Whole Foods Republicans?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

maxiep

RIP Dr. Jack
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
28,321
Likes
5,919
Points
113
An argument for a bigger GOP tent.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...88792834312898-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNDExNDQyWj.html

Whole Foods Republicans
The GOP needs to enlist voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics.

By MICHAEL J. PETRILLI

The Republican Party is resurgent—or so goes the conventional wisdom. With its gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey, an energized "tea party" base, and an administration overreaching on health care, climate change and spending, 2010 could shape up to be 1994 all over again.

Maybe. The political landscape sure looks greener than it did a year ago, when talk of a permanent Democratic majority was omnipresent. But before John Boehner starts measuring the drapes in the Speaker's office, or the party exults about its possibilities in 2012, it's worth noting that some of the key trends driving President Barack Obama's strong victory in 2008 haven't disappeared. Republicans need to address them head-on if they want to lead a majority party again.

There are the depressing numbers on young voters (two-thirds of whom voted for Mr. Obama), African-Americans and Latinos (95% and 67% went blue respectively). But these groups have voted Democratic for decades, and their strong turnout in 2008's historic election wasn't replicated this fall, nor is it likely to be replicated again.

The voting patterns of the college-educated is another story. This is a group that, slowly but surely, is growing larger every year. About 30% of Americans 25 and older have at least a bachelor's degree; in 1988 that number was only 20% and in 1968 it was 10%.

As less-educated seniors pass away and better-educated 20- and 30-somethings take their place in the electorate, this bloc will exert growing influence. And here's the distressing news for the GOP: According to exit-poll data, a majority of college-educated voters (53%) pulled the lever for Mr. Obama in 2008—the first time a Democratic candidate has won this key segment since the 1970s.

Some in the GOP see this trend as an opportunity rather than a problem. Let the Democrats have the Starbucks set, goes the thinking, and we'll grab working-class families. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, for instance, wants to embrace "Sam's Club" Republicans. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pitched himself in 2008 as the guy who "looks like your co-worker, not your boss." Even Mitt Romney blasted "Eastern elites." And of course there's Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual.

To be sure, playing to personal identity is hardly novel, nor is it crazy. Bill Bishop and other political analysts have noted that people's politics are as much about their lifestyle choices as their policy positions. Republicans live in exurbs and small towns, drive pick-up trucks or SUVs, go to church every Sunday, and listen to country music. Well-heeled Democrats live in cities and close-in suburbs, drive hybrids or Volvos, hang out at bookshops, and frequent farmers' markets. These are stereotypes, of course, but they also contain some truth.

Widening this cultural divide has long been part of the GOP playbook, going back to Nixon's attacks on "East Coast intellectuals" and forward to candidate Obama's arugula-eating tendencies. But with the white working class shrinking and the educated "creative class" growing, playing the populism card looks like a strategy of subtraction rather than addition. A more enlightened approach would be to go after college-educated voters, to make the GOP safe for smarties again.

What's needed is a full-fledged effort to cultivate "Whole Foods Republicans"—independent-minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics. These highly-educated individuals appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes; they like living in walkable urban environments; they believe in environmental stewardship, community service and a spirit of inclusion. And yes, many shop at Whole Foods, which has become a symbol of progressive affluence but is also a good example of the free enterprise system at work. (Not to mention that its founder is a well-known libertarian who took to these pages to excoriate ObamaCare as inimical to market principles.)

What makes these voters potential Republicans is that, lifestyle choices aside, they view big government with great suspicion. There's no law that someone who enjoys organic food, rides his bike to work, or wants a diverse school for his kids must also believe that the federal government should take over the health-care system or waste money on thousands of social programs with no evidence of effectiveness. Nor do highly educated people have to agree that a strong national defense is harmful to the cause of peace and international cooperation.

So how to woo these voters to the Republican column? The first step is to stop denigrating intelligence and education. President George W. Bush's bantering about being a "C" student may have enamored "the man in the street," but it surely discouraged more than a few "A" students from feeling like part of the team.

The same is true for Mrs. Palin's inability to name a single newspaper she reads. If the GOP doesn't want to be branded the "Party of Stupid," it could stand to nominate more people who can speak eloquently on complicated policy matters.

Even more important is the party's message on divisive social issues. When some Republicans use homophobic language, express thinly disguised contempt toward immigrants, or ridicule heartfelt concerns for the environment, they affront the values of the educated class. And they lose votes they otherwise ought to win.

The races in Virginia and New Jersey show what can happen when the GOP sticks to its core economic message instead of playing wedge politics. Both Republican candidates won majorities of college-educated voters. Their approach attracted Sam's Club Republicans and Whole Foods Republicans alike.

It's good news that America is becoming better educated, more inclusive, and more concerned about the environment. The Republican Party can either catch this wave, or watch its historic opportunity for "resurgence" wash away with the tides.

Mr. Petrilli is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a frequenter of the Whole Foods Market in Silver Spring, Md.
 
What makes these voters potential Republicans is that, lifestyle choices aside, they view big government with great suspicion. There's no law that someone who enjoys organic food, rides his bike to work, or wants a diverse school for his kids must also believe that the federal government should take over the health-care system or waste money on thousands of social programs with no evidence of effectiveness. Nor do highly educated people have to agree that a strong national defense is harmful to the cause of peace and international cooperation.

So how to woo these voters to the Republican column? The first step is to stop denigrating intelligence and education. President George W. Bush's bantering about being a "C" student may have enamored "the man in the street," but it surely discouraged more than a few "A" students from feeling like part of the team.

It sounds like what he's advocating the Republican party go after is cosmopolitan libertarians. That, I think, will be difficult as long as the Republican party clings to opposition to gay marriage. If Republicans are uncompetitive in future generations, it won't be due to small government principles...I think small government principles will always appeal to enough people to be competitive in winning elections. It'll be due to embracing a big government principle that is based in bigotry...trying to prevent gay marriage.

Basically, the Republicans can't go after "progressive lifestyle people who don't have progressive politics" until they remove Big Religion from their platform. Trying to impose Christian values on everyone doesn't appeal to either those with "progressive lifestyles" or libertarians.
 
I'm probably in this demographic. I didn't vote Republican in the last two presidential elections though.
 
It sounds like what he's advocating the Republican party go after is cosmopolitan libertarians. That, I think, will be difficult as long as the Republican party clings to opposition to gay marriage. If Republicans are uncompetitive in future generations, it won't be due to small government principles...I think small government principles will always appeal to enough people to be competitive in winning elections. It'll be due to embracing a big government principle that is based in bigotry...trying to prevent gay marriage.

Basically, the Republicans can't go after "progressive lifestyle people who don't have progressive politics" until they remove Big Religion from their platform. Trying to impose Christian values on everyone doesn't appeal to either those with "progressive lifestyles" or libertarians.

The compromise is to get Government out of the marriage business altogether. If you have civil unions for everyone, but make marriage only something that can be done under the aegis of religion, I think that's a good compromise. But perhaps I think that way because it's my own belief.
 
The compromise is to get Government out of the marriage business altogether. If you have civil unions for everyone, but make marriage only something that can be done under the aegis of religion, I think that's a good compromise. But perhaps I think that way because it's my own belief.

That's been my desired outcome for a while, too.
 
I'm probably in this demographic. I didn't vote Republican in the last two presidential elections though.

Yeah, this article spoke to me because I follow along a lot of these characterizations. I'm not a Republican, but I would become one if they started to put small government and equality first. In other words, it doesn't matter what your color, creed or sexual orientation is, you aren't discriminated against nor do you receive preferential treatment.
 
I don't see how that could work. I agree with the author that there are potential Whole Foods Republicans, but I'm not sure how you win them without losing the support of the current base. Their beliefs aren't compatible. What he is basically proposing is turning the republican party into the libertarian party. Social conservatives aren't going to go along for that ride.

barfo
 
I don't see how that could work. I agree with the author that there are potential Whole Foods Republicans, but I'm not sure how you win them without losing the support of the current base. Their beliefs aren't compatible. What he is basically proposing is turning the republican party into the libertarian party. Social conservatives aren't going to go along for that ride.

barfo

"Personal responsibility" is a pretty big crossover. Also, five of the last eight presidential elections were won with that coalition.
 
"Personal responsibility" is a pretty big crossover. Also, five of the last eight presidential elections were won with that coalition.

Right, it is clear the existing (or recent past) Republican coalition worked. Sounded to me like he was proposing that the coalition be changed, no?

barfo
 
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, foreign policy libertarian, and then a mix of libertarian, liberal, and conservative (so probably an independent) domestic policy wise.

But i've been saying they need to do this for a while. For example, the "purity test" was pure bull shit. The party needs to expand and accept all types of republicans from the right-wing neo-cons to the moderates.
 
If I smell ptuli at the next RNC convention, I'm gonna be pissed...
 
Right, it is clear the existing (or recent past) Republican coalition worked. Sounded to me like he was proposing that the coalition be changed, no?

barfo

It's a "Back To The Future" call to arms. Bring back the people driven away by the Bible Thumpers.
 
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, foreign policy libertarian, and then a mix of libertarian, liberal, and conservative (so probably an independent) domestic policy wise.

But i've been saying they need to do this for a while. For example, the "purity test" was pure bull shit. The party needs to expand and accept all types of republicans from the right-wing neo-cons to the moderates.

No offense, but I don't think you're as fiscally conservative as you think you are. At least by your posts in this insane asylum.
 
No offense, but I don't think you're as fiscally conservative as you think you are. At least by your posts in this insane asylum.

No offense, but I don't think you are as "independent" as you think you are. At least by your posts in this insane asylum.
 
No offense, but I don't think you are as "independent" as you think you are. At least by your posts in this insane asylum.

Sure I am. Being independent doesn't mean being halfway between the Republicans and Democrats. I'm to the right of most Republicans on issues of the size and role of government. I'm to the left of most Democrats in terms of my position on marriage/civil unions. I side with Democrats on the death penalty. With the exception of foreign policy, I tend to be laissez-faire to the extreme, with only a minimal social safety net.

I'm interested in why you think you're "fiscally conservative". Can you cite some examples?
 
I was going to ignore this, but after reading it, I'm impressed that you didn't resort to personal attacks or condescending and passive aggressive remarks to try and belittle.

To simplify it, I'm for a balanced budget. I'm for a surplus. I know everyone is, but if I were running things (lol) I would make cuts from things like defense spending and other bills, including earmarks (for example, I'm against this 1.1TR dollar bill that I think can be cut down). I'm against supporting other countries will billions of dollars a year. For example, I'm against giving Israel so much aid. We fund both sides of the war down there, so I'd prefer we just stopped all together. It leads to a world looking for handouts from a "rich America".

At the same time, I'm absolutely for the government spending to improve education and infrastructure (I'm very much for a large increase to upgrade roads, highways, infrastructure), along with investing in medicine and new technologies such as solar, electric, hydrogen, etc... It is not government spending that I'm worried about as much as it is spending beyond what they should. I think we should reconsider what we spend our money on (if that makes sense).

For health care, pretty much, I'm for a bill that will reduce how much we spend on health care (19% per year of our GDP is it?), and cover as many or more people. I'm not for a bill that would increase government debt at all, even if it would lower premiums and cover more because I think there would obviously be other ways to approach it. I'm not thrilled about expanding government, but I'm in awe that people would call the choice of a restricted access public option a government takeover. I think expanding a current government program is a good way to go.

I could care less whichever party is the one with a good idea. I don't care what party is in office. If they are improving our country and making changes for the better, I will support them. I believe we are all on the same side. It is pretty much whatever is best for the country. It is why I supported Bush for a long time until he lost my trust. It is why I still support Obama, but was deeply disappointed in his Afghan decision which gave me a less favorable opinion of him. But from what I've gathered, it seems that (many on) the right seem happier to have America suffer during Obama's term, and then re-capture the white house and do it their way and succeed that way. It caused me to lose a lot of respect for them. I think it is a very partisan perspective, and it puts their particular political party ahead of the overall country's goals.

Another thing I disagree with Obama on (other than Afghanistan), is the amount of spending. But at the same time, you have to look at the facts and see what the budget would be with anyone in office. There was a pretty good sized debt, that was going to continue to grow with or without Obama. That was part of the article I posted when Reagan's domestic adviser talked about taxes and the debt -- he broke down the situation of American debt.

Hopefully that explains my stance. How about yourself?
 
Last edited:
I was going to ignore this, but after reading it, I'm impressed that you didn't resort to personal attacks or condescending and passive aggressive remarks to try and belittle.

I'm trying to be better on that account.

To simplify it, I'm for a balanced budget. I'm for a surplus. I know everyone is, but if I were running things (lol) I would make cuts from things like defense spending and other bills, including earmarks (for example, I'm against this 1.1TR dollar bill that I think can be cut down). I'm against supporting other countries will billions of dollars a year. For example, I'm against giving Israel so much aid. We fund both sides of the war down there, so I'd prefer we just stopped all together. It leads to a world looking for handouts from a "rich America".

At the same time, I'm absolutely for the government spending to improve education and infrastructure (I'm very much for a large increase to upgrade roads, highways, infrastructure), along with investing in medicine and new technologies such as solar, electric, hydrogen, etc... It is not government spending that I'm worried about as much as it is spending beyond what they should. I think we should reconsider what we spend our money on (if that makes sense).

For health care, pretty much, I'm for a bill that will reduce how much we spend on health care (19% per year of our GDP is it?), and cover as many or more people. I'm not for a bill that would increase government debt at all, even if it would lower premiums and cover more because I think there would obviously be other ways to approach it. I'm not thrilled about expanding government, but I'm in awe that people would call the choice of a restricted access public option a government takeover. I think expanding a current government program is a good way to go.

I could care less whichever party is the one with a good idea. I don't care what party is in office. If they are improving our country and making changes for the better, I will support them. I believe we are all on the same side. It is pretty much whatever is best for the country. It is why I supported Bush for a long time until he lost my trust. It is why I still support Obama, but was deeply disappointed in his Afghan decision which gave me a less favorable opinion of him. But from what I've gathered, it seems that (many on) the right seem happier to have America suffer during Obama's term, and then re-capture the white house and do it their way and succeed that way. It caused me to lose a lot of respect for them. I think it is a very partisan perspective, and it puts their particular political party ahead of the overall country's goals.

Another thing I disagree with Obama on (other than Afghanistan), is the amount of spending. But at the same time, you have to look at the facts and see what the budget would be with anyone in office. There was a pretty good sized debt, that was going to continue to grow with or without Obama. That was part of the article I posted when Reagan's domestic adviser talked about taxes and the debt -- he broke down the situation of American debt.

Hopefully that explains my stance. How about yourself?

I want the following things to occur:

1. Any tax increase gets applied to EVERY American. I don't care if the person making $30K gets taxed $1 while the person making $800K pays an extra $40K, everyone chips in. Too much of politics has become giving people things for free by having others pay for it.

2. I'm for limiting the scope of government. Have it do less. The Federal Government shouldn't have a role in so many of the things it tries to do. If you want the government to do more, have the states do it. That way, people can more directly influence what services they can avail themselves of.

3. I want a concrete program to pay off our debt, over 50 years. Make it an extra tax, I don't care. Just have a long-term plan to eliminate it. Just the existence of the plan will ensure the dollar remains the world's benchmark currency.

4. I want a balanced budget amendment, except in case of war. And then, the only expenditure increase can be to fund that war. If you want more services, you have to

5. I want a line-item veto. Furthermore, I want a requirement that a bill can only be on one topic. That way you're not putting things like a $1B for ACORN in a troop funding bill. Too many ridiculous things are put into bills that no one would ever vote for individually.
 
4. I want a balanced budget amendment, except in case of war. And then, the only expenditure increase can be to fund that war. If you want more services, you have to

Hmm, why do you feel this way? From what I can tell, most economists believe that running short-term budget deficits is important at times, especially in recessions. Economists are pretty universal in believing that Herbert Hoover made a monumental error in insisting on having a balanced budget during the recession that precipitated the Great Depression.
 
Hmm, why do you feel this way? From what I can tell, most economists believe that running short-term budget deficits is important at times, especially in recessions. Economists are pretty universal in believing that Herbert Hoover made a monumental error in insisting on having a balanced budget during the recession that precipitated the Great Depression.

Because we can't control ourselves with our spending. What's meant to be temporary never is.

As for the "economists are pretty universal" comment, that's patently untrue. In fact, I can point to a large number of economists--including three Nobel Prize winners--who believe the opposite. There is a large segment of economists who believe that it was the policies of Roosevelt that lengthened and deepened that economic downturn. At the time, government represented only 3% of the economy. Today, its long-term amount is roughly 22% (currently 27%, because of the short-term downturn). So balancing a budget that represents 3% is much easier.
 
Repugnants really only have 2 ways they can go.

Embrace their current identity as the "Stupid and Hateful" Party, or completely change their platform and ideals to attract smarter, nicer people.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Repugnants really only have 2 ways they can go.

Embrace their current identity as the "Stupid and Hateful" Party, or completely change their platform and ideals to attract smarter, nicer people.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Seriously?

What a dick.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top