The Young Turks

Thus, the issue now is a realignment back to class divisions in the United States. What is most interesting is how the FDR New Deal coalition is transforming itself into a Republican one. What is so interesting about that is how those who benefitted from the New Deal are running to a party whose explicit mandate is to make null-and-void the New Deal!

I'd argue that those white, lower income voters were always bent on nationalism and values. In the 1930-60s nationalism in the US seemed to been defined in a progressive way, internationalism; talk softly, but carry a big stick. But the Vietnam war seemed to have shattered that progressive nationalism, and foreign policy. The Democrats were given the benefit of foreign policy experience especially the victory of WWII, and Korean War. However, the Democrats overplayed their foreign policy card with Vietnam; much the same way that the current administration ruined the Republican brand of foreign policy strength with Iraq.

The loss of Vietnam seem to have split the country in two, those who felt the war was unnecessary and a waste, and those who felt that elites (particularly liberals) enabled the United States to lose the war, which they felt was winnable. Ever-since then the New Deal Democrats trended to the GOP, epitomized by Reagan's jingoistic, apocalyptic nationalism. Mystified by this new interpretation of nationalism, the New Dealers engaged in what is termed "post-materialist" ; politics, whereby they were caught not by appealing to their economic (material) needs, rather they were captured through "values".

2008 is not 1968, the United States no longer has low employment, no longer sees unlimited growth, no longer see a rising tide for its citizens in terms of rights and economic liberty. The country is transforming again into a third world state, where there are areas of heavy concentration of capital investment and income, and peripheral areas where little opportunities exist. Thus, the country is retreating back to a materialist electorate...but its really not:

Here is where things do not make sense, in terms of rhetoric the GOP and Dems appeal to the opposite class of voters than the ones they court. McCain said he is the biggest "free trader you've ever seen"...this should appeal to those economically advanced areas where foreign competition is not a great issue. Obama tends to be more protectionist, even questioning NAFTA, which should appeal to the New Dealers...but it is not.

What I think is making the difference is an issue of branding. What matters in politics, or at the supermarket is brands. The GOP has made itself into a medieval brand in the eyes of many of the higher educated voters. With its neoconservative interpretation of absolutist interpretation of values, for example marriage, has turned off many of the voters who may agree with it economically. The Democratic brand, of internationalism, cultural relativism appeals to those who know more about the world and each other.

The difference is branding and horizons of thought.

Either way, the Democrats have the growing constituency and in the long run it does not bode well for the GOP. But, 40 years from now another realignment will occur.