Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:17:45 PM
I have heard recently many bewailing the fact that the number of people identifying as Republicans is shrinking. And, in some sense this may be a bad thing. On the other hand, perhaps in the long run it may be beneficial.
The problem, as I see it, is that both parties have become too fixated on increasing the ranks of the party faithful, thinking that the number of self-identified party member sis the key to winning an election. Forgetting the lesson of "Reagan Democrats" and other cross over victories, they think that managing to hang on to a wide "base" will make them win elections. (The fact is also forgotten that in California, for example, a broad Democrat base still did not allow them to push through various liberal agenda items, meaning that "party faithful" can not be counted upon to support the party line.)
However, this "big tent" approach may actually harm the party more than help. In order to keep this big tent unified, both Democrats and Republicans have been forced to dilute their message, creating a vague, confusing, conflicted message. Whether it is big government Republicans or blue dog Democrats, the inclusion of many outside the traditional party base has made the message quite confused.
And this confused message has been harmful.
As I argued elsewhere, the public may be "centrist", but they are centrist with strong beliefs on either side. They may average out to "middle", but that does not mean they are centrist on specific issues. The public is quite emphatically conservative on some issues, liberal on others. Yet the bland, centrist message the big tent necessitates means that no one speaks for them on these issues, causing general apathy among both the independents and the moderate members of each party. Which may explain why both congress and executive had such low approval ratings during the past two administrations (and why Obama is also showing signs of sinking into lower approval numbers in the foreseeable future). Bland, generic positions dimply do not excite voters.
Likewise, the need to hold together this big tent has allowed relatively small minorities to hold the parties hostage. Afraid of alienating any faction lest the other party's "big tent" prove larger, both parties have tried to appease every minute faction, leading to an even more confused message.
So, perhaps the fragmenting of the Republican party is a good thing. If it allows the Republicans to get back on point, to return to a more coherent message, it is likely they will be able to pick up not only all of their base, but even independents and cross-over voters, while the more dilute, confused Democrat message will still have limited appeal, even among the member of their wide "base".
So, in the long run, a small base may actually mean more, not fewer votes.
POSTSCRIPT
I am sure some on the left think I am trying to "spin" bad news, but I really do believe both parties suffer from their efforts to ensure the largest possible constituency. I think both parties have moved form being more focused, consistent ideological entities into generic, bland, uninteresting "big tents" which have ever less support among the public at large. If they were to both stop aiming at memberships of 50%+ of the public, and instead focus on maintaining a loyal membership of 25-30%, with a platform appealing to a wide range of independents on specific issues, they would probably not just win more votes, but also enjoy a much higher approval rating in polls. And this goes for both parties. I only focus on the Republicans as, at the moment, they are int he ideal situation to put this idea into practice.
In any case, what good is a membership of 50% of registered voters if you can only get a 30% turnout? How much better would be a 30% membership with an 80% turnout, and some independent support as well? Not that I guarantee a make over of the Republican party would have that result, but if it did, would that not be better than the first alternative?