In the NYT, Peter Baker writes,
Although elected as a Republican last year, Mr. Trump has shown in the nearly eight months in office that he is, in many ways, the first independent to hold the presidency since the advent of the current two-party system around the time of the Civil War.
If so, that is because the two-party system has fractured. Of course, the U.S. electoral system is highly conducive to two parties. But I would say that right now there are four.
1. Hard left. Sees socialism as a term with positive connotations and capitalism as a term with negative connotations. Does not see anything wrong with refusing to allow conservatives to speak in public.
2. Bobo center. Strongly favors lenience on immigration. Liberal on social policy. Generally content with the status quo on most economic issues, but worried about inequality.
3. Anti-Bobo heartland. Strongly favors restrictive immigration policy and “America first” foreign policy and trade policy. Very suspicious of the other three parties.
4. Conservatarians, meaning conservative-flavored libertarians or libertarian-flavored conservatives. I don’t count the fringe folks on the alt-right–they are electorally irrelevant and out of the picture. There are some Republicans in Congress who are conservatarians, but not any that I know of on the alt-right. Conservatarians worry about unsustainable fiscal policy, the power of the regulatory state, and a loss of key values, such as individual responsibility and respect for freedom of speech.
Note that you might not consider yourself to be in any one of these parties. Note that in the wake of the Trump ascendancy many libertarians feel more comfortable in the Bobo center. But I am more comfortable with the conservatarian crowd.
The Democratic Party is a fragile coalition of the hard left and the Bobo center (plus some ethnic groups that may or may not be reliably Democratic going forward). The Republican Party is an even more fragile coalition of the anti-Bobo heartland and conservatarians. Individually, none of these four parties is anywhere close to a majority. Even a landslide win in 2020 by Democrats (or, less plausibly, by Republicans) will not mean that a majority favors anyone’s agenda.
With the debt ceiling deal, President Trump showed a willingness to break with the conservatarians. My guess is that they will end up patching things up and working together, but the message that the President is sending is that he thinks that the conservatarians need him more than he needs them.
There is a good chance that the Democratic nominee in 2020 will cater to the hard left. If so, then this will give the Bobo center the sort of discomfort that the conservatarians feel with the Trump phenomenon. William Galston’s recent piece foreshadows this. It will also make it difficult for the conservatarians to abandon Mr. Trump.
I’m curious as to how big you think these groups are. And why these groups in particular? Is this really what defines them ? I think you’ve basically cross sectioned people by vaguely held ideas instead of demographics. Demographics works similarly and is more intuitive to me.
Leans Under 30, single, urban, leans minority and female, low end of professional work:
Anti-bill of rights, pro free stuff, pro taxes. Very concerned with “social justice” and Tumblr. BLM, refuses to denounce Antifa, etc. Jon Oliver’s demographic. 30%
Leans Under 35, urban, leans married and male and white/Asian, mid to high end of professional work. STEM or finance. High end math ability. Libertarian, for obscure utilitarian reasons (Scott Sumner) or even more obscure first principle reasons (Bryan Caplan). 2-5%
30-70, married, professional and nonprofessional, reads the paper maybe once a week. Busy with work, kids, life in general. Tribally affiliates with their neighbors, whomever that happens to be. Politics is more something that happens every 4 years than anything else. Culturally fits in with their community. 50%
40+, leans male, religious, blue collar, rural, but includes white Protestant and Jewish professional males, who are the voice of the movement. Runs the gamut from homophobic and racist to uncomfortable with people who are different/in favor of group punishment. Nostalgic for a mythical golden age in Americana where jobs were plentiful and people saluted the flag. Theoretically in favor of the bill of rights, but anti-abortion, privacy, Miranda rights, etc. 15%
How far apart are we in our estimates ?
i assume by these estimates you are only including the politically active. group one is highly mobilized, highly concentrated in urban areas and has less depth than group four, which is more widely dispersed and can punch above its weight electorally when it’s inactives are rallied
two things
1) as a non american i’m confused as to how the president can do a deal with the minority faction
how does that work?
because I thought he only has veto rights but can’t actually vote or even propose legislation
2) it looks like a lot of the republican politicians don’t belong to any of the 4 parties
they are Big Government and Big Business friendly so they support tax cuts but not budget cuts or deregulation, kinda socialy liberal and fanatically pro illegal low skill immigration from latin america while being indifferent or even anti legal immigration
am I seeing it right or am I reading too much Breitbart and Instapundit
For 1), American party discipline is not as strong as in other countries. So when people say that Trump is doing a deal with Democrats, it really means “Trump + Democrats + about a third to a half of the Republicans”. That makes a majority in the legislature, which allows laws to pass, and which Trump will then sign.
If the Republicans could exercise proper party discipline, then Trump could not deal with the Democrats. Of course, in that case, the Republicans might actually be able to pass meaningful legislation.
Actually, one of the interesting things about American politics is that over the last decade or two, the Democratic side has become extremely disciplined in voting, even in things like the Supreme Court.
I’m an American, and I had the same question as konshtok. I don’t buy the narrative that Trump has or plans to “cut deals” with the Democrats while “bypassing” Republicans. If Ryan and McConnell truly objected to the spending and debt limit deals, then they would not have allowed a vote in Congress. Similarly for DACA, if or when a deal is reached.
Rather, Ryan and McConnell know they need to compromise on matters that require 60 votes in the Senate. However, compromising draws ire from the party base, especially the anti-Bobo heartland. I think they are playing some good cop/bad cop, where Ryan and McConnell agree to unpopular (with Republicans) measures, while claiming that Trump made them do it. Trump is inoculated from anti-Bobo heartland ire because he is their guy (like Nixon opening China).
Whether Trump is an “independent” is irrelevant because Republicans control Congress. konshtok is correct that there is no such thing as the President making a deal with the Minority in Congress. The Majority makes deals with the Minority in the Senate (to get to 60 votes), and the President makes deals with the Majority in Congress. Obama could have made all the deals he wanted with Pelosi and Schumer, but they wouldn’t have passed in the Republican Congress.
Incidentally, the debt limit and spending deals may not have been the slam dunk Democratic victories as originally reported. Clearing those items from the agenda now gives Republicans a non-negligible chance to pass Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal by the Sep. 30 deadline. Also, McConnell wrote the bill in such a way that the Treasury can use “extraordinary measures” to avoid needing to raise the limit in December, which Republicans wanted to avoid. That strengthens the case that Trump did not “bypass” Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats.
The president can’t vote or propose legislation, but it is trivially easy for him to get members of the legislature to propose legislation for him. Since he is the head of the executive branch, he has thousands of people ready, willing, and able to write proposed legislation.
And since there are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives but only one president, he is able to command attention for any legislation he considers important. The president can also do various things to affect the re-election chances of incumbents, which gives him additional power over legislation.
nice post.
I think of the bobo-center as having much overlap with the “Dream Hoarders” as Richard Reeves calls them. And much overlap with “blue state.” Also includes “Jessica Yogamat” as I think Mark Lilla characterized her.
some of the anti-bobo heartland is “Reagan Democrat” or Archie Bunker / Joe Sixpack. Also just rural red state, both south and midwest. Come to think of it, the Upper Mississippi Valley is very mysterious in the sense that it is competitive–the Quad Cities counties are paradigmatically a “toss-up” area.
I’ll stop this post before I start blathering. But I recall the notion that many conservatarians are driven to their outlook by running a business. As soon as you run a business you just want to be left alone. If you think the Republicans will leave you alone more than the Democrats, that’s enough to make you reliably Republican.
This last point well described in the book _The right nation_
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/263913.The_Right_Nation
I think Trump is trying to rebuild the Eisenhower coalition, which in your language is a merger between the Bobos and the anti-Bobos. That terminology makes them sound more different than they actually are. I think the anti-immigration sentiment is vastly exaggerated, and Trump is working to take it off the table entirely. (I predict he’ll succeed.)
Neither of the Bobos care about the national debt, nor are the against Big Government (“government serving the people” is how they’d put it). They’re pro-new infrastructure, and they’re pro-national defense. Call all that “America First” if you want.
If Trump is successful with this new centrist coalition, it will rule for a long time–until the country goes bankrupt. (OK, maybe not that long.) Neither the Hard Left (15% of the electorate) nor the ideological Conservatarians (God Bless you–5%) will depose them.
I have never understood why Libertarians are considered more right than left. Why does Arnold mention Conservatarians (which I’ve never hear of), but not Liberaltarians (of which I’ve heard a lot)?
Where’s the Democratic equivalent of Rand Paul or Justin Amash?
I don’t doubt liberaltarians exist; but they have 0 representation in their party.
“Parties” are organized groups.
A problem with the groups listed by Arnold: they may be well-described, but they are *not* organized.
“Parties” follow the Iron Law of Oligarchy set out by Robert Michels.
The oligarchy of the Democrat party, in addition to aging, became highly centralized to control the diverse (often conflicting interests) of its coalition nature. It has now **fragmented,” not simply fractured.
The Republican party has been, and is, composed of diverse (not always symbiotic) regional oligarchies, which were severely fractured (Tea Party) a few years back, but not centralized.
There is no “centralized” oligarchy (power establishment) in the Republican organization – loose coalitions of some (ephemeral) oligarchies are assembled. That’s where the President may have an “outsider” (not independent) role.
The “Residue” of the Democrat oligarchy has no effective regional powers without control of the “purse.” Currently it seems the powers of the regional Republican oligarchies are dependent on the President to be effective, and he on them to be effective.
Interesting times.
Conservatives are far larger than conservatarians. They favor lower taxes, especially for the rich, less regulation, unless it supports their other objectives, less social spending, but more security spending. They only care about deficits to cut social spending. They favor trade to support corporate interests, obsess about unions, and view currency manipulation as a free lunch.
seems to me that 1 is as suspicious of the other parties as is 3. one or the other is necessary to get a ruling majority, but their suspicions (which cross over to paranoid conspiracism among many on both sides) make any and all coalitions inherently unstable.
The alt-right isn’t out of the picture, they are part of the anti-Bobo heartland.
I’m not sure you’re breakdown of the Republican side is quite right though. There doesn’t seem to be a place for “mainstream” moderate Republicans, except to defect and become part of the Bobo center. That’s what this election was all about … Choose between the Bobo center (Hillary) and the anti-Bobo heartland (Trump) ! No other options allowed!
The conservatarians don’t really encompass the religious right either.
There’s actually more like FOUR Republican parties:
1. Anti-Bobo heartland
America first, anti-immigrant, rural, white, working class (Trump)
2. Religious conservatives
You’re traditional protestant evangelical types (Huckabee, Santorum, Carson)
3. Libertarians (conservatarians) (Rand Paul, Cruz)
4. Moderates / Establishment Republicans (Rubio, Bush)
The mainstream of the party, mostly a compromise holding together 1, 2, and 3 with a combination of nationalism on foreign policy, moderate religious conservatism, and libertarian economic policy. Moderates are interested in holding the coalition together and winning elections.
This is why the Republican primary was so fractured – many of the candidates appeal to one or two of these groups but were unable to expand their appeal to all of them. Another problem is that the anti-Bobos and religious conservatives contain a lot of problematic subgroups (i.e. the alt-right), which the moderates don’t like, partly becuase they turn off voters from the Bobo center and thus cost them elections. So now , we have a situation where the anti-Bobo heartland has managed to obtain power, and the other three parties find themselves forced to choose between them and the Bobo center. The religious conservatives seem to have make their peace, the moderates are keeping their mouths shut for now (while perhaps secretly plotting), and the libertarians are angry.