Religion

                In the states, religion matters in a manner scarcely comprehensible to most Europeans. Not surprisingly, religion holds a major influence upon voting behavior too. When considering this particular section, there is an obvious overlap with ethnicity. The Democrats gain most of their support from secular citizens and those from a minority faith. For instance, in the 2012 presidential contest 7 out of every 10 of those who expressed no religious affiliation supported Obama. Amongst Jewish voters, Obama received almost exactly the same proportion of support (69% in total). In contrast, the Republicans gain the bulk of their support from Christians. To give you some idea of this level of support, Protestants (who account for just over half the total electorate) preferred Romney over Obama by 13%.

No Republican candidate could ever hope to capture the party’s nomination for President without the backing of the religious right. This proved a real problem for Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign. His Mormonism prompted a degree skepticism from the Evangelical Christian base, and unlike say George W. Bush; he was not by instinct or inclination ‘one of them.’ Romney therefore failed to motivate the party base in sufficient numbers, despite his own religion playing such a central role in his backstory. It remains to be seen who will secure the party's nomination for 2016, but it seems safe to speculate that religion will play some role.

The prominence of religion within the Republican Party platform has increased significantly since the 1970s. This can of course provide a highly effective electoral strategy for the party, appealing to values voters who might otherwise be inclined to vote Democrat on the basis of income or ethnicity. From an international perspective, the Republicans could be compared to say Christian Democrats in countries such as Germany, Italy and Austria. That said; an overtly moralistic message can also deter voters. The former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani once warned fellow Republicans that “the state has no place in people’s bedrooms.” Furthermore, there are figures within the GOP who can appear downright reactionary. For instance, some of the comments made by the birthers against President Obama have done little to present the party in a modern light.

Education

                In any study of long-term factors affecting voting behavior, education is often overlooked. This is somewhat perplexing given that educational attainment does have some impact upon where people put their cross on the ballot paper. For instance, the Democrats appeal to a curious blend of the least educated and the highly educated. They gain votes from those with limited economic opportunities and the ‘limousine liberals’ satirized by conservative commentators throughout the country.

                The link between education and voting behavior bears relevance to a previous post regarding income. A low level of educational achievement often limits a person’s job opportunities. Similarly, high educational achievement often improves a person’s job prospects. In terms of the latter, those with high levels of educational achievement tend to hold liberal sensibilities and are disproportionately more likely to work for the government in some form. Both these factors will inevitably lead them towards voting for the Democrats. In 2012, Obama’s lead amongst post-graduates over Romney was 13%.

                There is a widely-held stereotype within political discourse concerning the educated liberal and the less educated conservative. Both Democrats and Republicans do at times like to engage in this portrayal, albeit for very different reasons. Republicans seek to contrast their common-sense values against the metropolitan liberal elite. Republicans also like to portray their well-educated liberal opponents as hypocrites living in an ivory tower of self-righteousness. Equally, Democrats may sneer at the lack of sophistication and culture characterized by a certain 'type' of Republican (such as George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin). Frankly, we should all try to recognize and then move beyond such lazy assumptions. For instance, there are several conservative intellectuals such as Ayn Rand (1957), Irving Kristol (1999) and William F. Buckley. Equally, the Democrats gain a good deal of support from the less well-educated blue-collar worker.

Ethnicity

                Ethnicity is one of the most important means of social differentiation within the states (Enriquez, 2005). Our ethnic origin is a key aspect of our identity, both in terms of how we see ourselves and how others perceive us. Ethnicity can certainly have an impact upon our life chances, and not surprisingly can affect in some manner how we vote. When seeking to explore ethnicity and voting behavior, it is customary to begin with minority groups.

The Democrats have a strong lead amongst Asian voters. In the 2012 presidential election Asians preferred Obama over Romney by a whopping 47%. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, Asians are more likely to face discrimination within the workplace and the Democrats have long been associated with measures to tackle racial discrimination. Secondly, Asians are likely to earn less than whites. Once again, it is the Democrats who are more likely to favor a modest redistribution of wealth to ensure equal opportunities. In 2012, the Asian community made up around 3% of the total electorate.

                A similar picture emerges amongst Jewish voters, who have consistently favored the Democrats over the GOP for many years now. However, some Republicans have managed to reach out towards the Jewish community. For instance, Ronald Reagan consistently achieved a high degree of support from Jewish voters. The significance of obtaining the Jewish vote is arguably greater than that of other minority groups due to the substantial influence of the pro-Israeli lobby within American politics (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2007).

                African-Americans are the most loyal voting constituency within the states, consistently favoring the Democrats by a massive margin. In 2008 and 2012, Obama gained support in the high 80%/low 90% - an astonishing figure by any standards. There are essentially four reasons why African-Americans prefer the Democrats. Firstly, they earn considerably less than the national average. Secondly, virtually all black politicians are Democrats. For instance, during the 2012-13 Congress all 40 House representatives were Democrats. Thirdly, black people are more likely to face discrimination of some form and legislative measures to deal with discrimination tend to derive from the Democrats. Finally, black people tend to be further to the left of the political spectrum than other ethnic groups.

                The minority group that gains the most attention amongst political strategists and the political commentariat are Hispanics. In 2012, around 7 out of every 10 Latino voters supported Obama. However, it wasn’t that long ago that the Latino vote was fairly evenly split. In 2004, George W. Bush managed to reach out towards a high number of Latino voters. At the present time, arguably the most important variable to consider in regards to voting behavior is the GOP’s ability to attract Latino voters. Frankly, the GOP does have something of an image problem amongst this constituency. Perhaps the key reason for this is their uncompromising stance on immigration. For instance, voter ID registration in Republican-dominated states could easily be interpreted in a negative way by Latinos. During the race for the Republican nomination in 2012, Newt Gingrich offered a potentially beneficial strategy for the party by his proposal to relax their stance upon immigration. This strategy has been promoted further by Jeb Bush, who has gone so far as to describe illegal immigration as “an act of love” rather than a crime.

In the context of Latino voters, the Republicans should be mindful of how the party in California alienated this important demographic. The GOP’s brand within the golden state remains hampered by the infamous initiative 187 back in the mid-90s. Frankly, it made the party look unsympathetic to Hispanics. The need for the GOP to broaden their appeal towards Latinos is particularly urgent given the fact that they are now the largest minority group and, if present demographic trends continue; will be in the majority by the year 2042. The GOP simply cannot continue with its present alliance of supporters and still expect to win a presidential election. It is a lesson that Donald Trump seems incapable of learning with his controversial call for all Muslims to be banned from entering the states.

                As one can clearly see, the Democrats are very much the party of minorities. In contrast, the Republican Party is more appealing towards white voters. Indeed, the gap amongst white people at the 2012 election in favor of Romney was a healthy 20%. Given the fact that white voters are in the majority (72% of the electorate in the 2012 presidential election), phsephologists often by-pass ethnicity when considering white people and focus instead on income, religion and so on. Given the sheer size of the white majority, it is difficult to identify all-encompassing reasons as to why they lean towards the GOP. Having said this, white people might favor the Republicans because they are most closely associated with defending the status quo. For obvious reasons, white people have a vested interest in maintaining their disproportionate hold upon political and economic power. Republican opposition to policies such as affirmative action might be considered here. Whilst Democrats believe in the need for positive discrimination, Republicans are more willing to argue that such measures are harmful in some way. For instance, positive discrimination could be seen as a policy of giving members of once disadvantaged groups legal privileges designed to rectify past injustice; which therefore enables a minority to claim privileges legally denied to the majority. Equally, the Democrats have at times failed to offer a persuasive message to white people. Obama’s remark during the 2008 campaign depicting white people as “clinging to guns and religion” might be cited as an example.

                Before we leave this section on ethnicity, it is worth noting just how much things can change over a given period of time. White conservatives were a key element of the New Deal for many years, and yet the solid South is now overwhelmingly Republican. We must remind ourselves of this particular change because no party can simply assume that an ethnic group will always support them. In the foreseeable future at least, it seems highly likely that the group which might see the most concerted effort from the two main parties will be Latinos. That said; it must be noted that Hispanics and Latinos are catch-all terms that hide a degree of cultural differences and by implication voting preferences.

Age

                Another long-term factor to consider is that of age. In terms of voting behavior, there is a striking generational gap in the states. Younger voters are far more likely to vote Democrat, whereas older voters are more likely to be Republican. In 2012, Obama held a significant lead over Romney throughout all age groups up until the age of 40. This trend is replicated in several comparable democracies throughout the world, in which younger voters are more likely to support progressive parties whereas older people are more inclined towards conservative parties. There is also a striking difference to consider here in terms of voter turnout. Older people are far more likely to vote than younger people, which inevitably plays in the Republicans favor. This is particularly noticeable during mid-term elections, when those groups who lean towards the Democrats (such as minority groups and younger people) are less motivated to go out and vote than they would during a presidential election. During the 2014 mid-terms, 65% of those who went out to vote were aged over 45.

                 The generation gap is most prominent in terms of tolerance towards gay rights. Younger voters are usually more comfortable with diversity in its broadest sense, whereas older voters tend to be more favorable towards traditional social mores. In the defining civil rights issue of the present era, younger people are more likely to support equal rights for gay couples. This even extends to support for gay marriage. Older people however tend to view same-sex marriage as inconsistent with the traditional definition of marriage. Not surprisingly, this division is reflected in terms of voting behavior. In 2012, Obama gained 60% of the under 30 demographic whereas those over the age of 65 preferred Mitt Romney over Obama by a 12% margin.

                In terms of age, the contested ground centers upon those who are middle-aged. The Republican message to this particular constituency is focused upon cutting levels of taxation on income and wealth. Republicans argue that we should retain more of our hard-earned money in order to reward initiative and thereby stimulate the economy. The GOP also expresses traditional values in order to appeal to a middle-aged demographic. The Democrats however emphasize the assistance provided by the state to those who are struggling to make ends meet, particularly within the workplace. In the 2012 election, middle-aged voters from the ages of 40 to 49 were the most evenly divided in the country – preferring Romney to Obama by a mere 2%.

Gender

 

                As with other comparable democracies, there is a gender gap within the states concerning voting behavior. Women are more likely to vote for the Democrats, whereas men are more inclined to vote Republican. When seeking to explain the gender gap, it is difficult to escape societal stereotypes. That said; there may still be some veracity in such stereotypes in relation to voting behavior.

                There are four reasons why women are more likely to support the Democrats than the Republicans. Firstly, the Democrats have more female representatives than the male-dominated GOP. Female voters might therefore assume that the Democrats would have a better understanding of a female perspective than the Republican Party. Secondly, the Democrats are more supportive of legislation that seeks to prevent discrimination in the workplace. One would only have to consider the Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2009. Thirdly, the Democrats are broadly pro-choice on the issue of abortion and studies have shown that the majority of women believe that they should retain the right to choose. Finally, the Democrats are more likely to instigate policies associated with the redistribution of wealth (such as raising the minimum wage and increasing the level of tax upon high-income earners). As women are relatively poorer, this may well influence their voting behavior.

                 Women who vote for the Republican Party are sometimes caricatured as ‘mama grizzlies.’ This particular section of the electorate is associated with a conservative stance on lifestyle issues and gun rights. Republican women are also more likely to be older than their Democrat counterpart, which in itself reflects the impact of age upon voting behavior. Once again, one must recognize that cross-cutting factors are always present within any study of voting behavior. It is also worth noting that both parties may seek support from so-called ‘hockey/soccer moms.’ This particular demographic is viewed as largely apolitical in terms of ideology. However, they are concerned about those issues that impact directly upon their own lives and their families. During the 2008 Republican National Convention, vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin memorably depicted herself as a “hockey mom.”

                 As mentioned previously, men are more likely to vote for Republican candidates. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, men are more likely to be favorable towards gun rights than women. Secondly, men are more interested in issues of national security. Both areas are traditionally seen as strong cards for the Republican Party. It should also be noted that the Republican Party is male-dominated, which may well be a more appealing proposition to male voters than the Democrats. Finally, men on average earn more than women and may take the view that income tax is likely to be lower under the Republicans. In the 2012 presidential election, 52% of male voters supported Romney.

               The relationship between gender and voting behavior is such that the Republicans are sometimes referred to as the ‘daddy party’ whereas the Democrats are sometimes known as the ‘mommy party.’ Having said this, nothing is immutable in terms of gender and voting behavior. Both parties could of course improve their position amongst male/female voters. For instance, the Republicans must learn from their embarrassing gaffes concerning abortion during the 2012 campaign (such as Todd Akin’s comment that “legitimate rape” rarely led to pregnancy). Similarly, the Democrats might win over male voters if they can distance themselves from a hardline feminist stance on reproductive rights and affirmative action.

Geographical location

 

                The second long-term factor to consider is geographical location. In terms of presidential elections, there are a number of states that could be described as relatively safe for one party or the other. For instance, the state of California has voted for the Democrat candidate in each presidential election since 1992. Similar observations can be applied to congressional elections. The last time the state of Wyoming elected a Democrat to the Senate was back in the early 1980s. Given current voting trends, it seems unlikely that California would support a Republican candidate for President or Wyoming would endorse a Democrat for the upper chamber. Neither state is viewed as contestable during a presidential election, although a conservative Democrat could perhaps gain a congressional seat in Wyoming and a liberal Republican might do the same in California.

                As with much else in the field of psephology, there are certain caveats to consider. Firstly, it is entirely possible for a presidential election to be won by a landslide. This last occurred in 1984, when Ronald Reagan won an astonishing 49 out of the 50 states. His Democrat opponent only managed to capture his home state, and then only by a small margin. Similarly, Richard Nixon won all but one of the 50 states in 1972. Given the trend towards ideological polarization, it seems increasingly unlikely that a candidate could do the same when the country is fairly evenly split between red states and blue states in regards to presidential elections.

                Studies into voting behavior seek to explain why people vote the way they do. Although this is difficult to identify in regards to geographical location; it is possible to put forth some observations. For example, the North-East has long been considered more liberal than the Bible Belt. This would surely explain why North-Eastern states are overwhelmingly Democrat whereas the Republicans dominate in the Bible Belt. Similarly, it is the Republicans who best capture the mindset of Middle America.

                In terms of congressional elections, both parties have their safe constituencies. Whilst gerrymandering of House districts undoubtedly helps, this does not in itself explain why the Democrats tend to represent inner-city areas whereas congressional Republicans are more likely to represent rural parts of the country. Once again, the rational choice theory of voting behavior casts valuable light on our understanding. Republicans are more closely associated with an agenda that reflects the concerns of rural dwellers; which could be characterized as the three G’s (support for gun ownership, opposition to gay rights and an emphasis upon religious values). Similarly, an inner-city area is likely to be poorer on average than surrounding areas. It is also more likely to have a higher proportion of ethnic minorities.

                The shades of purple within American congressional and state elections are of obvious interest to our studies. A red constituency in a sea of blue is likely to be a relatively wealthy area with an overwhelming majority of white people, whereas a blue constituency in rural America is likely to be a University town, relatively poorer than the average and/or more ethnically diverse than those constituencies which surround it. Yet for a country which prides itself on democratic values, there are a surprisingly small number of contested seats – particularly during a congressional election for the lower chamber. Either way, the changing demography of a particular location should be of interest to those who seeks to properly understand voting behavior. As such, let us consider the following case study.

Back in 2002, the academics Ruy Texeira and John Judies claimed that demographic trends would favor the Democrats. It seemed a bold prediction given the fact that the GOP controlled both chambers and a Republican was occupying the White House. Although the GOP won the next presidential election, their predictions have largely been proven correct. Texeira and Judies cited an increased number of Latinos (due to their relatively high birth rates), a declining number of white voters, an increased number of LGBT voters (in part due to greater tolerance within society) and so on. That said; there are demographic factors which might favor the Republicans – not least the increased number of EC votes and congressional seats to red states due to a population shift from the rust-belt to sunnier climes. Alas, predicting voting behavior will always be problematic. Regardless of the depth of research, it is nearly impossible to adequately identify future trends in voting behavior. Inevitably, one will always be hostage to fortune. For example, the argument put forward by Texeira and Judies assumes that the GOP cannot properly reach out towards minority groups such as Latinos. If however the Republicans moderate their stance on immigration and affirmative action, there is every possibility that they can regain support from Hispanics throughout the union. This may also require a key role for prominent Hispanics within the party (such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio).

Income

                Due to their degree of permanence, it seems logical to begin with long-term factors affecting voting behavior. In most countries, it would make sense to begin with social class. However, this does not translate well to a study of voting behavior in the states. Social class does not hold the same overt meaning and political significance as it does in say the United Kingdom or many other European countries. This is one reason why the emergence of a major socialist party has not occurred in the US. In terms of a sociological understanding of the states, it makes more sense to focus upon income as it offers a more meaningful method of social differentiation than social class.

                The Democrats tend to gain most of their support from lower-income groups, whereas the Republican demographic tends to be wealthier. This seemingly straight-forward distinction can be further understood via the rational choice theory of voting behavior. According to this theoretical model, people will support that party which best looks after their economic interests. Lower-income groups may therefore have a rational interest in supporting the Democrats due to policies such as positive discrimination that favor minorities. In contrast, wealthier voters are more likely to support the GOP due to the appeal of lower taxation.

                As with all theories applied within the study of politics, the rational choice theory of voting behavior is not entirely satisfactory. For example, it fails to explain why those with a post-graduate level of education are more likely to support the Democrats rather than the Republicans. With increased job/income opportunities, they have little rational interest in supporting higher levels of taxation to fund welfare programs. That said; wealthy liberals may place a higher emphasis upon the goal of a fairer society than their own supposed economic interests. Similarly, this model of voting behavior fails to explain why poorer voters chose the Republicans. The GOP has often gained a notable level of support from blue-collar voters (such as white people living in rural areas). As with their ‘latte liberal’ counterparts, white rural voters may place a higher emphasis upon traditional values as opposed to their own economic interests. 

Short-term and long-term factors of voting behavior

                When seeking to comprehend the fascinating area of voting behavior, the first distinction to be made is that between long-term factors and those of a short-term character. Long-term factors that shape voting behavior have a degree of permanence from one election to the next. Obvious examples include ethnicity, geographical location and gender. In contrast, short-term (or recency) factors are those which are salient to voting behavior in any given election. For instance, the state of the economy at any given time will always impinge upon voting behavior to some degree.

                When seeking to make this distinction, one must recognize that short-term factors have become increasingly important as a determinant of voting behavior. The electorate is thereby more volatile than in previous generations. In other words, voters are increasingly ‘up for grabs.’ Party identification is in decline, and political parties can no longer depend upon long-standing alignments from their natural supporters. So whereas the salience of short-term factors has grown, the significance of long-term factors is in decline. Voters are largely cynical in their view of politicians, and in terms of what the political process can actually deliver. This may also be reflected in the level of voter turnout, particularly during second-order elections (such as those to the House of Representatives).

                Before we delve into voting behavior, it is important to note that the various factors cut across each other to some degree. In other words, we might say that a white man living in a rural area is likely to vote Republican based upon long-term factors such as gender, ethnicity and geographical location. However, this may cut across other factors. For instance, he may feel that the Democrats are better at managing the economy than the GOP. It is therefore important to recognize these cross-cutting factors when seeking to properly understand voting behavior. In addition, it should be noted that many people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in their adult years. People form a stereotype of each party and may well gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves. Once they have formed an allegiance, they twist perceptions of reality so they become even more closely aligned with that group. In other words, people become Democrats and then place a high value upon values such as equal opportunity and freedom of choice. Equally, a person becomes Republican and then places increasing value of limited government and the second amendment.

Quotes on Political Parties

“America has split into closed and radically separated enclaves that follow their own constructions of reality.” Torben Lutjen

“America is a one-party state.” Noam Chomsky

“American parties are like two bottles with different labels, both empty.” Denis Brogan

“I am not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” Will Rogers

“I think parties are pretty irrelevant.” Ron Paul

“In politics, you haven’t said anything until you’ve said it on television.” James Carville

“It sometimes seems almost miraculous that presidents accomplish anything at all.” David Mervin

“Money’s conquest of American politics has therefore rendered impotent the well-worn prescriptions of the left and the right.” Allison Stranger

“Organizing libertarians is like herding cats.” Michael Shermer

“The central conservative truth is that it is culture … that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan

“The hyperpartisanship has been getting more hyper with every passing year that I’ve been here.” Joe Lieberman

“The idea of a welfare state is in itself perfectly consistent with conservative political philosophy.” Irving Kristol

“The question we ask today is not whether government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Barack Obama

“The Republican Party sometimes feels like an entertainment company based on a religious identity.” Andrew Sullivan

“There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” Mark Hanna

“There is no such thing as a bipartisan budget.” Bob Dole

“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party.” Gore Vidal

“Those who call ourselves liberal are ... conservative, while those who call themselves conservative are … deeply radical.” Paul Krugman

“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country.” Larry Diamond

“When you’re explaining, you’re losing.” Karl Rove

“You can define what kind of conservative a person is by what year they want to go back to.” David Brooks

Internal coalitions

                In order to be electorally successful, a political party must present a broadly united front to the voting public. The need for unity is paramount because voters tend to associate divided parties with an inability to govern. There are several historical examples of this point, most notably the Democrats in 1968. The party had dominated elections to the White House for a considerable period of time, but by that time the New Deal coalition had fallen apart due to divisions within the party over civil rights. Many southern Democrats were opposed to extending civil rights to African-Americans, whereas others within the party were largely favorable. The 1968 Democrat Party Convention is widely cited as the example par excellence of a party in turmoil. More recently, the 1992 Republican Convention exposed divisions within the party that contributed to George Bush senior losing the subsequent presidential election. Indeed, Bush senior remains the only incumbent president to lose an election since 1980.

                For many years, it was widely held that divisions within the two main parties in America were as great at the divisions between the main parties. Both main parties were catch-all in character, thereby encompassing a very wide range of beliefs and opinions. The most electorally successful coalition of the twentieth century (the New Deal) was based upon a coalition of support that incorporated groups with contrasting interests and values. Equally, the GOP often brought together a disparate band of supporters. In the contemporary era, divisions between the parties are more pronounced than those within them. Indeed, the real contest can often be during a party’s primary campaign.

                When seeking to promote a particular cause or objective, members of Congress will form together within a caucus. These may be of an ideological character (such as the Tea Party caucus) or a shared background (such as the black caucus or the women’s caucus). Many ideological caucuses consist of members from one particular party, although this is not entirely the case given the relatively weak character of party labels in the states. To some extent, the very existence of congressional caucuses exposes the breadth of divisions within the two parties. That said; congressional caucuses can lead to Republicans and Democrats working together where shared interests are identified.

                Internal coalitions are invariably brought to light during the race for the presidential nomination. In 2012, the various strands of conservatism within the GOP were represented by those figures contesting the Republican nomination (such as the social conservatism of Rick Santorum and the fiscal conservatism of Ron Paul). The same could be said of the Democrats in 2004, when moderate figures such as John Kerry fought off challenges from the left of the party. One of the issues party managers need to be wary of is that a lengthy primary campaign can expose ideological divisions to the public. This can be very damaging to the party brand. In order to avoid this, the party elite will seek to endorse the candidate most likely to win the presidential election. This is often the more moderate candidate, although not in every situation. It is also important for the candidate who gains the party nomination to appeal to the party base and moderate/independents. 

New Right

                The New Right emerged during the 1960s as a reaction to the dominance of social liberalism within the states. It opposed the massive increase in the scope and scale of the federal government under the Johnson administration, and sought to counter the emergence of the permissive society. The New Right argued that an expansion in the role of government was un-American. It undermined the whole idea of personal responsibility, and created a dependency culture in which people saw themselves as victims in need of help rather than individuals free to live out the American Dream. The New Right also claimed that society was being undermined by a variety of progressive forces ranging from feminism to gay liberation. The mission statement of the New Right could be said to 'rescue America from the moral pollution of liberal-secularism.'

                As the term implies, the New Right seeks to inject a new energy and direction into right-wing ideology. There are two broad elements to this. Firstly, the New Right adopts a libertarian view on economic policy. This school of thought favors policies such as privatization and de-regulation, claiming that the marketplace should be liberated from the dead hand of the state. In doing so, they share much ground with classical liberals (M. Friedman, 1980). In terms of social issues, the New Right is opposed to social liberalism. It seeks to emphasize traditional family values in order to restore a sense of personal responsibility.

                A key moment in the development of the New Right occurred during the candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Although heavily defeated in that particular election, his small government philosophy had a significant and lasting impact upon the Republican Party. Goldwater claimed that years of social liberalism had gradually eroded the moral fiber of the country. He also argued that the actions of the federal government had contributed to high levels of inflation. As with many visionaries, Goldwater offered a package that was years ahead of its time. By 1968, Richard Nixon incorporated several elements of New Right thinking into his ultimately successful bid for the presidency. The language he adopted whilst campaigning (emphasizing the law-abiding silent majority) appealed to a vast swathe of the electorate who felt uneasy at the rapid changes that swept through the country during the turbulent 1960s.

                The New Right maintained its influence within the GOP during the 1970s, but it took the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 to mark a turning point in its fortunes. The Reagan administration boldly sought to implement a full-scale conservative revolution. Gone were the days of liberal-lite governance in the style of Eisenhower and Nixon. Reagan exemplified the new southern-fried Bible-quoting Republican who believed passionately in New Right philosophy. Under the Reagan (and Bush senior) years the New Right was the dominant intellectual force in the states. The role of the state within the economy was rolled back, taxes were reduced and traditional values were very much the order of the day. The conservative revolution was maintained under George W. Bush, primarily with the emphasis upon religious values. However, Bush junior greatly expanded the role of the state. Indeed, the increase in federal spending was higher than at any time since the 1970s.

                The New Right remains a salient force within the Republican Party on the basis of social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. The Tea party movement is certainly a reflection of New Right thinking, principally in terms of seeking to lower government spending. Many within the Tea Party also seek to reassert traditional moral values, although the primary focus of the movement is upon economic policy. Whilst it supporters would claim the organization brings together true patriots, it opponents claim that the Tea Party represents a reaction against the country America is becoming; one that is less Christian, less white and above all less homogenous.

Party decline or party renewal?

                When seeking to assess the relative strength of political parties, it is commonplace to employ the dichotomy of party decline and party renewal. As one might anticipate, there is evidence to support both sides of the debate. The party decline thesis stems from work undertaken by the respected political commentator David Broder (1972). He claimed that the 'party was over' because political parties were in a state of decline. His argument can be summarized into four key points.

                Firstly, campaigns had become more candidate-centered. Voting behavior was increasingly shaped by the view of candidates rather than parties. Secondly, parties had lost influence over the process of candidate selection. It was those who voted during the primary season, rather than the party bosses; that now shaped the nomination process. The old practice of party bosses colluding together over their preferred candidate, with back-room negotiations and procedural wrangling over the number of delegates awarded and who is eligible to vote; was replaced by a more democratic system. Thirdly, the role of parties over political education was seen to be in decline. Candidates increasingly marginalized party gatherings in preference for direct communication with the media. Moreover, voters increasingly gained their political information from advocacy groups rather than political parties. Finally, parties had lost much of their ability to provide money to candidates. In summary, the influence of party organizations and activists had therefore been eclipsed by the combined role played by the candidates, the public and the media.

                The party renewal argument emerged as a response to the party decline thesis first put forward by Broder. Central to the counter-argument is the view that Broder may have simply reflected the time in which he was writing, rather than identifying a particular long-term trend. There are several persuasive points that could be used to challenge Broder’s initial thesis. To begin with, parties have actually gained greater influence over the nominating process since the 1970s. A good illustration of this point is the use of super delegates that have no prior commitment to a candidate. As unpledged delegates, they are able to exert some level of peer review on behalf of the party hierarchy upon potential nominees. Indeed, the party leadership has played some role in supporting recent presidential candidates (as with Romney in 2012). The party leadership may also intervene in a primary contest for a congressional seat.

Another persuasive point to back up the party renewal claim is the growing degree of partisanship within Congress. It could also be argued that both parties have nationalized their campaign strategy to some degree. This is most noticeable during congressional mid-terms, such as the Republican ‘Contract with America’ in 1994 and the Democrats ‘Six for ’06.’ The GOP continued this trend with their ‘Pledge to America’ in 2010. It should also be noted that both main parties have modernized their national party structure. In doing so, the central committees from both major parties exert greater influence than they did during the 1970s. For instance, the national committees from both the Republicans and the Democrats can impose sanctions upon parties at the state level during the primary season. For instance, in 2012 the RNC prevented any state from holding a winner-takes-all contest before the first day of April. Finally, the argument concerning party decline was perhaps exaggerated given the extent to which elected office is dominated by the ‘Republicrats.’ Indeed, the whole thesis looks increasingly old-fashioned given the passage of time and the evidence in favor of party renewal.

                It must of course be recognized here that the founding fathers sought to prevent the emergence of strong political parties. In the words of our first ever President, “there is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties.” The whole emphasis of the Constitution is upon preventing the possibility of powerful forces imposing populist measures within the states. Indeed, it seems reasonable to conclude that the founding fathers would be horrified at the relative strength of political parties in the contemporary era. The federalist structure also serves to weaken the influence of the national party committees. Parties are organized primarily upon a state-wide basis rather than on a nationwide approach. Whilst strong political parties can exist within a federal system, this is not the case in a country with a culture of states’ rights underpinned by constitutional protection of those rights via the tenth amendment.

                The 2012 electoral contest supports both sides of the debate. Team Obama and Team Romney needed the support of party activists and the party organization itself in order to mobilize support and secure funds. That said; the majority of campaign finance was raised independently of the party label by the candidates themselves. Moreover, the relative unity of the parties should also be considered. The Democrats put forward a fairly unified message, although some senior figures chose not to attend the convention in order to place distance between themselves and the President. The Republicans were also relatively united, although Chris Christie arguably went ‘off message’ over Obama’s visit to New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. It remains to be seen how 2016 pads out ...

In summary, it seems reasonable to claim that the strength of political parties is not an immutable concept, an observation that is central towards placing Broder’s initial thesis into a meaningful historical context. Party decline/renewal is also very difficult to accurately measure, although that is the natural order of things within political debate. 

Political advertising

 

The aim of a political advert is to simplify the message in order that the majority of the public can properly understand and support it. Political advertising only works to the extent that it speaks to the voters’ political interests and beliefs, and to the extent that it resonates with voters’ predispositions. When considering political advertising, it must be acknowledged that parties and candidates will always do better on those issues where their party is considered to hold a strong card. For instance, the GOP will tend to highlight national security whereas Democrats might center upon education and health. Political advertisers cannot drastically turn around voter’s preconceived notions; even if they actually wanted to. Those who work in political advertising are only salesman, and they cannot persuade the public if the product is faulty in some way. Ultimately, advertisers cannot sell the package when voters don't believe in the package. For example, Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election because voters perceived the Republican candidate as out-of-touch with ordinary people.

 

One of the consequences of political advertising is that it can actually deter voters. Attack ads tend to appeal towards partisan voters who would probably vote anyway; whilst dissuading independent voters, a vitally important section of the electorate; from voting. Studies have shown that attack ads produce a significant drop in the propensity of independents to turn out and vote. Negative adverts also exacerbate the gap between progressives and conservatives; painting the opposing side in a crude fashion. Negative adverting thereby polarizes and deters voters (Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1995).

 

Another issue to consider is that candidates are just as likely to win by shrinking the electorate as enlarging the electorate. This is more pronounced on the Republican side, as older people are the most likely to vote and are more likely to endorse the GOP. Either way, there is a very clear incentive to employ negative advertising as it motivates those with the strongest propensity to vote. Politicians can ultimately do nothing without power, and must face the unpleasant truth that the pursuit of power requires them to engage in the dark arts of spin. Inevitably, they may have to trade a few low punches.

 

A further consequence of political advertising is that it makes the task of reaching out beyond the aisle more problematic. Even a seemingly necessary and sensible proposal; such as Obama’s job creation legislation in 2011, was rejected by Congress. Bipartisan compromise is made more difficult when politicians feel vulnerable to attacks ads that might take their words and actions out of context. It is relatively easy to portray a politician in a negative sense in the short confines of an advertisement. This is exacerbated when that politician/party already has a negative image. An incumbent is also vulnerable to attack from the party base during a primary, which again makes the search for bipartisan compromise also more difficult.

 

                Politics is a mixture of both style and substance; and one can only grasp politics by giving weight to the study of both. Politicians are styled and packaged in order to appeal to as many voters as possible. Moreover, politics is advertised much like any other product. Political advertisers typically work on Madison Avenue and are somewhat detached from the reality of everyday life on Main Street. In doing so, they may have exacerbated tensions between them and us within the political process. Political discourse is thereby shaped by professional politicians and ad-men; two groups within society caricatured as being 'elastic with the truth' and living outside the 'reality-based community.'

 

Party branding

 

                Party strategies must promote their brand in a marketplace where the customer (i.e. the voter) effectively has a choice of two packages. To achieve this, it is necessary to paint your opponents as unfit to govern in some manner whilst neutralizing the negatives associated with your party’s brand. Since the 1990s, there are two examples one might consider. The first is the emergence of the third way associated with new Democrats (Giddens, 1998). The other is the term compassionate conservatism as used by the Republicans during the noughties. It is interesting to note that both strategies paid electoral dividends for the party in question; which of course was the whole point of the exercise.

 

                The third way was taken up by the new Democrats as a means of rebranding the party after the wilderness years of the 1980s. The third way marked an attempt to modify the central tenants of center-left thinking within the broader realities of globalization. The third way was a global movement amongst center-left parties in the UK, Germany and Scandinavia. Central to the third way strategy amongst the Democrats was the role played by Dick Morris. He was the architect of triangulation in which the party adopted a limited number of popular right-wing policies in order to neutralize certain negatives. For instance, Bill Clinton championed the ‘three strikes and you are out’ policy in order to tackle concerns that the party was soft on crime. Equally, the new Democrats supported supply-side economics in order to counter the claim that the party was anti-business.

 

                At the time, triangulation seemed little more than a strategic measure to get the party back in power. However, during the Clinton presidency (Branch, 2009) figures on the left of the party claimed that the new Democrats had moved too far towards the center. This is a common narrative amongst any party’s rank-and-file when the leadership seeks electoral advantage by shifting the party towards the vital center. Left-wing figures within the party (notably Howard Dean in 2004 and Bernie Sanders at the present time) have sought to move the party back towards its natural home. Although Obama could not be classed as a new Democrat, similar criticisms have been made against his administration.

 

                Compassionate conservatism was in part inspired by the electoral strategy of triangulation. It sought to rebrand the GOP and thereby neutralize the negatives associated with the party. This is most obvious in the context of the term “compassionate.” Conservatives were seen as apologists for a callous marketplace in which individuals were left to fend for themselves. Whilst something of a caricature, the Republican Party had become tarnished by an image built up during the Reagan, Bush and Gingrich years. Compassionate conservatism was championed by George W. Bush in order to maintain the momentum behind the conservative revolution first launched by Ronald Reagan.

 

Compassionate conservatism sought to reassure the conservative base whilst reaching out towards Latinos and other minority groups not traditionally associated with the GOP. Values voters formed the bedrock of the Bush administration, and the strategy certainly paid electoral dividends in a manner comparable with the third way approach of the new Democrats. However, compassionate conservatism also ran into the exact same problems faced by the third way approach. Those on the right of the party become increasingly critical of compassionate conservatism, principally in terms of government spending. Under a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, the role of the state increased significantly. Funding two major wars, expanding Medicaid and providing federal funds for the No Child Left Behind policy all greatly increased the level of government spending. Unsurprisingly, this big government approach provoked criticism from fiscal conservatives within the GOP.

 

                Marketing labels are transient in character, and both the third way and compassionate conservatism are now somewhat dated.  Frankly, that is the nature of marketing labels.Whilst they serve a purpose in terms of helping a candidate gain elected office, they do not have the same longevity as a major ideological shift in a political party. It is therefore misleading to compare say the New Deal with compassionate conservatism. The former ushered in a genuine re-alignment within American politics, whereas the latter was essentially a strategy adopted by George W. Bush to secure elected office.

 

                At the time of writing, it is the Democrats who have the stronger brand. They are broadly united behind the Obama administration, a situation that could rarely be said of the party in the recent past. The Republicans however seem unsure as to which year to take the country back to. Social conservatives favor the Eisenhower era of traditional families and white-picket fences, whereas fiscal conservatives would love to take the country back to the 1980s. The party has also been tainted by an association with obstructionist politics under the Obama administration, notably House Republicans. Indeed, during the budget stand-off of October 2013 it was the Republicans who came off worse.

Neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism

 

                The term ‘neo’ is widely used within political discourse to signify a new trend. As such, neo-liberalism (Nozick, 1974) marks a modified version of liberal thought whereas neo-conservatism (Fukuyama, 2006; Huntingdon, 2002) reflects a modern take on conservative values. The distinction between the two is an important one to make. Although a slight over-simplification, the dividing line gravitates towards the proper role of the state. Both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are more likely to be found within the GOP than the Democrats. Third parties might also be considered (such as the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party), alongside pressure groups such as Americans for Tax Reform and Club for Growth.

 

                Neo-liberalism seeks to update the core elements of classical liberal thought. By the 50s and 60s, classical liberalism had been eclipsed by the hegemony of social liberalism within the states. Neo-liberalism thereby sought to recognize the changing parameters of ideological debate whilst seeking to modify the central elements of classical liberalism. By the 1980s, neo-liberalism had gained prominence within the Reagan administration (Mervin, 1990). Both Reagan and Bush senior sought to reduce the level of state interference within the economy. After an era of Republican hegemony in the White House, new Democrats broadly continued the neo-liberal economic package of de-regulation and privatization. In the contemporary era, neo-liberalism can be located amongst libertarian figures within the GOP. Those figures aligned to the Tea Party movement seek to keep the neo-liberal spirit alive at a time of rising government debt.

 

                Neo-conservatives focus less on economic policy and more on foreign policy. Whereas a neo-liberal seeks to reduce the role of the state within the economy, neo-conservatives seek to mobilize the state in order to make the world safe for democracy. Neo-conservatives believe that America must use its considerable military arsenal in order to combat the threat of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. The influence of neo-conservatism reached a peak during the noughties under a Republican administration. So whereas a neo-liberal could be depicted as a fiscal hawk, a neo-conservative favors a hawkish stance on foreign affairs.

 

                Both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism have to some extent been tainted by policy failures. In the case of neo-liberalism, the credit crunch is associated in the popular mindset with de-regulation of the financial services industry (Soros, 2008; Tett, 2010). Although America is fundamentally a capitalist country, it may take some time before voters are once again prepared to support an unregulated marketplace in the context of financial institutions. Similarly, neo-conservatism has become tainted by association with the costly quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan (Woodward, 2003 and 2008). Moreover, the Obama administration has achieved some degree of success in terms of portraying their Republican opponents as apologists for the discredited policies of the past.

 

                For neo-conservatives, the size of the government is clearly of some importance. However, of greater significance to them is the moral character of the American people. Neo-cons are opposed to government schemes that undermine personal responsibility and civic action, but they do actively support programs that might reinforce such values. Neo-cons also recognize that everyone at times may need a helping hand, although they are certainly opposed to an ever-expanding government that shields people from accepting responsibility for their actions. Unlike elements of the religious right, they seek to avoid an explicit reference to religion in terms of their ideological worldview. Unlike certain strands of conservatism, neo-cons also place a greater emphasis upon empirical research.

Ideological trends within the main parties

                Both main parties have undergone something of a transformation in terms of ideology. Beginning with the Democrats, the party appealed to a number of disparate groups under the New Deal. African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, white liberals and white southern conservatives all gained in some way from the New Deal. The collapse of the New Deal hurt the party badly, to the extent that they won just one presidential election from 1968 to 1992. During the 1980s, the party engaged in a prolonged period of soul-searching that led to a change of emphasis under new Democrats such as Gore and Clinton. They offered a clear prescription to the problems afflicting the party, and identified a practical path towards power. Whilst this approach could never win over all sections of the party, it certainly provided electoral success. It must however be noted that Clinton was helped considerably by the spoiler effect attributed to Ross Perot.

                Perhaps Clinton’s lasting achievement was that he managed to hold together what Jesse Jackson once called the rainbow coalition and secure a second-term; the first Democrat to do so since FDR. Amongst the electorate, Clinton showed that the Democrats could govern effectively and rise above internal divisions. However, splits within the party would resurface during the 2004 campaign; when Howard Dean caught the spirit of the time with his incendiary claim to represent “the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.” Dean captured the sense of disappointment shared by those on the left of the party had felt under the Clinton/Gore years.

By 2008, the various ideological elements of the party were once again on full show. Obama however has managed to skillfully avoid the pitfalls presented by ideological conflict within the party by pleasing both new Democrats and liberal Democrats. Like Clinton, Obama intuitively understands that a political party will usually hold together and present a united front when it either has power or has the prospect of gaining power. In opposition, ideological tensions can become more visceral as the various groups seek to direct the party in their preferred direction. On this point, the party is barely recognizable from the one cast into the electoral wilderness during the late-1960s.

                The ideological trend within the Republican Party is easier to identify, as the party has clearly shifted to the right since the 1970s. Under the Nixon presidency, social conservatives became disenchanted by the spread of a permissive society, the failure of Nixon’s war on drugs and by a number of liberal judgments reached by the Supreme Court. For their part, fiscal conservatives were disappointed at the Keynesianism adopted by the Nixon administration. As such, conservatives within the party sought to reassert their influence, and by the start of the 1980s; they had found their heroic cowboy. Ronald Reagan's administration was unmistakably conservative on a wide variety of issues, although as with any administration some compromise was inevitable.

                By the early-1990s, there was growing unrest amongst social conservatives at the patrician policies of Bush senior and a failure to tackle a variety of social issues such as teenage pregnancy, welfare dependency, gang violence and so on. Social conservatives sought to place religion at the center of the GOP’s strategy, and over time they succeeded in moving the party towards the right. Although more of a pragmatist than sometimes portrayed by his opponents, George W. Bush was plainly a social conservative and one who thought religion offered a righteous path towards strengthening American families and our sense of individual responsibility. However, he disappointed fiscal conservatives due to an increase in government spending. 

                In the post-Bush era, the Tea Party has sought to move the GOP still further to the right on economic matters. As a measure of how much the party has changed, it is worth noting that Richard Nixon would no longer be a mainstream figure within the modern Republican Party; such has been the shift in the party towards the right. Policies that were very much at the margins of the GOP during the Nixon era (such as privatization of social security, staunch opposition to abortion, de-regulation and opposition to federal funding for stem-cell research) are now very much part of the Republican mainstream.