The New Republican

Many people throughout the nation are saying that the Democrats are now at a disadvantage in the House and Senate, and that they "lost" in the 2014 Midterm Elections. Though the Democratic party may have lost more seats, and though Republicans now control the House and Senate, I still think the Democrats have come out on top. Over the past decade there has been a massive shift on social issues that have created a small schism in the Republican party between their more traditional members and their youth. This post will look at a few things in relation to this statement. First we will examine the validity of that statement, represented through studies and polls, analysis of articles, and the Republican angle this past election. Second, we will discuss some reasons this change may have taken place, ranging from the influence of the Supreme Court to American perception of rights and liberties. Finally, we will discuss the implications of the new Republican, and what this means for our 2014 elected officials and the 2016 Elections.

The youth of each generation have always been more progressive and liberal. In the 60's they were the "hippies" and in the 80's they listened to music that only made the older generation cringe. In the new millennium the youth have taken on social issues through politics. The Pew Research Center finds that between 1994 and 2014 the average voter went from leaning to default on the Republican side in 1994, over to about an equally likely to vote for a Democrat by the end of the 20 year spanⁱ. Moreover, in a different article Jocelyn Kiley notes that among the youngest generation of voters (Millennials) there is an overwhelming support for liberal values at near 60% of the groups populationⁱⁱ. These numbers are representative of the average American's standing in the age group. In order to get a more relevant picture to our discussion, we should examine polling trends within the Republican party. The New York Times reported in 2012 a 9% jump, up to 37%, in support for marriage equality from Millennials who identify as Republicansⁱⁱⁱ. The article furthers that young leaders are either avoiding or expressing compromise on issues such as abortion and marriage equality due to the divided opinions, leading to an open door for the Democratic party to push forward on these issues. Eric Dolan, managing editor of Raw Story magazine noted that young Republicans tend to underestimate their liberal attitudes on social issues, showing ultimately an overall trend to be more accepting of socially liberal views in America^iv. The Republican party distanced itself from its more extreme representatives this election cycle, allowing them to take a more centrist platform and ultimately bring out results in the Midterm Elections.

The Republican Party this past cycle had many campaigns that emphasized some type of compromise, whether explicitly or implicitly. The party had nominees that supported same-sex marriage, the right to choose, and measures to fight global warming that restrict businesses. The Sun Times even puts forth that major names, such as Governor Chris Christie, is calling on House Republicans to embrace compromise^v. This exemplifies the Party's acknowledgement that in order to truly gain national support they must maintain behavior that falls in line with the platform they just won on. Over the past decade many voters from key demographics, such as youth and minority, have been disenfranchised by the Republican Party for reasons such as a lack of compromise on bills that affect them. This is the Republican leaders calling for compromise to occur and secure those votes. They are embracing certain liberal values, or at least tolerating them, as the country takes an overall shift towards that idealistic value set on social issues. We should examine some reasons as to why American values have shifted in this direction.

Arguably the biggest Supreme Court case of this century happened within its first year. On December 12 of the year 2000 the Supreme Court stopped being an unbiased arbitrator and interpreter of the American Constitution and became a political machine to decide political atmosphere in the American public. On a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court of the United States awarded the Presidential office to Republican Nominee George W. Bush over his Democratic counterpart, former Vice President Al Gore. After this overwhelming display of conservatism on the court, it then took a very liberal stance over the next decade, with two of its more conservative members being so disenfranchised by the Bush administration that they became key figures in setting the liberal atmosphere of today. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was already showing strides of liberalism, such as her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), however Jeffrey Toobin notes that her dissatisfaction with the Bush administration's performance in office and its handling of the Bush v. Gore (2000) case, sent her in a full blown progressive slide^vi. After playing a decisive role in the 2000 case, Justice Anthony Kennedy also slipped from his conservative mindset to being a much more progressive, very liberal voice on the court. He is accredited with making large strides to integrate international laws and ruling into landmark decisions. Most notably, Kennedy heavily relied on both precedents set by the British Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights in deciding Lawrence v. Texas (2003)^vii. O'Connor has spoken publicly to affirm her use of foreign law in interpreting our own Constitution, and even refers to opinions she concurred on which ruled with the use of foreign law, such as Atkins v. Virginia (2002)^viii. The use of foreign law was widely condemned by conservatives, and usually ended up deciding cases in favor of ideals that were shared with the Democratic Party. These cases early on seemed to pave way for national social precedent that is most relevant in the millennial voter body.

When examining when landmark cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) they all supported decisions that then became noticeably more popular across the country in years to come. Lawrence v. Texas not only supported a right to privacy, but was also used as a crucial referential source in the fight for marriage equality, most recently in the Supreme Courts decision in United State v. Windsor (2013) which struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. This court decision had widespread support across the nation, specifically in youth groups. Planned Parenthood v. Casey set a precedent on abortion rights that has become a key talking point for the feminist collective on women's rights in their fight for equality. Grutter v. Bollinger (also an opinion written by Justice O'Connor) was a large affirmation of affirmative action. These cases, and others influenced or reliant on them, set precedents for the liberal atmosphere amongst the youth that grew up with them as law. In their most developmental years, the Millennial Generation not only heard cases on controversial issues that were easily identifiable with a political party, but they saw that time and time again these issues were decided in favor of the more liberal view point. The Supreme Court made an effort to set a standard for what human rights and the pursuit of happiness are with the broadest scope possible in order to cater to the needs of a diverse nation. It almost inherently makes sense that a nation composed of immigrants, a spectrum of colors, beliefs, and sexual orientations, would draw on other nations and public atmosphere to decide their cases, as ultimately our country is a microcosm of the world's beliefs. The world turns to our precedent when they have legal question or ambiguity on issues of such high profile, and as a member of an international community it only seems logical we take the same course of action.

The political atmosphere has changed in the past two decades. We have watched a party begin to change this election cycle from a party staunch on its conservative ideals to one that caters slightly more to public opinion. The new Republicans had a noticeable pull this election, either winning seats or at the very least gaining widespread media cover. The platform that was appealed to was one that was moderate. This sets expectations for our newly elected officials for positions on social issues, and for compromise across party lines. Its no secret that Americans are holistically disenfranchised from politics, with voter turnout decreasing with each passing year. It's our current leaders jobs to re-inspire American faith in our government. If Republicans are smart they will hold to their new platform if they want a legitimate bid at the Presidential office in 2016 and stick to their moderate platform. This moderation won majority control this election cycle, but if the whole party had to make a shift, and sacrifice some ideals to gain those seats, it seems to me that the Democratic party ideals won out overall.

iPew Research Center, “Political Polarization in the American Public” Pew Research Center. June 12, 2014. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/appendix-a-the-ideological-consistency-scale/#

iiKiley, Jocelyn and Dimock, Michael. “The GOP’s Millennial problem runs deep” September 25, 2014. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/

iiiSaulny, Susan. “Young G.O.P. Erase the Lines on Social Issues” New York Times. August 8, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/us/politics/young-republicans-erase-lines-on-social-issues.html

ivDolan, Eric W. "Study finds young Republicans are more liberal than the think" Raw Story. June 17, 2013. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/study-finds-young-republicans-are-more-liberal-than-they-think/

vSun Times Wires. “Christie calls on House GOP to embrace compromise” Sun Times. November 17, 2014. http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/christie-calls-house-gop-embrace-compromise/mon-11172014-323pm

viToobin, Jeffrey. "The Nine". Anchor Books. 2008.

viiToobin, Jeffrey. “Swing Shift” The New Yorker. September 12, 2005. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/09/12/swing-shift

viiiSchlafly, Phyllis "Is Relying on Foreign Law Impeachable?" The Phyllis Schlafly Report. May 2005. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/may05/psrmay05.html