 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Reagan coalition" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
.jpg)
| ||
|---|---|---|
Entertainment and personal 33rd Governor of California 40th President of the United States Tenure   | ||
TheReagan coalition was the combination of voters thatRepublicanRonald Reagan assembled to produce a majorpolitical realignment with his electoral landslide in the1980 United States presidential election. The coalition was possible because ofDemocratJimmy Carter's losses in most socio-economic groups.In 1984, Reagan confirmed his support by winning nearly 60% of the popular vote and carrying 49 of the 50 states.
TheReagan Democrats were members of the Democratic Party before and after theReagan presidency, but voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and for his vice president,George H. W. Bush,in 1988, producing their landslide victories. They were mostly whitesocially conservativeblue-collar workers who lived inthe Northeast and were attracted to Reagan'ssocial conservatism on issues such as abortion and tohis anti-communist hawkish foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republicanin 1992 or1996, causing the term to fall into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not generally used to describe the white Southerners who permanently changed party affiliation from Democrat to Republican during Reagan's presidency. They have largely remained Republican to this day.
Democratic pollsterStan Greenberg analyzed white, largely unionized auto workers in suburbanMacomb County, Michigan, just north ofDetroit. The county voted 63% forJohn F. Kennedy inthe 1960 presidential election and 66% for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of theirmiddle class aspirations. They instead viewed the Democratic Party as working primarily for the benefit of others, especiallyAfrican Americans and the very poor.
The Reagan coalition began to fall apart after 1988 when Reagan was ineligible for reelection and Bush won over DemocratMichael Dukakis. Bush lost over 5 million votes and 100 electoral votes in comparison to what Reagan won four years prior. In 1992, Bush faceda competitive primary competition withPat Buchanan, still winning the Republican nomination with 72% of the vote. Bush went on to lose the general election against DemocratBill Clinton, with exit polling showing Bush retaining 66% of the Republican vote, Clinton winning 12%, and independent candidateRoss Perot winning 21%. In 1996, RepublicanBob Dole lost to Clinton, taking 68% of the Republican vote, improving on Bush's margin, while Clinton took 23% and Perot 7%.
| 1980 and 1976 voter groups and presidential votes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of the total 1980 vote | Group | Carter (1980) | Reagan (1980) | Anderson (1980) | Carter (1976) | Ford (1976) |
| Party | ||||||
| 43 | Democratic | 65 | 26 | 6 | 77 | 22 |
| 23 | Independent | 30 | 54 | 12 | 43 | 54 |
| 28 | Republican | 11 | 84 | 4 | 9 | 90 |
| Ideology | ||||||
| 18 | Liberal | 57 | 27 | 11 | 70 | 26 |
| 51 | Moderate | 42 | 48 | 8 | 51 | 48 |
| 31 | Conservative | 23 | 71 | 4 | 29 | 70 |
| Race | ||||||
| 10 | Black | 82 | 14 | 3 | 82 | 16 |
| 2 | Hispanic | 54 | 36 | 7 | 75 | 24 |
| 88 | White | 36 | 55 | 8 | 47 | 52 |
| Sex | ||||||
| 48 | Female | 45 | 46 | 7 | 50 | 48 |
| 52 | Male | 37 | 54 | 7 | 50 | 48 |
| Religion | ||||||
| 46 | Protestant | 37 | 56 | 6 | 44 | 55 |
| 41 | White Protestant | 31 | 62 | 6 | 43 | 57 |
| 25 | Catholic | 40 | 51 | 7 | 54 | 44 |
| 5 | Jewish | 45 | 39 | 14 | 64 | 34 |
| Family income | ||||||
| 13 | Less than $10,000 | 50 | 41 | 6 | 58 | 40 |
| 15 | $10,000–$14,999 | 47 | 42 | 8 | 55 | 43 |
| 29 | $15,000–$24,999 | 38 | 53 | 7 | 48 | 50 |
| 24 | $25,000–$50,000 | 32 | 58 | 8 | 36 | 62 |
| 5 | Over $50,000 | 25 | 65 | 8 | — | — |
| Occupation | ||||||
| 39 | Professional or manager | 33 | 56 | 9 | 41 | 57 |
| 11 | Clerical, sales, white collar | 42 | 48 | 8 | 46 | 53 |
| 17 | Blue-collar | 46 | 47 | 5 | 57 | 41 |
| 3 | Agriculture | 29 | 66 | 3 | — | — |
| 3 | Unemployed | 55 | 35 | 7 | 65 | 34 |
| Education | ||||||
| 11 | Less than high school | 50 | 45 | 3 | 58 | 41 |
| 28 | High school graduate | 43 | 51 | 4 | 54 | 46 |
| 28 | Some college | 35 | 55 | 8 | 51 | 49 |
| 27 | College graduate | 35 | 51 | 11 | 45 | 55 |
| Union membership | ||||||
| 28 | Labor union household | 47 | 44 | 7 | 59 | 39 |
| 62 | No member of household in union | 35 | 55 | 8 | 43 | 55 |
| Age | ||||||
| 6 | 18–21 years old | 44 | 43 | 11 | 48 | 50 |
| 17 | 22–29 years old | 43 | 43 | 11 | 51 | 46 |
| 31 | 30–44 years old | 37 | 54 | 7 | 49 | 49 |
| 23 | 45–59 years old | 39 | 55 | 6 | 47 | 52 |
| 18 | 60 years or older | 40 | 54 | 4 | 47 | 52 |
| Region | ||||||
| 25 | East | 42 | 47 | 9 | 51 | 47 |
| 27 | South | 44 | 51 | 3 | 54 | 45 |
| 22 | South (whites) | 35 | 60 | 3 | 46 | 52 |
| 27 | Midwest | 40 | 51 | 7 | 48 | 50 |
| 19 | Far West | 35 | 53 | 9 | 46 | 51 |
| Community size | ||||||
| 18 | City over 250,000 | 54 | 35 | 8 | 60 | 40 |
| 53 | Suburb/small city | 37 | 53 | 8 | 53 | 47 |
| 29 | Rural/town | 39 | 54 | 5 | 47 | 53 |
| Source:[1] | ||||||
"The Three Legged Stool of the Republican Party", also known by "The Gipper's Stool" or "Reagan's Stool", is a theory about thecomposition of the U.S. Republican Party. It is intended to explain the way theRepublican Party's power base derives from the three main "legs" (factions) within the "stool", those being theChristian right/social conservatives,fiscal conservatives, andanti-communist foreigninterventionists. This coalition came together with the rise of theNew Right and the election ofRonald Reagan.
Variants of the phrase are often used interchangeably, such as "Gipper's Stool" or "Reagan's Stool".Ronald Reagan coined the term as a way to describe the Republican party as a three-part coalition based on thesocial conservatives (consisting of theChristian right andpaleo-conservatives),war hawks (consisting ofinterventionists andneoconservatives), andfiscal conservatives (consisting ofright-libertarians andfree-market capitalists), withoverlap between the sides.[2][3][4] The "legs" of the analogy describe each part of the coalition, the idea being that without all three the party cannot win (as a stool cannot support itself with only two legs).[5]
During the election of 1980,Ronald Reagan described the party as a three-legged stool, most combining their different brands of conservatism in opposition to theSoviet Union and the spread ofCommunism during theCold War. This political philosophy is often branded asfusionism as both groups have overlapping interests asLibertarian philosopherFrank Meyer, as both shared values and most importantly enemies.[6] During the 2007Iowa caucuses,Mitt Romney carried a physical three-legged stool, explaining the importance of each leg. He also stated in terms of the importance of the legs as being “our candidate has to be somebody who can represent and speak for all three legs of the conservative stool or conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan put together — social conservatives, economic conservatives, and defense conservatives.”, and without it the party would fail.[5]
Critics often use the stool as a means to criticize party leadership or another member of the stool, such is seen in the lament of the "death of the stool" with the2016 election of Donald Trump. Pundits often criticize party membership for abandoning the stool, asBusiness Insider reported, "the person said that thanks mostly to President George W. Bush, the party has failed on the first two legs. The country has shifted significantly over the last one, and there's nothing a Republican candidate can do to change it."[7] SenatorSpencer Abraham has also criticized the stool, saying, "The Republican party has much greater divides now in terms of the feelings of its voters than it did when Reagan ran."[citation needed]
.jpg)
