The GOP and voter anger
President Barack Obamaâs lackluster, letâs-work-together performance in Wednesday nightâs presidential debate stoked the fears of his liberal backers that Democrats simply wonât fight for them the way Republicans relentlessly battle for their wealthier, aging, corporate constituents.
After four years of Republican intransigence âÂ even when Democrats have championed Republican ideas âÂ the Democratic left insists that the White House hasnât grasped that the 2012 campaign is not about policy. So far, Republicans are proving more adept at speaking, in both coded and direct terms, to Americansâ stark demographic and psychological divisions.
That Republican nominee Mitt Romney stood before the nation and all but disowned the tax-cut, Medicare, health policy and other GOP doctrines he had campaigned on for months is likely to matter little to his backers. The last three Republican presidents, as MSNBC commentator Chris Hayes pointed out, also campaigned on promises of economic growth, deficit reduction and tax relief âÂ and all left behind a faltering economy and ballooned deficits. What they reliably delivered was tax cuts benefiting the wealthy.
This campaign showcases the GOPâs ability to feed the anger of a large chunk of aging white Americans whose presumption of âexceptionalismâ inÂ citizenship and nationality is now being challenged by claims of equality for younger, multiracial, immigrant and ânon-traditionalâ Americans âÂ as represented by Obama himself.
The presidentâs continued invocation of âRepublicans and Democrats working togetherâÂ demonstrates the Democrats’ self-destructive course. Post-2008 Republicans, in both congressional votes and campaign statements, have made it clear that their goal isÂ to destroy not just this presidency, but any concept of a society shared among a diverse, multicultural citizenry.
RepublicansâÂ message is keyed to âusâ real Americans versus âthemâ imposters.Â Republicans present their aging, overwhelmingly white, religiously conservative, more affluent constituencies as economically triumphant, morally truer Americans. They are clearly entitled to more private and public beneficence â though they owe none of their success to this.
Consider, delegates at the GOP convention greeted âI Built Itâ singer Lane Turnerâs theme song (âI built it with my own two working hands âŚ every dime I ownâ with âno help from Uncle Samâ) with âroaring delightâ âÂ one of the few eruptions of spontaneous enthusiasm.
Political â and social âÂ analysts may point out the irrational nature of Republican resentment. âNo helpâ from government? In fact, aging, white, affluent Americans have prospered most from government tax and spendingÂ policies in recent years âÂ including Obamaâs. How have they suffered?Â What do they have to beÂ angry and threatened about?
In contrast to Republicansâ fervent odes to themselves as endangered, trueÂ Americans, former President Bill Clintonâs invocation at the Democratic convention of âshared opportunities and shared responsibilitiesâ and First Lady Michelle Obamaâs message of âgratitude and humilityâ (âso many people had a hand in our successâ) hardly calls the faithful to a holy crusade.
To liberal commentators, the GOPâs divisive generational message sounds like gaffe after gaffe âÂ insulting immigrants, attacking the middle class, waging âa war on women,â disdaining âthe 47 percentâ of Americans whom Romney labeled government-dependent freeloaders. But the Republican strategy effectively organizes an old, powerful strategy: demographic panic.
Though the partiesâ electoral bases split along age, gender, racial and immigrant lines, the real division is between those who have chosen to participate in a diverse society they welcome versus those who seek individual autonomy and isolation from modern American changes they fear and resent.
That demographic division âÂ not government size, spending, terrorist attacks, business regulations, jobs, the deficit and other fleeting GOP salvos that change by the week âÂ is the force driving Republican resiliency.
Just look to the voting pattern in Oklahoma City, capital of a crimson-red state. Like most cities, it has experienced massive white flight to the suburbs, offset by the influx of tens of thousands of Latino and Asian immigrants. The 2010 census reveals that multiracial Oklahoma City, where four out of five public-school students are minorities, is surrounded by a vast suburban ring, where 75 percent of the residents are white.
Yet, where a voter lives predicts support for Obama more than race or wealth. In 2008, the cityâs extensive African, Latino, Asian and Native American precincts voted heavily for Obama âÂ no surprise. Conversely, the sprawling suburbs, the gated exurbs and rural communities supported Republican John McCain by 70 to 90 percent blowouts âÂ also no shock.
The big surprise was that once staunchly Republican, central-city mansion districts like Heritage Hills and Crown Heights, dominated by some of the cityâs wealthiest whites, backed Obama by landslide margins.
Wealthy urban whites who choose to live in the central areas of increasingly multiracial Oklahoma City now support not only Obama but also local tax increases to fund major civic improvements, schools and public transit.
If Obamaâs failure to rally poorer and newer Americans proves demoralizing to his young supporters âÂ a crucial constituency that had grown increasingly enthusiastic before the debate, according to the polls âÂ then election night might beÂ gloomy indeed for Democrats.
PHOTO: Audience members bow their heads during an invocation before a campaign rally by Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at PR Machine Works in Mansfield, Ohio, September 10, 2012. REUTERS/Brian Snyder