As the modern Republican Party has grown more and more southern in its ideology, values, style, and temperament, I’ve often wondered why northern Democrats don’t make more of an issue of it in their campaigns. I really began thinking about this way back when Tom DeLay was the most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives. It seemed like a lot of ostensibly moderate Republican House members in my Mid-Atlantic area were getting a pass on enabling an agenda that was very out of step with local voters on social issues.
I even had a campaign slogan in mind for the Democrats, which was that New Jersey ain’t Alabama, so why does our congressman vote like an Alabaman?
So, I definitely noticed when an actual New Jersey Democratic candidate for the House cut exactly that kind of commercial.
Josh Gottheimer, like my boss, is a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, and he’s been a prolific fundraiser. However, this northern New Jersey district is not friendly territory for Democrats owing to it’s wealth and demographic makeup.
The problem for the Republicans, in this case, is that the incumbent, Rep. Scott Garrett, isn’t just empowering a southern social agenda. He actually embodies it and might even be a tad extreme by Alabama standards. For example, his support for the Confederate Flag is inexplicable in Northern New Jersey, but it’s his refusal to give dues to the Republican National Congressional Committee because they recruit and support gay candidates that is truly shocking.
Garrett is also a founding member of the Liberty Caucus. And, while the Liberty caucus does have some other northerners, from Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio for example, the only other member from the Mid-Atlantic is Rep. Chris Gibson who is not seeking reelection. Overall, the Liberty Caucus is dominated by people below the Mason-Dixon line.
Garrett has also promoted mandated teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, which is hardly a New Jersey priority.
[Garrett] calls his religious beliefs “conservative.” His two daughters were home-schooled after elementary school, he says, not because he opposes public schools but because “no high school offering a Christian education” was near their home.
Another sign of how out of step he is was his refusal to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act because he didn’t like the requirement that non-English ballots be made available. If you’ve ever been to North Jersey, you know how prevalent Spanish is there. Actually, there are probably more languages spoken in Northern New Jersey than any place in the country other than New York City.
And what can we say about his opposition to Cory Booker’s bill to help 9/11 first responders who wound up with chronic and debilitating illnesses and disabilities? That was completely out of step with the values of his region and even his district.
The Democrats are really going after his seat, and it’s gotten close enough that Roll Call has changed their rating for the contest from ‘Safe Republican’ to ‘Lean Republican.’
In the end, the expensive New York City media market could insulate Garrett from defeat in his North Jersey district, as Democrats must spend considerable money to litigate their case against the incumbent and raise Gottheimer’s profile as an alternative. But Democrats are not letting up.
In some ways, it worries me for the country to be so polarized, and running against the south or southern values seems to contribute to that. But it also doesn’t seem like it should go un-noted that Mid-Atlantic values are substantially different and that electing Republicans to serve in Congress from districts like Scott Garrett’s is empowering to extreme social conservatives, whether they’re from Alabama, Texas, or Wisconsin.
Josh Gottheimer’s ‘Dixie’ ad may be tough, but it’s fair.
Very interesting piece, Booman. Thank you.
Is it possible that Rep. Garrett votes the way he does in part, at least, to curry favor with the Southerners who hold the GOP balance of power? Is this his way to try to claw his way up into the House GOP leadership? Is he doing some racial dog-whistling with his opposition to non-English language ballots (for example)?
It’s worth contemplating, I suggest, what are the values that unite Americans. I’m not at all convinced that there are any in this era of intense political polarization and GOP pandering to white ethno-nationalism.
I’ve felt for pretty much my entire adult life that US politics has been captive to Dixie. The nature of that captivity has slowly shifted to where Dixie=GOP is roughly correct. However, there are plenty of other parts of the country that Dixie-like in their outlook.
More like since the founding. 3/5s compromise?
That is pretty good reasoning if he feels his district is pretty safe because of wealth and Norquist. Go along to get along.
Explain New Jersey to me. How is it that this candidate was not immediately disqualified for office for failing to support a bill helping first responders?
All that is needed in the district is 175,000 votes against Garrett? Which is more expensive, a media buy or a strong GOTV set of activities?
Has that ad brought Garrett down any?
Bergen County, the only sort of Democratic area of his district, has a median income of $81,708. And the most Democratic parts of Bergen, like Hackensack, are not in his district. We’re talking about some rural areas and some exurban areas, horse farms, and super-rich liberals who would vote for Reagan over Sanders every single time.
But, yes, the first responders issue is hurting him. So, is the anti-gay craziness.
These people are socially moderate to liberal.
RE:
By what definitional stretch could someone fitting the rest of that description be considered a “liberal”?
Not seein’ it.
self definition. If you call yourself a liberal it is up to the person calling you not a liberal to explain. You get into a LOT of “well, yes, but …” sequences.
I used to get sucked into it all the time at UAB in AL. For all intents and purposes, David Duke could defend calling himself a liberal.
kind of way. (It’s long been my own inclination to accept people’s self-identification, absent very clear-to-the-point-of-dispositive evidence to the contrary.)
But is there any actual evidence that any specific “super-rich” voters in the Bergen County portion of Garrett’s district “who would vote for Reagan over Sanders every single time” also even self-identify as “liberal”? Much less a preponderance of them sufficient to justify the original (rather sweeping!) generalization?
Still not seein’ it. Maybe I’m just insufficiently familiar with Bergen Co. (I once lived in Hunterdon Co. for a few years, but that was too long ago to be very relevant here.) Maybe it indeed harbors an enclave of the “super-rich” “who would vote for Reagan over Sanders every single time” and also self-identify as “liberals”.
I remain skeptical of that, however. Would take some actual evidence in support of that assertion to overcome that skepticism.
If you’ve lived in North Jersey, even years ago, and even in the West, this shouldn’t confuse you.
Very few white liberal Democrats in Jersey who are wealthy professionals would vote for Sanders. They prefer their Democrats to be like Clinton or Booker.
This is less true of the Philly suburbs, but still true enough that Romney would do very well against Sanders but get clobbered by Clinton.
assertion, not Clinton, Booker, or even Romney (even if you’re right about all three).
So, sorry, but this response is looking like mostly a non-sequitur, leaving me still unconvinced (of the original proposition; the hypothetical nature of the assertion makes both refutation and verification impossible of course).
I grew up in Princeton which is perhaps the most liberal town in the state. It surely has the most liberal white population. And it had a lot of Reagan voters, especially in 1980, because Carter’s administration had little to recommend it and folks were liking the sound of a big tax cut. These were mainly the commuters to New York who worked in finance, advertising, or at legal firms. The professors had no time for Reagan.
These same voters trended back to Dukakis and even more strongly for Clinton, and they were solidly in Obama’s camp, especially in 2008. The Gingrichification of the GOP turned them off. But when they listen to Sanders, it feels like a personal attack on them personally, and they won’t vote for him.
Though you poo-poohed it, my disclaimer was sincere: haven’t been there since, I think, ’81. And I wasn’t so tuned in to such matters then.
You’d be amazed how people who are with you on every social issue and largely on foreign policy will suddenly abandon you if you run a campaign aimed at blaming them or their immediate superiors for destroying the middle class and corrupting the entire political system. Also, their concern for their pocketbooks grows in direct proportion to your argument that the purpose of taxing them is to take their money and influence rather than to buy a kid a book or a mom some health care.
Jersey Democrats are tax-averse liberals who will vote for a Whitman or a Kean or even a Christie if they don’t like the Democratic message or if the economy is stressing them.
There’s also soft Republicans who are less liberal and less into multiculturalism, but are still fairly moderate by the standards of southern culture. A lot of them will go for an Obama after a long stretch of Bush incompetence, but you can’t hold on to them.
Yep, you answered my question whether they would cross over and vote for an unreconstructed Southerner before they would support a Sanders Dem.
Well, they’d vote for Wellstone in a second. It’s not all about substance. A lot of it is being put on the defensive.
Booker stood up for Bain because his constituents felt like that kind of raw visceral attack on finance was an attack on them. And, yes, that’s the donor class of Jersey Democrats, but it runs deeper than that, and they’re essential to statewide success.
It’s not just Jersey, either, but definitely Connecticut and the Boston and Philly suburbs. These are Democratic areas that voted for Reagan twice and for Bush the Elder.
But this, “…buy a kid a book or a mom some health care” is charity, which makes them feel good but the recipients feel powerless and INSECURE. They want back their work and wealth.
Booker stood up for Bain because his constituents felt like that kind of raw visceral attack on finance was an attack on them.
That’s a pretty telling statement considering Booker represents the whole state.
He could hardly say “donors” now could he?
Yes, I could hardly say that except I said exactly that in the very next sentence. My trigger finger is getting itchy Mino.
Would “my donors” clarify that it was Booker I was chaffing? Since he was the subject of Phil’s post that I was replying to.
If you are looking for an excuse, ban away.
Please insert the “my donors” phrase where it is supposed to fit:
What people missed was that this defense wasn’t aimed at just actual private equity bigwigs who might give money to Booker. It was a defense of a larger culture that he represents.
Just as it might seem that Sanders attacking Wall Street is an attack only on billionaires and people in the financial sector, but it is experienced as an attack on the North Jersey community.
Booker was speaking for a lot more people than the actual vulture capitalists.
But, you have to live in the culture to understand why it perceives things this way.
Why do you think we were so shocked when people seemed to care about Wall Street getting buried under 200 stories of ash?
It is not inconsistent to value them as fellow citizens and still be very critical of the detrimental effects of their industry on the entire population. Some 80% of it. And they call the policy shots.
If your people feel so beleaguered by intemperate criticism, how is that they cannot recognize that happening to their fellow citizens? Dehumanized, even.
Be a real interesting test to know which set of actors actually injure more people than the other as things stand today. Trumpistas have only hate words. They can’t fire you or take your pension.
Here’s some basic psychology that fits northern New Jerseyians better than anyone.
So, what happens when you don’t know how to appeal to their values but instead attack their economic interests?
Economists have been trying to tell them that there is no real economy without demand. And despite today’s news on general wealth, there has been no real uptick in demand over those 12 months. Paying down debt?
The EU central bank is discussing the purchase of corporate STOCKS to maintain asset prices for their elites. The Fed has been sniffing around that subject, too. That is financialization.
Why not? It would be just as honest.
Well, they’d vote for Wellstone in a second.
Why? Wellstone was a lot closer to Bernie than he would have been to Booker or was to the Clintons. Don’t forget Wellstone voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Framing? That is all I can imagine. Wellstone was well within the tradition, while Sanders, with near the same positions (FDR Dem) has been branded as the American Che by the elites.
Because Wellstone would make them feel good about themselves.
That is a valuable talent to possess–to inspire sincere selflessness.
That’s been a tradition of sorts… encouraging noblesse oblige. Certainly lacking post 2008 as the heat cranked up.
I don’t live in this district, but I work in it and it is one that I follow and will donate to from time to time. There are a lot of “Corzine” Democrats, and I believe you when you say they would vote republican rather than vote for an insurgent like Sanders. 8 years after the meltdown, running on taking it out on the financial class is going to strike them as vengeance voting against them. They have recovered, thank you very much. It’s not their fault you didn’t go to law school or join a large accounting firm.
The thing is the district isn’t doing all that well economically. A lot of the corporate HQs and regional offices that used to be in it have left. But those jobs are commuter jobs and those voters effected by those closures don’t actually live in the district. Its one of those odd places where the residents are rich but work elsewhere and the workers who commute there don’t live there.
One of the issues has been finding someone to run against Garrett. I agree, there isn’t a lot of love for cultural revolutionary gadflies like Garrett, but there isn’t a lot of support for the Democrats locally either. The 2014 candidate was an outsider who didn’t have a lot of donors, but then his advertisement started with the statement “My Friends and Family think I’m Crazy for Running!”. Well if even your mom isn’t supporting this run, why should we?
There are Trump themes around here though. There was a mayoral race this spring where the winning candidate ran on the theme of “Make Saddle River Great Again.” Not certain what that was about since if Saddle River has any problems, they are the kind of problems towns with average incomes in the hundreds of thousands have. Low Unemployment! High Income! Enormous Property Values! No Crime! Best Schools in the State! Some of my Neighbors are Celebrities! Yeah, I can see where the groundswell of counter-revolution comes from.
The wonders of gerrymandering. Anyhow, I’d imagine these are like Javits Republicans these days. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But the post about Garrett is that he’s socially conservative.
” Dixie in North Jersey”
The “Manson-Nixon Line” lives!!!
(That’s the “Mason-Dixon Line” revisited in contemporary times. Sept., 2016)
Draw your own.
AG
because White UnityTM.
Boo:
I guess you missed the political ads during the 6pn local news tonight(Monday). Two of them were very interesting. One, Trump is already hitting HRC on her Deplorables comment. Trying to make the case that she’s slagging the hard-working, blue-collar people of Pennsylvania. The second one was HRC saying that Republicans and Democrats have to come together to get things done. And we still have 56 days days to go. Ugh!!!!!!!
Uh huh
Uh huh
Nate Silver gives GOP donors a closed-door presentation
By Jonathan Swan
September 12, 2016, 03:04 pm
Nate Silver, the ESPN journalist behind the FiveThirtyEight website, gave a presentation on the 2016 battleground map to a group of powerful Republican donors in Manhattan last week.
Silver was paid to give the presentation by the American Opportunity Alliance, a group led by some of the biggest GOP donors in the country, including hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer and the Ricketts family, which owns the Chicago Cubs.
Silver’s closed-door session was part of a two-day confab, held Sept. 7-8 at Le Bernardin Prive, a private dining room inside a New York City restaurant run by celebrity chef Eric Ripert.
Upward of three dozen top donors attended the gathering, along with senior Republican Party officials and strategists. Silver’s presentation on Wednesday afternoon was a highlight of the two-day event, people at the event said.
It appears New Jersey has a large number of upper income people who worry about their taxes but otherwise are somewhat liberal. But not so much like Sanders or any program that would raise their taxes. Clinton seems the ideal candidate for them. Those in the lower economic rungs take their cue from their betters. Sort of explains CC. Tough asshole but fair – a little corruption goes a long way.
Depending on the year, either Jersey or Connecticut pays the most in federal income taxes relative to what their states receive back in federal dollars. And they’ve both been voting Democratic for twenty-four years now.
So, cut people some slack. They pay their taxes and they vote for their taxes to remain high despite it being a subsidy for places like Mississippi that gets the most federal money relative to what they pay.
If you disrespect them and blame their entire region (as they perceive it) for all the serious ills in our country, they’ll vote for someone less hostile.
It’s not Sanders’ policies so much as his rhetoric. Like I said, they’d line up to vote for Wellstone over Trump in a second.
Sure, but if you disrespect any group they are likely to vote for someone less hostile. So Clinton has her deplorable and Trump his Mexicans. I would also bet that someone working in Mississippi for a minimum wage would think that the rich folks in NJ and CT damn well should pay their fair share for the commons.
Lining up for Wellstone is a little incongruous. If his policies are anything like Sanders the conversation would rather quickly turn to taxes.
So, I take you point here. Sanders talked about a taboo subject: inequality and about higher taxes to correct it. That IMO was unfortunate. There are other ways to skin that cat. Still everyone wanted to know how he would pay for it.
I will leave it here but note that taxes do NOT pay for anything. Taxes control inflation and can be used to redistribute wealth (as in inequality). And, of course, it gives value to money bc you have got to have it to pay taxes. The government creates money out of thin air. Some have suggested (not me) that we need zero taxes were it not for that. Some crackpot economist – when everyone was freaking out over the cost of Sanders proposals — suggested his plan would cost nothing bc it would greatly accelerate growth. We never got to that discussion. Too bad.
Not relevant to Bergen County, I don’t think, but to the broad question of Southern ideology in Northern politics, I’ve been wondering if there is some very long-term Southernization in the Midwest or Rust Belt stemming from immigration after WWII. Anybody know of any numbers trying to correlate that with the emergence of “Reagan Democrats” and such?