X Close

Why liberals keep losing They ignore America's real majority

Nixon's happier days. Wally McNamee/Corbis via Getty Images.

Nixon's happier days. Wally McNamee/Corbis via Getty Images.


December 28, 2024   6 mins

At home: disorder in the streets and a rising tide of drugs. Abroad: a shameful, humiliating withdrawal from an Asian outpost of empire. In politics: a conservative demagogue, backed by the silent majority, sweeps aside an ineffectual liberal stooge. In culture: fights over abortion, and women, and music, all conjuring a feeling that the republic is doomed. Am I talking about pot and Saigon and the sweep of Richard Nixon, or fentanyl and Kabul and the return of Donald Trump? I could be describing either, for both 1968 and 2024 feel like chaotically epochal years in the American story. Nor are these the only similarities between past and present. Just as in the Sixties, liberals today are faced with an urgent question: what now?

The answer, I think, is epitomised in a single book. Written by Ben Wattenberg and Richard M. Scammon in 1970, The Real Majority: An Extraordinary Examination of the American Electorate charted the political centre in the new Nixonian age. Over half a century on, it still offers deep insights for navigating a society in flux, even as it shrewdly leavens its electoral insights with clear and evocative language. Especially with Donald Trump the new American leviathan, moreover, The Real Majority offers another enduring truth — if liberals fail to occupy the heartland of American politics, wily conservatives will rush to get there first.

After their defeat in the 1968 election, Democrats pondered the future. The loudest insurgents were the so-called New Politics liberals, progressive activists who sought to push their party Leftwards. This meant replacing the New Deal coalition, anchored by middle-income voters, with the so-called McGovern coalition: a heady blend of youth voters, African Americans, the poor, and the educated middle class. Activists believed this grouping comprised a majority that could push the country in a more progressive direction.

Scammon and Wattenberg dismissed these ideas as arithmetically foolish — and therefore politically hopeless. Insatiable data hounds, they made psephology The Real Majority’s foundation. The authors knew all the relevant players across Capitol Hill, yet rejected cocktails with senators for slogs through the electoral weeds. As they put it: “It is voters, not insiders, who elect candidates.”

Not that any of this theorising is hard to unpick. On the contrary, The Real Majority makes its case with literary aplomb. “The great majority of the voters in America are unyoung, unpoor, and unblack,” is how the authors put it: “they are middle-aged, middle-class, and middle-minded.” A generation before algorithms micro-targeted soccer moms, Scammon and Wattenberg macro-targeted America’s archetypal Middle Voter. She wasn’t a peacenik anthropology major, but rather a 47-year-old housewife, married to a machinist in Ohio. Her concerns, not that of the activist class, comprised the real “center of American politics”.

Far more than a postmortem, then, The Real Majority offered Democrats a roadmap back to power, one obliging the party to abandon decades of ideological baggage. Since the Great Depression, after all, its power had rested on the issue of economic prosperity. Yet by the late Sixties, the glory days of the New Deal felt very far away. From violent anti-war protests to Black Power radicalism, the authors argued there was now a new core in American politics, one less focused on unions or wages, and more on social cleavages. In this unfamiliar new era, the duo therefore urged for New Deal activism in economics, but also toughness on these new-fangled cultural pressures. As the duo warned, if they failed to get serious on what they called the “Social Issue” then they could wave their electoral future goodbye.

This is hardly surprising. Through the Sixties, after all, rates of violent crime had doubled or even tripled. And yet like the 2020s, liberals responded by equating law-and-order with racism. In one memorable passage, the authors brilliantly evoked the bleating progressive activist, one depressingly resonant five decades on. “Lady, you’re not really afraid of being mugged; you’re a bigot.” On Vietnam, meanwhile, liberals hemmed and hawed before finally dismissing Americans as imperialists — when what they should have done was take charge and explained how they’d end the war.

These insights, so fresh then and so familiar now, didn’t come from nothing. On the contrary, The Real Majority’s intoxicating blend of clear-eyed policy prescription and psephological analysis can be traced straight back to its authors. For the former, we have Scammon to thank. Born in 1915, to upper-class parents in Minneapolis, the precocious youngster once organised the entire globe into voting precincts. The Second World War interrupted his doctoral work in political science. But soon enough, the young Captain Scammon was devising West Germany’s postwar elections. That prompted a stint in the State Department and a 1961 appointment to head the Census Bureau.

By the late Sixties, Scammon was the nation’s preeminent source on all things statistical: but still needed help translating his deep electoral insights into something more tangible. Enter Joseph Ben Zion Wattenberg. Born in 1933 to East European Jewish immigrants, he came of age in a Bronx hothouse of Leftwing Zionism. A writer and editor, he dabbled in children’s literature and trade journals, and failed in two runs for local office. By 1962, Wattenberg discovered Scammon’s Census Bureau and its decennial Statistical Abstract of the United States. Drawn to this compendium of numerical facts, Wattenberg interviewed and then befriended Scammon.

This partnership would soon spawn The Real Majority, a project aimed at saving liberals from themselves. Scammon’s data allowed them to see beyond the facile McGovern coalition, even as Wattenberg’s vivid penmanship turned mountains of data into a page turner. “To know that the lady in Dayton is afraid to walk the streets alone at night,” he evocatively explained, “to know that that her brother-in-law is a policeman, to know that she does not have the money to move if her new neighborhood deteriorates, to know that she is deeply distressed that her son is going to community junior college where LSD can be found on the campus — to know all this is the beginning of contemporary political wisdom.”

“The Real Majority was a project aimed at saving liberals from themselves.”

When the book was finally published, in the fall of 1970, it raced up the New York Times bestseller list. A restless political animal, Richard Nixon read pre-publication excerpts of The Real Majority with a mixture of interest and alarm. And no wonder: it was written by Democrats to defeat him, even as aides warned the book offered a “workable blueprint for our defeat”. A lengthy White House memo on the work soon circulated. “Republicans,” it cautioned, “cannot allow the Democrats to get back on the right side of the social issue.” Soon enough, this became official White House strategy for the midterms and beyond.

Nixon, in an act of political jujitsu, used The Real Majority’s blueprint to do the unthinkable: win blue-collar Democrats. Through the Social Issue, he built an enduring Republican majority, making liberals into allies of disorder. To achieve this, Nixon searched his bag of political tricks. After a rally in San Jose, California, the president’s advance team stalled his exit to coincide with the appearance of anti-war protesters. With his enemies moving in, Nixon muttered “this is what they hate to see” and leapt onto the hood of his limo, thrusting both arms upward into his trademark Double-V. The crowd howled obscenities and hurled stones, eggs, and vegetables. Finally, Nixon’s motorcade drove away through a hail of debris. Windows were smashed, aides frightened; but Tricky Dicky got the media images he wanted. The corpulent Donald Trump could only dream of such a stunt.

The San Jose stunt enabled Nixon to pillory his “thousand haters”. Aligning himself with the Dayton housewife, he called for an end to “appeasement” of the “thugs and hoodlums”. Decades later, you can still almost hear the Glendas of America nodding vigorously in agreement. Nor did The Real Majority’s influence end there. William Safire, a Nixon aide and amateur linguist, noticed a change in the national lexicon. “Elitism” and “permissiveness” — long relegated to academic jargon — entered the mainstream. Just as The Real Majority predicted, a backlash against disorder had taken root. This allowed Nixon to paint himself as the moderate defender of what he himself called the “silent majority”.

It took liberals far longer to grasp these lessons. In November 1972, George McGovern, the star of American progressivism and eponymous hero of that much-vaunted coalition, was thrashed by Nixon. In fact, the result would be the greatest landslide ever won by a Republican presidential nominee, with Nixon securing over 60% of the vote. The South Dakota senator’s antiwar activism, dovetailed with his support for universal basic income, may have thrilled the Left. But McGovern was, in the words of a political ally, the candidate of “acid, amnesty, and abortion”. As one Middle American bluntly told a journalist: “McGovern? He’s for dope.”

And if Democratic failure in the early Seventies soon paved the way for Reagan, The Real Majority is far from a historical artefact. For if our current moment has deep echoes to the late Sixties, the book remains eerily applicable to the age of Trump. Even now, the “great majority” of American voters remain “middle-aged, middle-class, and middle-minded”. That’s clear enough from the election last month: middle-income and middle-aged GenXers broke hard for Trump. To these Americans, inflation and crime outweighed the boutique worries of the activist class.

One enduring lesson of The Real Majority, then, is this: whoever wins the centre wins elections. Here’s another: if Democrats ignore Wattenberg and Scammon, repeating the mistakes of the New Politics and focusing on trans rights and climate catastrophism over bread-and-butter basics, conservatives will continue to dominate the national conversation. Even then, progressives aren’t sure to absorb the book’s wisdom. As Wattenberg once cracked, The Real Majority alienated “most every liberal in America — except those it converted”. Yet the facts are stubborn, whatever the year.


Jeff Bloodworth is a writer and professor of American political history at Gannon University

jhueybloodworth

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

33 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 day ago

Good article. I think though the times are very different today. No one believes, trusts or enjoys nor watches the MSM anymore. With good reason. And its decline will only accelerate as the quality of on line content gets ever better.

People are far more savvy today politically speaking and the catastrophic effects of progressive liberalism in every area of our lives is on full display all day every day.

Open border third world immigration has turned our cities into dangerous ethnic kips where MENAP and SubSaharan men live in 4* hotels at the country’s expense and leer at schoolgirls all day instead of being deported as soon as they land.

HAMAS supporting ethnics and immigrants are allowed to intimidate Jews and openly call for an intifada while the police focus on non crime hate crimes (thought crimes).

Two inbred imports broke a police woman’s nose at an airport and it took 6 months for the CPS to even charge them where as if you turned up at a protest and shouted at a police dog because you were angry about a Rwandan covert to Islam (he wasn’t Welsh) stabbed three little white girls to death, you were actually in prison serving 18 months within weeks.

I could go on and on but it’s clear to most that liberalism and its demented twin, progressivism will be the end of the western world if we allow it to continue.

I do think the cull has started though but it will be a long difficult road as it has very deep foundations that badly infects literally every organisation, government department and institution. Vast quantities of ideological disinfectant and elbow grease will be required.

Dee Harris
Dee Harris
20 hours ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Everything you wrote is right except your 3rd sentence. Most people in the UK still believe what they watch and read in the MSM. That’s why even after 30 years of ConLabLib failures 70% continued to vote for them.

Last edited 20 hours ago by Dee Harris
Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
18 hours ago
Reply to  Dee Harris

Cross-referencing to the Unherd piece today on Luigi Mangione, it could be argued that those 70% are NPCs – ‘real humans who behave as predictably as video game NPCs, giving scripted responses and engaging in seemingly mindless, automated behaviors’.
A new acronym to me, but one which aptly describes a lot of recent behaviour in reaction to world events.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
17 hours ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

You only have to recall how the vast majority of the population responded to the Covid dictates. Even now when I push those I know they cannot bring themselves to dissociate from the official narrative.
They still believe that the virus originated in a wet market and that sooner or later we will find Saddam Hussain’s weapons of mass-destruction buried in the Iraqi desert.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
17 hours ago
Reply to  Dee Harris

Entirely agree. The MSM has been emphatically silent about our 2 tier justice system. They need to be purged for the sake of the country

Last edited 17 hours ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
charlie martell
charlie martell
10 hours ago
Reply to  Dee Harris

Yes. But they had nowhere to go.

Now, Reform have got to nearly 150,000 paying members from nowhere. Young people, dis-enfranchised people, and they are doing it by proposing what were once normal Conservative policies.

It’s not everything, but these people are watching now. They are looking for somewhere to go. If Reform take their time, get good people on board to help, get professional, get media slick, all of which they are aiming to do, the game changes.

Last edited 10 hours ago by charlie martell
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
21 hours ago

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that elections are won by pushing policies that appeal to the majority on the centre ground. The trick the progressives attempt to pull is to try to paint the majority as being on the extreme “far right” – a sort of optical illusion.

So sensible majority appealing policies such as secure boarders and evenhanded law and order are painted as extreme “far right” bigotry. The aim is to make those who are naturally conformist embarrassed to admit their real views and cleve to the views of the actual progressive extreme in the false belief that they represent the moderate caring centre of politics. How else can anti-white DEI policies be promoted in a majority white country but by pretending it is a centre majority view rather than extreme leftist bigotry.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
18 hours ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Agree with every word. Except ‘boarders’ – those are the ones filling up the UK’s hotels at the taxpayer’s expense, to the tune of several million pounds a day.

Cantab Man
Cantab Man
12 hours ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Exactly.

The ‘influential’ progressive Left – meaning those with enough money and power to actually believe in their own delusions – have become so hubristically extreme with their ideology that they’re now considered outliers, far beyond observed reality and the population of citizens that sit within society’s normal distribution curve.

So when they say that everyone to the right of them (meaning everyone that’s actually part of society’s distribution curve – left, right, and center) is an “extremist,” they’re merely drawing society’s attention to their own irrational extremism. And so they continue their precipitous decay and decline as they isolate themselves from reality and normal society.

It’s a fascinating phenomenon to observe from a distance.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
9 hours ago
Reply to  Cantab Man

Yup.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
21 hours ago

Enough of saving the left from themselves. Leave them to self-destruct and at least we can save society from them.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
7 hours ago

‘Never interrupt your opponent when he’s making a mistake.’

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 day ago

So Nixon was a smart and effective politician whose political strategies continue to bear fruit decades hence and who was also a selfish jackass while McGovern was an ineffectual forgettable idealist whose ideology got his party roundly defeated in its day and continues to haunt the party decades later. Sounds about right. I don’t think most Trump voters would nominate the man for sainthood either. Nothing new here. Honestly this article comes off as arguing that the Democrats would do better if they just had different policies and a different strategy to pursue a different group of core voters. Well duh.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
19 hours ago

Talk of the fabled ‘Centre’, especially by progressives, makes me chuckle. Given the ever-shifting Overton Window (it’s on a leftwards-only ratchet in the salons of power), isn’t the ‘centre’ as described here nowadays ‘populist far-right’?
Until liberals realise the very stuff of their worldview is at variance with human nature, they will continue chasing their tails. Wondering why rain is wet and why the night is dark.

RA Znayder
RA Znayder
17 hours ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Culturally maybe. But on economics the Overton window has shifted a lot to the right, especially in the US. This rightward shift in combination with liberal window dressing is a big part of the confusion, in my opinion.

M. Jamieson
M. Jamieson
8 hours ago
Reply to  RA Znayder

To the point that many of the parties and individuals pushing progressive social policies have abandoned what were once typically left economic ideas, and have embraced globalism. I can’t stop being surprised that suspicion of international trade cabals seems to be coded as right wing by many of these people, as if they don’t remember protesting them 30 years ago.
I suppose it’s great for the cabals who can go about their business without worrying about anyone asking too many questions.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
16 hours ago

Leftists keep losing because their mindset mirrors the one found in activism – there is no end goal in mind, only a perpetuation of whatever the issue is in order to continue the hustle.
Most people do NOT favor open borders. Most people do NOT favor the sexualization of children. Most people do NOT favor letting crime go unpunished. But leftists insist otherwise because theirs is not an agenda of effective, efficient govt; it’s one of remolding society. A former president was open about it in talking of fundamentally transforming America.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
17 hours ago

“but Tricky Dicky got the media images he wanted. The corpulent Donald Trump could only dream of such a stunt.”
Well it may not have been of his own making but getting shot I think was probably an even more effective image

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 day ago

Very interesting. I haven’t read the book, but I will. The Center are those that decide.

Hugh Jarse
Hugh Jarse
23 hours ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Absolutely. As one gets older the more one appreciates the lessons and value of history. Nothing is new. There’s a blueprint, somewhere in the past, of where we are now, with some lessons of how (or how not to) get to where we want to be.

Harrydog
Harrydog
20 hours ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You would have thought that Trump’s victory would have been more resounding in the popular vote. I think his personal negatives still turned off otherwise centrist voters. To me the question going forward is whether a new candidate can mobilize the MAGA base while reaping the benefits of campaigning without Trump’s liabilities.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
17 hours ago

“if liberals fail to occupy the heartland of American politics, wily conservatives will rush to get there first.”
Conservatives are already there, being “wily” enough to actually BE the heartland of American politics. The failure to understand or admit this is why liberals keep losing.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
17 hours ago

It could not possibly be they are so often exposed ( found out ) to be such hypocrites ?

RA Znayder
RA Znayder
17 hours ago

There is an interesting 2014 paper by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page called Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. It showed that, in the end, the political interests of economic elites are simply represented by both parties. Whereas widely popular policies have been blocked forever. If that is true it does not seem that the establishment was ever really interested in the real majority in the first place. Perhaps it was actually fear of the masses that motivated them.

Last edited 16 hours ago by RA Znayder
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
19 hours ago

The paragraph about Nixon’s appearance at the anti-war protest ends thusly:
“Finally, Nixon’s motorcade drove away through a hail of debris. Windows were smashed, aides frightened; but Tricky Dicky got the media images he wanted. The corpulent Donald Trump could only dream of such a stunt.”
…what?
What kind of powerful magic does Trump wield over the chattering classes, that causes them to be so utterly obsessed with him? — this shoehorn of Trump might have made sense (he is a showman, for sure), but the writer appears to have tacked on this final sentence in a para about Nixon just simply so he could have the opportunity to call Trump ‘fat’, albeit in more artful language.

I really can’t see how that paragraph / anecdote was at all enhanced by the addition of insulting Mr Trump over his weight. Why do sensible adults do this all the time? …it’s so incredibly tedious. Trump really does seem to ‘live rent-free’ in these peoples’ heads, as the kids would say.

It’s an otherwise decent article, though if one were feeling churlish it might be said that ‘political power is won by appealing to the majority’ is not necessarily a stunning insight we’ve never heard before. The book sounds interesting though, I’ll check it out.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
17 hours ago

Who wants to rescue liberals or Democrats. Should the not be eradicated?

Tom Condray
Tom Condray
12 hours ago

I found it an interesting essay, though I suspect not for the same reasons as other thoughtful commenters.
First, I learned a new word today: psephology
It’s one of those words I’m sure I will only read, so I had to look up its pronunciation should I ever have occasion to use it in conversation. But, once again perhaps for me only, I found the use of it to describe the author’s subjects’ research into elections a straightforward example of what’s wrong with the current Democratic Party, and its progressive wing. To-wit: why seek out a specific word of which almost no one will know the meaning to describe someone’s efforts at research on elections?
Indeed, the continued evolution–or mutation to my mind– of Newspeak in Prog circles typifies the ongoing process of cultivating ways to direct peoples’ thoughts to ensure they follow the party line. Such examples in earlier eras like “political correctness” weasel their way into the lingua franca, and we don’t realize their pernicious effects because they’ve become commonplace.
I’m cynical enough to suspect the author used the word to establish his bona fides as a distinguished essayist who’s mastered language so well he has the proper bon mot for any occasion.
So, inherent in this essay are the fundamentals of Leftist Dogma: Republicans are “wily”, invoking Trump in a derogatory Nixon anecdote to establish the author is one of the good guys, and declaring Democrats must seize the center on issues not because that will help promote the will of the people, but–instead–help to promote Democratic Party political fortunes.
Fortunately, for those of us who wish a return to our nation’s foundations, the overwhelming majority of the Democratic elite will either never read this article, or understand its proposal, and remain distant from the very people in this nation who still have enough common sense not to vote for an idiot like Kamala Harris.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
9 hours ago

I’ve just spent Christmas in the Canaries. Among the many British people I met, the support for Reform was nearly unanimous.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
7 hours ago

A personal observation: The small currency of retail politics that keeps the whole Party machine huffing and puffing along, is the simple question of who shows up at my rallies, who brings signs, gets us a photo in the Times, etc.
For the Democrats that means young people with some ax to grind.
The Republicans instead have family friendly (except for the assassins) rallies, coffee klatches, bake sales. They set up booths and give away donuts at gun shows and county fairs.
The Dems can’t manage to walk away from their mistake because they really just don’t like the voters. It’s personal, really, not political. They can’t think of anything to talk about.

mike otter
mike otter
17 hours ago

The difference between then and now is a minority of Democrats supported the VC. Now the Democrats are the VC with none of the tenacity or bravery and certainly were out the ability to abstain from drugs. I think it is funny that they can no longer win elections on a fair playing field but I’m not worried they will suddenly develop the Cahone of the VC.

Michael Clarke
Michael Clarke
16 hours ago

Interesting piece.

Dick Barrett
Dick Barrett
15 hours ago

“… the authors argued there was now a new core in American politics, one less focused on unions or wages, and more on social cleavages.” Have I misunderstood this article? Surely the authors were arguing that unions and wages were precisely the core that Democrats should have stuck with?

Mike MacCormack
Mike MacCormack
9 hours ago

This is not difficult. American politics is a very recent development, comparatively speaking, while human nature has been honed over aeons by evolutionary tweaking to reveal in the survivors a tendency to prefer sex and violence as the answer to any pressing emotional questions. This is exemplified in ten thousand Hollywood films which all have the same plot – an ordinary man is happy, but bad men appear, they injure him so badly (kill his wife, kids, cop partner, pet) that they now deserve whatever’s coming to them. Ordinary man finds superhuman competence allied with depths of pure hatred and despair in his soul and empowered by this MAGA mood kills the bad men as viciously as possible, and is redeemed in the eyes of the world. I could elaborate; henchmen always die first, in numbers, until evil boss is quite alone and knows he is a goner – he gets shot in the face, serve him right. All the lovey dovey sharing and caring in the world is never going to trump this basic scenario – calling it a plot is silly, and speculating why the US citizen tends to equate firepower with security is too. Got a problem? Shoot it in the face, job done.