What does the future look like for the Republican Party?
To see the future look to California is the refrain in many fields. The automotive industry often looks to California consumer preferences as predictors of future national trends. In areas as diverse as fashion, music, film, digital, and food the nation follows the example of California.
So what does the current state of politics in California predict for the future of the Republican Party?
It may be difficult to comprehend today, but California used to be a reliable red state even more Republican than Texas. California has 55 electoral votes or 20% of the total needed to win the election so its importance in a presidential election cannot be overstated. From 1948 to 1992 California voted Republican presidential candidate 9 out of 10 times. Two of the last four Republican presidents (Reagan, Nixon) came from California. However during the period 1992-2012, California has gone Democratic 6 out of 6 times and is no longer even contested in national elections by Republicans. Since 1992, with one exception Republicans have won zero statewide races in California. The sole exception during the 24 years (they are not expected to win any statewide races this year) was the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor.
How did California go from being a Republican stronghold, to becoming irrelevant and what does that change portray for the rest of the country?
The watershed moment for the Republican Party in California was Proposition 187 in 1992. Governor Pete Wilson trailed his Democratic opponent by 20 points and decided to aggressively support and campaign for the anti-immigrant Proposition. He won reelection, and the referendum passed with 59% of the vote. This referendum was more onerous than the most restrictive anti immigrant laws, recently proposed in red states and was subsequently overturned by federal court. However the ugly campaign for the proposition permanently damaged the Republican brand and cast the Party as xenophobic, anti immigrant and anti Hispanic. Hispanic support for the Republican Party dropped from 45% in the Reagan era to 20%. That shift combined with a growth in Hispanic voters turned a significant portion of voters permanently against Republicans.
But the loss of Hispanic voters, while significant, was not sufficient by itself to doom the Republican Party to a permanent statewide minority status. The sea change was in the attitude of non-Hispanic white voters, of whom 63% had previously voted for the anti immigrant referendum. Immigrants’ being initially reviled is a tradition going back to the founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin once denounced ‘swarthy German immigrants who refuse to speak English’. However it is also a noble tradition in the country that after an unfortunate initial demonization of immigrants, they become bedrock of the community. Following this tradition in California as Hispanics became more prevalent the fear and dread of them was reduced and majority anti immigrant sentiment evaporated.
However while voter sentiment shifted, the party leadership could not pivot away from an anti immigrant posture. This is in part due to the brand being tied to that position and partly that the leadership has to appeal to the right wing xenophobic wing. In 2010 when Meg Whitman ran for Governor of California, she selected the unpopular Pete Wilson as her campaign chair and had to hew closely to Republican Party anti immigrant positions. She lost.
It is impossible to imagine the Republican nominee in 2020 not running on a strident anti immigrant platform. The nominee’s position will be captive to the fears and dread of the right wing fringe. On immigration he or she may have to out Trump the current nominee. So following California while the views of the majority of voters may shift, the leadership will not be able to. Therefore it is probable that the national Republican Party will follow the California example into irrelevancy.
