I've got to hand it to the GOP. They've thought of everything. I'd like to know who the people are who were able to take the whole big picture and put together an amazingly effective strategy for seizing and holding on to power. While there has been much discussion of how the GOP likes to control the media, there are a couple of other things that I believe are the result of GOP election strategies:
A. Drain sources of funding from the opposition
Opposition funding comes from blue states. Making blue states poorer decreases the ability of the people who live there to donate to the Democratic Party. The way to make those states poorer is to decrease government spending in those states. A couple pieces from what I'm sure are reams of evidence:
1. Ralph Hall's comments when explaining his switch to the Republican party, that the only reason given for spending cuts in his district were that he was a Democrat.
2. The closure of virtually every military base in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California overall, bases have been closed at twice the rate of other regions. While some might celebrate a decreased military presence, a military base contributes to the local economy. I have no doubt that this trend will continue in the upcoming rollback.
With Bush's ascent to power, utilities and energy providers were able to get in on the act. With the theft of $9 billion from the State of California in electricity overcharges, and a significantly larger sum billed directly to private individuals, it was in the Republican interest to look the other way. Not just because it rewarded energy companies for their support of the GOP, but also because this action deprived the average voter in California from making political contributions [or doing other things, but since political contributions are at the bottom of the priority list, this is one of the first things to be sacrificed], which would favor Democrats disproportionately.
B. Attack programs which contribute to a source of Democratic votes.
When George Bush lauded Americorp this year, it seemed to fly in the face of this whole pet theory of mine. But when, like AIDS-prevention funding in Africa, funding never occurred, I felt re-validated. By definition, Americorp leads most participants to adopt a wider view of the U.S. and the World than the GOP would like, as preconceived stereotypes melt away in the face of actual involvement in the problems of the poor. I'm sure the Republican Party is aghast that government money is subsidizing an educational tool that ultimately would lead to more Democratic (or at least non-Republican) voters. So, it is most certainly in the interests of the GOP to attack this program, and to attack higher education in general. In fact, the real killer for the GOP with Americorp is that it contributes to higher education. There are heaps of studies which show that the most educated are the least conservative [yes, there are exceptions. Those educated through HS I believe are slightly more liberal than the college degreed, but those with multiple degrees certainly aren't].
I'm sure there are more - but whenever the GOP creates a policy initiative, look beyond how it directly affects GOP contributors. Look also at how it also affects Democratic contributors and potential Democratic votes.