Could the Democrats ever become the majority party again?

[Originally published on a weblog called “What Is Liberalism?”]

Angelica at BattlePanda wonders aloud what, other than economic populism, can win a majority for the Democratic party:

— Although it salves the wounds of defeat to conceptualize the majority of Bush-voters as hoodwinked into voting against their economic interests, the truth is the bulk of Americans are simply too well-off to benefit from the economic programs that Democrats are pushing for. It’s terrible for the 20% in this country that are uninsured. But this necessarily means that the majority of voters in this country does have health insurance.

— In order to forge a sturdy coalition for progressive economic policies, Democrats would have to rely not on the individual self interests of voters, but a moral sense that helping the poor is the right thing to do.

I’ve just a few thoughts to add to hers.

The Democrats were the majority party in America for most of the period from 1932 to 1968. They began to lose their majority status after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which lead to an exodus of whites from the party and opened the door for the Republican “Southern Strategy”. Since 1968 the Republicans have managed to steal away the “Solid South” from the Democrats. If anything, the South is now solid for the Republicans.

The current Republican alliance consists of many factions, most of which are geographically concentrated in the South and the West. The different regions have different motivations for supporting the Republican Party. The South has many socially conservative factions, whereas the Western factions are mostly inspired by a so-called dislike of big government (though not a dislike of agricultural subsidies).

It’s at least a possibility that the Democrats could employ a “Western Strategy” to split current Republican coalition, tearing the West away from the South. The Western states have a libertarian tradition that favors individual rights in a way that overlaps with many of the Democratic concerns for civil liberties. Look at how many Western states have attempted to legalize marajuana for the sick. You’ll never see that happen in the South. Going back in history, the Western states were the first in the Union to grant women the right to vote, decades before that became a part of the Constitution (and decades before so-called liberal north-eastern states).

That is an overlap of interests that can be built upon. Westerners of moderate libertarian leanings can probably be convinced that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils. I can imagine an election in the near future where the country is faced with a choice between a Christian fundamentalist Republican and a moderate, perhaps somewhat pro-business Democrat like Clinton. It would be like the election of 1896, with the parties reversed. Given that choice, the moderate libertarians out West might find more of a home with the Democrats.

It is an assault upon reality for Republicans to continue to refer to their party as the party of fiscal responsibility. Many Western states have balanced budget amendments, which demonstrate their concern for fiscal responsibility. Clinton proved that the Democrats could be fiscally responsible. This, too, is a fact that can be used to woo Western states.

States-rights is a major concern to many Westerners. That is not automatically a bad thing for progressive politics. In no way does the liberal ideal demand a concentration of all power in the national capitol. Decentralization of power has been on the progressive agenda at least since the 1960s. If mainstream Democrats were content to pursue their social reforms at the state level, rather than the Federal level, they might win over some critical portion of the Western public.

Just some thoughts.