CDZ When did so-called "regular folks" head in droves to the Republican Party? And why?

[320 Years of History]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

 

[Pogo]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

It's not like it was a mad or sudden rush. The Republican Party started taking on the interests of the rich and the corporations around the end of the 19th century. Right around the same time, the Democratic Party absorbed the Populism movement, thereby taking on interests of immigrants, minorities and the poor.

Both resulted in fairly strong turnabouts from where they had been a few decades prior.

 

[Holos]

Could you present a clearer picture of these "regular folks" you are aiming to keep as the center of analysis here?

It seems you have provided a general description of political history through varying perspectives without clearly delineating what you perceive to be the "regular folk" (as essentially being apart from any other group association).

Your two last questions refer to the economy, and I think that is a lead to your original question. Are you equating the regular folk to the middle class? Or to an economically unaware class altogether? Could you clarify?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's the consequence of the Faustian bargain republicans struck with the social right more than 40 years ago, along with the Southern Strategy designed to take control of Congress away from democrats.

In the years that followed, bigots, racists, libertarian reactionaries, the TPM, and like extremists infiltrated the ranks of the GOP, this in conjunction with an American society becoming more diverse, inclusive, and accepting of diversity and dissent, generating fear among the reactionary right, causing them to be more extreme and strident in their efforts to resist the change they so feared.

For moderate republicans it became a situation where they couldn't get off the tiger's back, fearful of the extremism, intolerance, and hate they fostered.

Today there remains very few moderate, common sense republicans interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy.

 

[Pogo]

Today there remains very few moderate, common sense republicans interested in sound, responsible governance and public policy.

--- and when such do show up, they're demonized by the rabid as "RINOs". A term which, aside from what it reveals about its user's view of how politics are supposed to work, also exhibits a profound arrogance.

 

[Agit8r]

Bigoted misogynists are not regular folks.

 

[320 Years of History]

Could you present a clearer picture of these "regular folks" you are aiming to keep as the center of analysis here?

It seems you have provided a general description of political history through varying perspectives without clearly delineating what you perceive to be the "regular folk" (as essentially being apart from any other group association).

Your two last questions refer to the economy, and I think that is a lead to your original question. Are you equating the regular folk to the middle class? Or to an economically unaware class altogether? Could you clarify?

"Regular folks" are people who are economically not part of the top 5% of taxpayers.

 

[320 Years of History]

Bigoted misogynists are not regular folks.

I'm sure there are "bigoted misogynists" in both the GOP and Democratic parties. If you want to credibly and cogently here make the case that one or the other is controlled and "owned" (electorally) by that "breed" of American, by all means do so. Otherwise, please leave inflammatory invective/assertion out of the discussion here.

 

[Holos]

Could you present a clearer picture of these "regular folks" you are aiming to keep as the center of analysis here?

It seems you have provided a general description of political history through varying perspectives without clearly delineating what you perceive to be the "regular folk" (as essentially being apart from any other group association).

Your two last questions refer to the economy, and I think that is a lead to your original question. Are you equating the regular folk to the middle class? Or to an economically unaware class altogether? Could you clarify?

"Regular folks" are people who are economically not part of the top 5% of taxpayers.

There is no such thing according to my books. Everyone pays taxes equally if they are invested in the economy.

If you mean, however, the top 5% who are aware of tax procedures, then I may be capable of providing a better analysis for those who are not aware.

 

[320 Years of History]

Could you present a clearer picture of these "regular folks" you are aiming to keep as the center of analysis here?

It seems you have provided a general description of political history through varying perspectives without clearly delineating what you perceive to be the "regular folk" (as essentially being apart from any other group association).

Your two last questions refer to the economy, and I think that is a lead to your original question. Are you equating the regular folk to the middle class? Or to an economically unaware class altogether? Could you clarify?

"Regular folks" are people who are economically not part of the top 5% of taxpayers.

There is no such thing according to my books. Everyone pays taxes equally if they are invested in the economy.

If you mean, however, the top 5% who are aware of tax procedures, then I may be capable of providing a better analysis for those who are not aware.

I meant the members of the top 5% of (taxpaying) households, three quarters of whom had two income earners, had incomes of $166,200 (about 10 times the 2009 US minimum wage) or higher, with the top 10% having incomes well in excess of $100,000. Click on the link if you don't understand that, but please stop being obtuse.

 

[Holos]

Could you present a clearer picture of these "regular folks" you are aiming to keep as the center of analysis here?

It seems you have provided a general description of political history through varying perspectives without clearly delineating what you perceive to be the "regular folk" (as essentially being apart from any other group association).

Your two last questions refer to the economy, and I think that is a lead to your original question. Are you equating the regular folk to the middle class? Or to an economically unaware class altogether? Could you clarify?

"Regular folks" are people who are economically not part of the top 5% of taxpayers.

There is no such thing according to my books. Everyone pays taxes equally if they are invested in the economy.

If you mean, however, the top 5% who are aware of tax procedures, then I may be capable of providing a better analysis for those who are not aware.

I meant the members of the top 5% of (taxpaying) households, three quarters of whom had two income earners, had incomes of $166,200 (about 10 times the 2009 US minimum wage) or higher, with the top 10% having incomes well in excess of $100,000. Click on the link if you don't understand that, but please stop being obtuse.

So your original question is how have people with a household income of less than $150,000 become affiliated with the Republican party?

 

[Elvis Obama]

I think C_Clayton_Jones points to most of the conditions which have, imo, artificially sustained the Republican party. Another reality is many Republicans are the aspirational wealthy. Joe the plumber. The bizarre thing is that Joe's aspirations were all phony. Pure fantasy. He's a con man's dream, and there are plenty like him.

 

[rdean]

race

 

[320 Years of History]

Could you present a clearer picture of these "regular folks" you are aiming to keep as the center of analysis here?

It seems you have provided a general description of political history through varying perspectives without clearly delineating what you perceive to be the "regular folk" (as essentially being apart from any other group association).

Your two last questions refer to the economy, and I think that is a lead to your original question. Are you equating the regular folk to the middle class? Or to an economically unaware class altogether? Could you clarify?

"Regular folks" are people who are economically not part of the top 5% of taxpayers.

There is no such thing according to my books. Everyone pays taxes equally if they are invested in the economy.

If you mean, however, the top 5% who are aware of tax procedures, then I may be capable of providing a better analysis for those who are not aware.

I meant the members of the top 5% of (taxpaying) households, three quarters of whom had two income earners, had incomes of $166,200 (about 10 times the 2009 US minimum wage) or higher, with the top 10% having incomes well in excess of $100,000. Click on the link if you don't understand that, but please stop being obtuse.

So your original question is how have people with a household income of less than $150,000 become affiliated with the Republican party?

No, that is not my original question. Look at the OP and you will see what the original questions are. The OP also contains an implied question, but that's as far as I took it, deliberately. The question about which you asked is "on topic" for the thread and if that's what you want to write about, fine.

FWIW, the thread title question is more thematic than literal. So long as your remarks fit the theme, and speak to plausible and probable realities of the American citizenry, I don't care whom you consider to be "regular folks." If you are going out to "left field" with your presumption of who "regular folks" are, I suggest, for the sake of clarity, that you explain your interpretation of the term in your initial post.

 

[SingleVoyce]

My impression is that your original question was referring to "blue collar" Republicans - people who work for a living and have middle class incomes.

If that was your intent, then I think the short answer is that the Nixon era Republicans managed to create a narrative that said the Democrats had become the party of the African-Americans and that the only hope for the white middle class was to become Republicans. This was the so-called "Southern Strategy" and it has worked well for the Republican party. They have managed to create a divide between lower income whites and blacks based on that narrative so that a group of people who should have common interests based on their socio-economic standing are instead separated into two opposing camps.

The Republicans more recently have also created a similar narrative that has used social and religious issues to bring another group of economically disadvantaged individuals into the party.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This thread doesnt sound sketchy at all...........

 

[Agit8r]

Bigoted misogynists are not regular folks.

I'm sure there are "bigoted misogynists" in both the GOP and Democratic parties. If you want to credibly and cogently here make the case that one or the other is controlled and "owned" (electorally) by that "breed" of American, by all means do so. Otherwise, please leave inflammatory invective/assertion out of the discussion here.

The people new to the GOP are mostly voting for Trump. And the fact that these are not "regular folks" but rather those with antisocial problems, is quite demonstrable.

 

[320 Years of History]

Bigoted misogynists are not regular folks.

I'm sure there are "bigoted misogynists" in both the GOP and Democratic parties. If you want to credibly and cogently here make the case that one or the other is controlled and "owned" (electorally) by that "breed" of American, by all means do so. Otherwise, please leave inflammatory invective/assertion out of the discussion here.

The people new to the GOP are mostly voting for Trump. And the fact that these are not "regular folks" but rather those with antisocial problems, is quite demonstrable.

That may be, and I'm certainly not suggesting it isn't or is. As I shared with Holos, I had something a bit more demonstrable objective in mind with regard to who "regular folks" are. I just as soon refrain from making subjective judgements about the "regular folks" whom I had in mind so that I can then levy them as thinly veiled insults in this discussion. I believe I asked you politely and kindly to refrain from casting similar aspersions much as I have just explained.

 

[oldsoul]

When I was a kid, nearly everyone whom my family routinely associated with were Republicans...Our neighbors, Daddy's close professional associates, Mother's friends, and so on. As I got older, I came to understand why that was. All those folks were business principals and/or members of what I call the "country club and cocktail party set." Then, at some point, droves of so-called "regular" folks cottoned to the Republican Party and its rhetoric.

It may be that the GOP never openly averred its preference for policies that favor the "haves," but, at least when I was young, everyone who was among the "haves" knew damn well that is what the GOP was about. Either something has changed dramatically in substance, or little to nothing has substantively changed, but the rhetoric is delivered with more guile.

Now, I accept Republican rhetoric for what it is; it is what it is, and that's fine. What I don't get is what appeal a party that, in recent times (1950s forward), has been the party of the people who've "made it" has to so-called "regular folks." What has led those folks to perceive that the key policies of that party are designed to actually do them any good. I get that the advocated policies often sound good. I don't see how they actually deliver on their promise as goes folks who don't fit the traditional mold of a Republican. As best as I can tell, the only folks who undoubtedly get richer during Republican controlled Presidencies are folks who are already rich. The thing is that rich folks are going to get richer either way; once one is on "easy street," it's quite hard to "take a wrong turn," as it were.

For example:

• Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration
  
  "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
  
  
  

So, the great influx of "regular folks" into the GOP suggests to me one thing: a heck of a lot of folks have in recent years "made it." Of course, that doesn't seem plausible given all the griping I hear from openly conservative corners....

Now the writers of the paper cited above make an attempt at explaining why the GOP has for the past 60+ years a comparatively poor track record with the economy:

• Serendipity -- Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main causes for the observed trend of superior economic under Democrats. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were, they say, unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.
  
  What is Total Factor Productivity? It is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents, say Blinder and Watson, were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.
  
  Okay...but that sure is a lot of bad luck, if one roots for the GOP and a lot of good luck if the Dems.

Personally, I don't really care what be the cause, serendipity or something else. I care that whatever it is, someone figure out what besides luck accounts for it and do something to change the trend or, if one favors the Dems, widen the gaps shown by the chart above.

By the same token, we know from political science that economic performance is among the most critical success factors in what drives folks to prefer an incumbent President over a newcomer. Blinder and Watson show too that of the things a president (although not necessarily a President plus a sympathetic Congress) cannot greatly control is the economy's performance.

Taking those two facts into consideration, along with the observed trend of success/good luck, one must ask voters:

1. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, use the economy as among their gauges of for which candidate/party they will vote?
2. Why the heck does anyone who's dissatisfied with the U.S.' economic performance at the time of a Presidential election, and who also has the sense God gave a goose, bother voting at all if the person for whom one votes has little to no influence on its actual performance and that is a key factor they "consider" in making their choice?

Looking at the evidence, it seems to me that one who cares about economic growth and prosperity -- be it trickle up or trickle down -- would vote for damn near any candidate other than a Republican. The trend of good fortune, and the combined demonstrable facts of economics and political science all militate against choosing a Republican.

I can speak for noone but myself. While I do not align myself exactly with the Repubilcan party, I do share fundamental beleifs with them. Here is a short rundown of the ideas that I generally agree with most Republicans on:

• the smaller, and less intrusive, government is in day to day life, the better.
• expecting people to take responsibility for themselves is the best way to encourage people to better themselves.
• forcing one group to pay for another, simply because one group has earned more, is wrong.
• no nation has ever spent it's way into prosperity.
• the constitution, while changable, does not change because of the whims of the masses.

Additionaly, I believe that the Democrat party:

• sees the constitution as a document to be interpreted by modern secular opinion instead of the historical context in which it was written.
• engages in "class-warfare". an example is "tax the top 1% more (while taking carve-outs for themselves), and give it to the poor", who have not done what they would need to to earn a better life for themselves.
• government needs to be big enough to protect people from big business.
• "fairness" is the ultimate goal.
• equal outcome is more important than equal opportunity.

These are the fundamental differences I see in the two main parties, and I happen to align more with the Republicans. It just seems more logical to me, and more consistant with the intent of the founders.

 

[oldsoul]

One other thought. Maybe people are aligning with the Republican Party because of issues other than personal wealth enhancement. It just may be that people like the GOP despite their history of being the party of the rich. It just may be that people are starting to realize that the social agenda of the Democratic Party is not so good for them. It could be that the Dems. are seen as weak on foreign policy, whereas the GOP is generally seen as strong. Just a couple of thoughts. I know there are single issue voters out there, I just don't think they make up the majority, at least not for the GOP.