All else being equal

Paul Krugman writes in TPMCafe to explain his new Theory of Everything in American Politics, which I've now seen him put forth in a variety of venues. The story is, as Krugman says, "almost embarrassing" in its simplicity - the shift of the "solid South" bloc of Southern white racists to the Republican party allowed the Republicans to drift rightward with impunity.

That shift is well-documented, and it undoubtedly has had a lot to do with Republican success in the past 30 years, but how can Krugman claim it's the only game in town?

Krugman points out that "[i]n 1952, 40 percent of non-Southern white males voted Democratic; in 2004, that was down to, um, 39 percent" (emphasis mine) - as if this fact supports his case! Earth to Paul - 39% is a pretty low number! What Krugman is telling us is that, outside the South, the percentage of white males voting for the Democrats is very low and has stayed that way for half a century. If the Republican rightward drift is only possible because of Southern racism, why are white men outside the South not at least slightly shifting to the Democrats in response to rising inequality? Are they, too, fundamentally motivated by racism?

To me, Krugman is just demonstrating the perils of "all else being equal" thinking. All else being equal, the Southern shift handed the Republicans control of the country. But why did all else stay equal? If the Republicans were really ramping up inequality and screwing over 90% of the country, why didn't this cause them to lose outside the South? Why are Republicans still winning Ohio and North Dakota and Colorado and New Mexico and Indiana and Iowa? Why are county-by-county election maps of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Minnesota and Washington state and Oregon and upstate New York giant oceans of red surrounded by tiny urban islands of blue? How did George H.W. Bush win Connecticut and Maine and New Hampshire and Michigan and California in 1988, a decade after inequality started shooting up?

The Republicans must have been offering America something besides racist pandering to Southern whites. Tough-guy posturing and rah-rah nationalism is definitely part of it. The fact that regulation and high taxation was almost certainly hurting the American economy in the 70s was probably another part of it. I'm also convinced that "family values" - by which I don't mean gay-bashing or anti-abortion crusading, but simply getting up and expressing support for maintaining family structure in the face of an increasingly individualistic and sexualized society - had a lot to do with it. But whatever it was, liberals have to wake up and stop making excuses for their failure (at least until Bill Clinton) to offer a that product the country was willing to buy. And I say this as a committed liberal.

In any case, Paul, American politics isn't so simple. Your latest theory is no sudden flash of brilliance.