Issues Misalignment Across the Parties

What if you could institute by fiat the party platform for either the Dems. or the GOP? If you undertook this exercise with the goal of maximizing the portion of the electorate which supports your platform, in theory you could create a party which would enjoy broad support until such time as there are major societal, economic, or moral shifts which cause a substantial realignment of voter views.

Given the results of the last election and some plausible interpretations floating around about the causes of the substantial victory enjoyed by the Dems., I think we are in period where either party (probably the GOP more easily than the Dems.) could undergo a reinvention, which while radical to be sure, would enable it to capture a lasting majority of the electorate.

It is my contention that a substantial majority (60%+) of American would sign on to the following platform (I'm *NOT* endorsing this platform in any way, I just think it would garner the votes):

- substantially increased protectionism, especially in industries where the price impacts for consumers would not be readily perceived
- strict enforcement of immigration law with very little tolerance for any sort of guest worker program or other vehicle which enables the sourcing of low cost labor from a non-American labor pool
- strong position on terrorism issues: support for things like the warrantless wiretapping program, tough "trial" standard for Guantanamo detainees, more pervasive surveillance of groups who appear to be "suspicious", tolerance for aggressive interrogation tactics
- isolationism-lite: withdrawal from Iraq and a limitation on US involvement oversees except when it pertains to direct, quantifiable, and imminent threats, and then only when undertaken with a very "tactical" game-plan
- support for stem cell research
- opposition to same sex marriage
- support for moderate, reasonable restrictions on abortion
- substantial tax increases on the wealthy undertaken in conjunction with an increase in the minimum wage

While not an exhaustive list of positions, I think the above would garner support from a substantial majority of Americans. For the GOP particularly, they wouldn't have to move the center of gravity *that* far to adopt this platform in its entirety. The key decision would need to be a willingness to abandon the "business" wing of the GOP. This is not a trivial step, especially as it pertains to fundraising, but if the GOP could somehow commit, it might pay lasting dividends.

I've long felt that the grand GOP collation of values voters and the business community is a curious one which is destined to breakdown at some point. I think both halves of the collation have felt that they have no better option while at the same time expressing displeasure about their sister wing of the Party. Furthermore, as has been endlessly repeated, many of the successful Dems. in this election cycle strongly embraced the populist issues set espoused by the likes of Lou Dobbs and others.

If the GOP could somehow jettison the business wing and simultaneously embrace/co-opt from the "new" Dems. the populist issues like protectionism, isolationism-lite, and the minimum wage, I think they could bolster their base with a number of new voters who aren't turned off by the values issues the GOP has long championed but were bothered by the pro-business, anti-worker/consumer economic policies.

Were they to do this, the old Right/Left labels would disappear and would be replaced something like a Populist Right and a Libertarian Left. I actually don't think it's a huge stretch to see traditional social liberals meld with classical economic liberals. Look at the Liberal Democrats in the U.K. I think this is especially true given what happened in the last election, with many wealthy, moderate Republicans, especially in the northeast, voting against would could be argued as their strict/purely rational self interest to help elect a Democratic Congress which may well reduce their future earnings and/or their wealth.

One need to look no further than traditional "Big L" liberals, who routinely vote against their economic interests, in many cases. Given a choice between a bunch of populist isolationists and a disconnected group of social liberals, I don't think it would be impossible to see the business community choosing the latter.