In the wake of the past election cycle, much speculation continues to swirl in GOP circles as to what must be done to bring in attractive demographics. Our strongest constituent continues to be white southern males, but Michael Barone reminds us that this isn’t a growing demo. Besides, one cannot build a broad-based movement on hard-core fans alone: just ask Major League Soccer! Why is the NFL so big? One reason is that, in addition to lots of hard-core fans, it’s everyone else’s second-favorite league/sport.

So, the over-arching question remains: how can we expand our base, and whom should we target? Herein lies the arguments within GOP circles. Rush Limbaugh has speculated, only half-jokingly, that the country club blue bloods in the GOP are becoming so uncomfortable with conservatives that they would just as soon ditch us right-wingers and replace us with Hispanics. Good luck with that: conservatives are the ones doing all the heavy lifting in the Republican Party. The blue bloods would politically marginalize themselves. We, in turn, need the blue bloods’ money and voting bodies. Like it or not, we need each other, as a schism of that sort would hurt both camps.

Want to build a greater base of support? Start with a basic analysis. Find out whom you have a reasonable chance of attracting, and whom you don’t have much of a chance. Obviously, one wants to avoid writing off too many “groups,” but some “groups” are simply unwinnable. Income class is one of the most obvious areas of division. The Democrat Party has become a party of unholy alliances: it does well in attracting both the upper class and the lower classes – the well-to-do and life’s losers. This, of course, has already been tackled in a previous blog post.

Michael Barone has advised that, while the GOP already does strongly in “Jacksonian America,” he should try to attract more high-end voters. I agree in theory, of course, but the upscale voters come in many flavors. Which sorts of flavors would be pleasing to the base palate that favors low taxes and limited government (limited in the forms of laws, regulations, etc.)? 

Again, start with those whom one would have little chance of getting. It’s great to say that we want to attract more folks with advanced degrees, but you have to be careful targeting different folks in different lines of work. Target the wrong kinds of degreed citizenry, and they’ll either reject you (thus resulting in a major waste of time and resources), or to attract them, you have to modify your own party platform so extensively as to become a “me-too” form of the Dems (which is what got us in the current mess to begin with). 

Forget public school teachers. Sure, there are some exceptions, but that does not negate the fact that about 15-20% of the delegates to the Democrat National Convention in Denver in ’08 where from that line of work. The public school teachers are so in the tank for big government, because big government insulates them from having to compete to keep their jobs like the rest of us. It’s not worth trying to attract them, short of destroying the NEA and other teachers unions, which we could theoretically do if we get serious about school vouchers. But to do that, we have to build up a broad base of support elsewhere – consider it an attainable Catch-22.

But what about other professionals with advanced degrees? Forget higher ed professions. The whole educational industrial complex is about insulating themselves from reality, be they academic support professionals living in a cushy bubble, or college professors living on their own planets of fantasy – the management and econ profs notwithstanding, at least! 

Accountants might sound like a conservative position, since those who are in that line of work seem firmly grounded in reality. But in this case, reality is not the issue. Ask yourself: why go to an accountant? You go there because to most of us, tax laws are cumbersome and complex beyond belief, and we need a professional to help us through such Byzantine regulations. If business regulations and tax laws were less unduly elaborate, we would have less need for accountants. Simply put, accountants professionally thrive off such regulations that are burdensome to the rest of us – in gross violation of George Washington’s farewell advice to be mindful of the exploitation of various factions for political gain.

Lawyers are not necessarily monolithic in terms of Democrat support, but the majority certainly are. The plaintiff’s attorneys are major donors to the Dems, because they have a vested interest in maintaining litigation-friendly regulation. Indeed, the flurry of lawsuits that so many managers in so many industries have to face has become its own back-door regulation via litigation. The Dems and trial lawyers have thus developed their own symbiotic relationship.

Alright, you ask, so whom could we attract that is upscale and/or has an advanced degree? Doctors would be a great place to start. Most own their own private practices – hence, they believe in business-friendly laws, at least in theory, if nothing else – and litigation to them is a perpetual torment, perhaps worse that various wasps and ants would be to explorers in the Amazon! Add in the left’s absolute jones for nationalizing their very livelihood, and we have a ready-made upscale demographic begging for our help, and we in turn could benefit immensely from their support. Indeed, it is of a long-time mystery to yours truly as to why this golden opportunity to exploit this potentially wonderful symbiotic relationship has not since been exploited.

Another high-potential target demo: MBAs. Yours truly is among this camp, so it is safe to say that a good portion of this demographic is already in the GOP camp, but there is more gold to be mined, so to speak, particularly with those who pursue concentrations of general management and entrepreneurship (the folks who concentrate in HR might not have that great of potential, alas). Concerning both doctors or business managers, we don’t need to change our principles, contrary to the contentions of the Wizards of Smart. What we need to do is to come up with eloquent, powerful messages that clearly articulate our principles of low taxes and limited government, messages that could convince these important demos that we’re worth their time and support.

To be credible in this message, we have to make sure that we actually stand for these things – not having done so is why we’ve been whisked into the political wilderness in the first place. Enough liberals seem willing to lose elections without compromising their leftist principles. We have to take a similar principled stand when it comes to be willing to live – and die – by our conservative values. Even if we lose, liberals’ credibility will eventually implode in the eyes of the voters, and they’ll be hungry for a conservative alternative. Now’s not the time to go soft on standing up for what made America great!