Take a look at the map of states that were won by John McCain and those won by Barack Obama in the 2008 election. It’s pretty clear that Obama won the northeast part of the country and he also won the west coast. McCain pretty much won the south and the west, except for the coast. Besides looking at this as just a map of red and blue states, we can also inquire about the nature of these states. Is there something about the blue states that would inherently indicate that they would lean Democratic while the red states would lean Republican? I think so; it’s the population.
The northeast and the west coast are the most densely populated areas of this country, while the south and the west are farm and ranching areas – generally. Of course there are exceptions like the cities of Dallas and Phoenix. However, I think there is something to be inferred from this distribution of red and blue states that spells disaster for the Republican Party down the road. It’s just like watching an out of control train as it speeds downhill toward a 90 degree turn. You already know what the result will be.
Today, the population of the United States is a little over 307 million people. The majority of these people live in the heavily populated areas of the country, i.e. the northeast and the west coast, and these areas are growing. So why are these areas also the most Democratic parts of the country? And why are the more sparsely populated areas primarily Republican? I think it’s because of the underlying philosophical differences between the two parties. In general the Democratic Party stands for social programs, i.e. people helping people or government helping people. The people who live in our great cities all know one thing: they are interdependent. People in these areas are specialized. They work as doctors or lawyers or breadmakers or car salesmen. Very few, perhaps none of them, can be called self-sufficient and they know it. They know that a complex society can only be successful when all parts of the social system function efficiently. If one part of the system, let’s say the dentists, fall on hard times it will only be a matter of time before a lot of people begin to suffer from tooth aches. Similar problems arise if the bus drivers or the rubbish collectors or the school teachers encounter severe problems – the society needs all of these to function efficiently – and the Democratic Party is oriented towards helping social groups to succeed.
On the other hand, the Republican Party has chosen to make itself the party of the rugged individualist. The rancher, the farmer, the business owner, people who have to be self-sufficient or nearly so are the targets of the Republican Party. People who live far from the centers of society and have no opportunity to partake of the social programs in the cities are drawn to the Republican message of self-sufficiency. One of the problems the Republican’s face is that this group naturally also contains the lunatic fringe, the self-absorbed, the isolationists, and the paranoid. It also contains the misanthropes, the extremely greedy, and the ultra-wealthy, self-absorbed, self-appointed aristocracy of America who have little use for the common people or the laws of the land, which are clearly written for the peons to follow and not them. The Republican Party has become an odd group of followers of Limbaugh and Beck, O’Reilly and Palin, McCain and Bachmann. But what is their message? Is there anything that this menagerie actually stands for? Or is it just the Party of “NO!”?
Clearly, the “NO” aspect of the Party is easy to see. It seems they are routinely against anything the Democrats propose – sight unseen. If it’s a Democratic proposal they don’t want it – period. OK. So what are they for? It seems that what they want is less government control of everything. They want to be left alone. They can take care of themselves and they don’t want their taxes raised – they want them lowered, preferably to zero. The rugged individualists of the Republican Party just want to be left alone. This, of course, is especially true of those rugged financial individualists who contrived with George Bush (and by the way Bill Clinton bears responsibility for this too) for the dismantling of the financial controls that had been in place since the Great Depression. This great dismantling was a direct contributor to the screaming nose dive our economy took under President Bush.
Today, and day after day, we hear the Republicans say, over and over again, “NO!” They are against everything President Obama wants to do. The thing is this: the demographics of this country are changing. Fewer and fewer people are living independently on farms and ranches. Not everyone can own a small business. Not everyone can be a stock market tycoon or a brain surgeon or a doctor. Most people are average (by definition, I suppose) and they get average jobs and live in average places – which has become the northeast and the west coast. In other words, the Republican base is shrinking and will continue to shrink, and as it shrinks it will become more shrill and thus the Republican message will become more shrill – but this shrill message can’t attract converts from the Democratic Party. There lies the problem. The Republican train is headed for a wreck – anyone can see it if they just open their eyes. Their message of “leave me alone” appeals to fewer and fewer as our population grows and becomes more and more interdependent. The real problem for the Republicans is that the Republican train is currently being driven by some very odd people who have no business driving trains and who have no idea they are headed for a glorious wreck.
The crash is coming. It’s just a matter of time. It’ll be a huge train wreck, just wait and see.