David Brooks' Realignment Won't Happen by David Atkins - Washington Monthly
Summary:
David Brooks correctly asserts that there is a comfortable "upper crust" benefiting from globalization and increases in asset prices, while a large set of middle and working castes experience a decline in wealth. Atkins explains that Brooks expects the "great faction of millennials and workers of all races" to join Republicans while Democrats secure the support of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. However, Atkins points to the social and neurological factors that lead to the general liberal or conservative tendencies and how these feelings are stronger than any immediate response to economic anxiety. As such, there will be no major party realignment. In fact, Atkins expects the Republicans to create a happier version of the race conscious economic protectionism that clings to a reactionary belief in the good old days. The Democrats will have to deal with an intra-party struggle between the progressives and the "establishmentarians." If Atkins is correct, the Republicans will become a "regional minority party" because the demographic shifts do not favor their base, while it remains to be seen whether Wall Street or Main Street will prevail amongst the Democrats.
Questions:
Do you think that how our brains respond to certain stimuli can predict our political identity?
How much of a factor is race in this situation?
What is the most or least compelling part of Atkins' argument?
What will happen in the future to the parties?
The least compelling part of Atkins' argument is that minorities of all races will join the Republican Party because ,as the Washington Monthly article states, "there is no way to separate racism from anger over economic hardship." In other words, the grounded conservative Republicans will always look down on other races and blame them for infringing upon their wealth. The overarching racist attitudes of Republicans is too strongly rooted, and therefore minorities would never want to join the Republican Party, even if they agree with its economic stance.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult topic for Republicans. After Obama's victory in the 2012 Presidential Election Republicans, Republicans completed a self study that illustrated the need to reach out to minorities, especially the growing Latino population.
Deletehttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/6-big-takeaways-from-the-rnc-s-incredible-2012-autopsy
I do agree with your assertion that Republicans will not win over minorities in the near future (even if SOME of their economic policies would appeal to them). However, I would point out that it is not unheard of for demographics to align on economic issues even when they differ on social issues. For example, in the 1940s African Americans began voting majority Democratic. White southerners, who historically voted Democratic, continued to vote Democratic until the 1960s. Naturally, social issues were contentious within the party but the fact remains that for over two decades black and white southerners both voted Democratic.
DeleteHere is data on African American voting trends in America:
http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/
The least compelling part of Atkins' argument is that minorities of all races will join the Republican Party because ,as the Washington Monthly article states, "there is no way to separate racism from anger over economic hardship." In other words, the grounded conservative Republicans will always look down on other races and blame them for infringing upon their wealth. The overarching racist attitudes of Republicans is too strongly rooted, and therefore minorities would never want to join the Republican Party, even if they agree with its economic stance.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is unrealistic for the GOP to gain minority support, especially on the brink of a major political realignment. Although the GOP does currently have a bigotry problem, that does not mean in the future it could not attract minority voters. The democratic party has been a historically racist party, but because of their support of social welfare and other programs that support the lower class, they were able to secure their vote. If the GOP continues to shift left on economic policies I think it is possible for them to gain support with minorities.
DeleteAlthough the fact that party realignment has happened before, I don't agree that the GOP will gain minority support anytime in the forseeable future by shifting economic policy to the left. The first problem this presents is that the farther economic policy is to the left the more the government gets involved, which goes against the conservative policy of small government. Second, by reaching for the minority vote by pushing farther left, the Republicans will most likely lose a large portion of their dedicated voter base, who favor more conservative policy. Doing this would be taking a risk not worth taking, as it would be a lot more difficult (read: nearly impossible) for them to try and steal votes from the Democrats while still keeping voters on the farther right happy. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that the Republicans will shift leftwards in terms of economic policy in the near future.
DeleteThe future of the parties is quite unclear still, however Atkins' argument provides plausible outcomes. The Republican party will continue down the path of "racist protectionism" in a struggle to hold on to the glory days. Although contrary to Atkins theory, this ideology will continue to ostracize minority voters instead of including them. Furthermore, the Democratic party will become the nationally dominant party with internal struggles. As we have learned history repeats itself and the idea that a single majority party will not face internal struggle has not happened. A similar example to the prove this is the breaking apart of the Democratic-Republican party over contradicting viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteI think the most compelling part of Atkins’ argument is on the brain’s response to economic anxiety. This argument was captivating because it took a political matter and morphed it into a scientific analysis. I had never heard of the idea that people’s responses to anxiety could be the reason they vote Democrat or Republican; it’s a different viewpoint that actually makes a lot of sense. Atkins’ note on how “there is no way to separate racism from anger over economic hardship” is another interesting spin off of how the brain can effect which political party one choses to side with. People’s instinctive tendencies really do tell a lot about the person, and it’s interesting to try to connect those instincts with politics.
ReplyDeleteAlong the same lines as Mollie's ideas, what captivated me most was the correlation between tribalism and our stances in politics. As Mollie was saying, our brains revert to instinctive tendencies when faced with economic anxiety, especially in the cases of conservative Americans. Atkins suggest that Americans tend to not only follow racial tribalism but religious tribalism as well. He believes that eventually, the sense of tribalism in the Trump conservative group will outweigh the Romney conservative group, leading to a Republican party united behind a racist platform covered with a happy facade. While it frightens me, I do not find it that difficult to accept.
DeleteI believe race is one of the biggest factors in party realignment. Clearly because of Trump's outrageous accusations against different ethnic and religious groups, the Republican party will most likely affect how people perceive the party. Brooks claims that "workers of all races" would join the Republican party free of bigotry, but candidates like Trump make it hard to believe that a future without racism is far ahead into the future. On the contrary, the Democratic party has been accepting of all cultures and races, therefore attracting more supporters even if these different ethic or religious groups have contrasting ideals.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most interesting arguments is the idea of minorities converting to the republican party. It is however the most far fetched idea. while the ideals of the republican party do not necessarily completely conflict, strict republicans will often have views that put minorities at a disadvantage. However the idea cant be thrown away. Latino Americans for example have very conservative ideals often coming from their Catholic faith.
ReplyDeleteI believe that for some minority groups this could be true but for many others I cant see this ever becoming the case.
DeleteThe least compelling part of Atkin's argument is that minorities will join the Republicans. Though many middle and lower class citizens are experiencing a decline in wealth, as Atkin points out, this does not indicate minorities will become republicans. Many minorities are democrats because of social views, and while Atkins states that most neurological responses are to economic anxieties, that is only an immediate response. A neurological response to an economic issue will not be influential enough to compromise one's social views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julia's statement because most minorities are not Republicans, as they are treated poorly by most of those in the party. For example, many Latin Americans hold beliefs similar to those of the Republican party, but because of Republican immigration policies and their treatment of immigrants in general turn away those minorities. So, while their beliefs may not be so different, Republicans are missing out on key minority groups due to the fact that they treat those minorities poorly.
DeleteI agree with Julia's statement because most minorities are not Republicans, as they are treated poorly by most of those in the party. For example, many Latin Americans hold beliefs similar to those of the Republican party, but because of Republican immigration policies and their treatment of immigrants in general turn away those minorities. So, while their beliefs may not be so different, Republicans are missing out on key minority groups due to the fact that they treat those minorities poorly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe race is a very large factor in this stimulation because just like racial/cultural identification, political parties group and categorize people together. It makes sense to vote with the same political party everyone around you votes for because they have similar or identical cultures and values. Moreover, jumping on the bandwagon promotes ignorance, and keeps minorities from branching off into the Republican Party, as they are so often conditioned to believing that they are supposed to side Democratic. The strong bind people have with their racial groups, which have existing identities with certain political parties, not only proves the power of racial groups in an election, but it also makes the idea that minorities will shift political parties unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteI believe that race is plays a pivotal role in this simulation because people are targeted and focused on by their race. Its logical that a person's race would either deter or invite certain parties (ie Hispanic race being welcomed by democrats and highly ignored by republicans(Trump)). The idea that people tend to take pride in their race(s) is why race itself plays such a huge role, people will vote where they feel most welcomed which is why this is so important in this simulation.
ReplyDeleteI think the most compelling part of Atkin's argument is the underlying factors he considers when addressing the reason for the conflicts between ideologies of the parties and why there might be an eventual alignment. The most obvious reason for party conflicts is the differing stances on opinions. As Priya mentioned above the racist tendencies of Republicans might change but not drastically. It was interesting how Atkins cites economic responses as yet another way in which Democrats and Republicans are divided. Many people assume that in the same class tend to group together but as Atkins pointed out, "Wealthy conservatives and wealthy liberals won’t join forces any more than the poor will." Thus, ideologies are so deeply rooted within the parties that a party realignment will not happen easily.
ReplyDeleteThe future of both parties is unclear at this time. On one hand we have a Democratic Party, united in some way, behind a banner of progressive ideals and on the other is the Republican Party, stretched thin between "the Trump conservatives and the Romney Conservatives." Like Atkins I see the Republican Party, as we know it as a national power, falling to a small minority party (similar to Jobbik in Hungary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik). This would leave the Democrats as the only major national party left, but again like Atkins I see them struggling with that burden in the future. Atkins believes they will struggle, but I believe they will split (similar to the split of the Democratic-Republicans when Andrew Jackson took power), again leaving the US in a two party system.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, I believe the Republican party will be more likely to split into smaller constituent groupings. As we've seen in this election, there are tensions in both the parties between the "establishment" and the more radical members of their respective parties. However, in the case of the Republicans there has been a far more definite division, as seen through John Kasich's and other long-standing Republican party members' refusal to attend this year's Republican National Convention. Additionally, many of the Republican party faithfuls have rejected the idea of endorsing Trump. This leads me to believe that there will be a split in the Republican party sometime in the near future. As for the Democrats, I believe this election will force the DNC to be more serious when it comes to the wishes of their more progressive members. Bernie's success proved to them that these people need to be taken seriously and that they hold a lot of influence. However, I do not believe the Democratic party will split similarly to the GOP because of the importance the party places in the idea of unity. Bernie Sanders asked his supporters to vote for Hillary because he understands the necessity in working together. Therefore, I think most members of the DNC recognize the power there is in numbers and will not splinter off.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Republican Party will continue to struggle if they don't attempt to appeal to wider racial demographics. Because they incorporated more radical conservative ideals, the Tea Party, Republicans have continued to isolate non white demographics. If the Republican Party continues down "Trump’s path of racist protectionism", there will won't be a political realignment where racial minorities leave the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteThe most compelling part of Atkins's argument is that millennials and conservative reactionaries will never be able to join forces, even if they are suffering in the same way. People tend to be very set in their ways, and as Atkins says, conservatives react to economic difficulties by attempting to help people similar to them, while liberals will try to redistribute wealth more fairly. Since people consistently act this way, there will be no agreement between the rich and the poor.
ReplyDeleteDavid Atkins' article, titled "David Brooks' Realignment Won't Happen," points out key reasons as to why Brooks' version of realignment won't happen. Due to Brooks' "detachment from the experience of regular people," he is unable to accurately predict the realignment of the parties, just as how our political identities cannot be predicted by our brains' response to certain stimuli. Sure, there is research that shows conservatives have a strong negative reaction to stimuli they see as threatening to themselves, but that doesn't necessarily translate into being able to identify someone's political identity through their reactions. In another one of Atkins' articles, "How Conservative Brains Are Wired Differently and What This Means for Our Politics," he writes about that connection between response to stimuli and our political identities. However, as I stated above, I don't believe that our brains' responses dictate what political party we belong to. We choose our political parties based on our opinions, and opinions change, they aren't hardwired into our system. Therefore, I believe that their experiments cannot predict a person's political party, the brain's response just reflects that person's opinions and views.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Atkins that there will be an internal struggle in the Democratic Party. We have already seen the two different sides of the Democratic Party through Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Bernie is more progressive/liberal. I think that there will be realignment or that the party will split. I disagree with Atkins in that the republicans will gain favor from the minority, especially right now. Trump’s mainly targets less educated white males. I would also like to comment that race does plays a big factor in political identity. Culture influences the experiences individuals go through and thus their interests.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Democratic party has been split between the more conservative and the more liberal candidates (ie Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders). However, I think that because of the increasing gap between upper income professionals and millennials, the party will eventually split. On the other hand, I think that it would be more important for this party to realign in order to to gain a majority of the votes to beat their opponent in the election, just as we have seen Bernie endorse Hillary. Lastly, I agree that the Republican party has set off the direction of Trump's ideas, or at least a major amount of the public has, and his perspectives do not appeal to minority groups and so I don't feel that minority groups will be eventually joining the Republican Party.
DeleteWhile the way our brains respond to certain stimuli can definitely predict one's political identity, I don't feel like it is the sole factor. According to the article by David Atkins, he identifies that responses to stimuli invoking fear and disgust as a major difference in liberals and conservatives. The thing is, such responses can be shaped throughout ones life as they recreate their ideologies and take new stances on issues. In this case, as we traditionally see in political identity surveys, it would be more accurate to trace one's political identity through their alignment on issues with certain parties.
ReplyDeleteThe way our brains respond to certain stimuli certainly affects the way we see our political identity, and the entire world around us. Our brain is what makes us do things and without it we wouldn't be doing a lot other than being dead. While our memories certainly shape our future actions they are also dependent on how our stimuli reacted to certain situations.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in the future the parties will go the same direction as Mr. Brooks predicted- almost nowhere. While ideologies amongst both parties will develop and change as new political subjects arise, both parties are relatively stable at the moment and have large amounts of supporters. This is shown specifically in the most recent presidential election, in which Trump was elected in an astounding upset, and displaying the power of voter loyalty and party commitment. I believe that as of the moment the democrats have taken somewhat of a hit, but will likely regain the Senate in the next 2 year election period.
ReplyDeleteWith the nomination of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party experienced a shift in its overall voter base. Many Sanders supporters switched to the Green Party's Jill Stein--or, more interestingly, the Republicans' Donald Trump. Given that a substantial amount of the population views Clinton as corrupt--both Democrat and Republican--it's conceivable that Clinton had to shift her focus to business and labor interests for financial and public relations support. In this way, the parties' roles could become more mixed with Trump's oddly Democratic appeal to the working class.
ReplyDelete