left politicians are running or holding offices. Just a thought.

State politics tends to be far less polarized and partisan than national politics. Throughout the country (and throughout history) governorships are often competitive even when national politics aren't. So there are plenty of Southern Democratic governors, and Republican governors in places like Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Don't forget Hawai'i or California, or Vermont.
Or Wyoming for the Democrats; I don't believe it qualifies as 'Southern.'