The 1984 Election Highlighted The Thin Line Between Democrats and Republicans (And Why the Electoral Collage is Trash)

 As we near the mid-terms and after that the inevitable politics-as-sports push to support either Democrats or Republicans for 2024, people will get in front of cameras and microphones and try to convince you that there are stark differences between the parties. 

Now while anyone who's been through at least three difference presidents (or just pays attention) can debunk this (for pretty much the lifespan of every American, none of us have experience three back-to-back-to-back Democratic or Republican presidents) we sadly have a country full of short memories and easily propagandized psyches. 

Case in Point: the 1984 Presidential Election:

Reagan won in an electoral college landslide and with 58% of the popular vote. As in most elections, you can trace some of that other 42% to counties that are heavily urban, but as the map suggests, Reagan enjoyed crazy crossover appeal.

(Let's pause here real quick to remind everyone that Reagan was the last major politician before the true red/blue divide. George H. W. Bush was essentially a third Reagan term, and while every preceding president was also some variation of Reagan/Reaganomics, it was Bill Clinton daring to act like a moderate Republican from the South that pissed the GOP off to no end, resulting in Clinton's impeachment, leading Democrats to take out their frustration out on George W. Bush; and then Obama, and then Trump and now Biden...)  

Anyone from the 1990's and beyond would look at that map and make the familiar claims:

• The GOP was more reasonable back in 1984;
• Reaganomics/Capitalism was working;
• Reagan had a unifying persona;
• Mondale was too radical/extreme/left;

I would posit that what gave Reagan (and by extension, the GOP) a crossover appeal was appearing to offer something working class wanted: an opportunity to grow professionally, financially and socially, all while being unhampered by bureaucracy.  The 1984 Party Platform alludes to as much by ending the Carter grain embargo and highlighting the National Commission on Excellence in Education. Also, I read something there that I never thought I would see associated with the GOP:

While protecting the environment, we should permit abundant American coal to be mined and consumed. Environmentally sound development of oil and natural gas on federal properties (which has brought the taxpayers $20 billion in revenue in the last four years) should continue. We believe that as controls have been lifted from the energy marketplace, conservation and alternative sources of energy, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, have become increasingly cost-effective. We further take pride in the fact that Reagan Administration economic policies have created an environment most favorable to the small businesses that pioneer these alternative technologies.

We now have a sound, long-term program for disposal of nuclear waste. We will work to eliminate unnecessary regulatory procedures so that nuclear plants can be brought on line quickly, efficiently, and safely. We call for an energy policy, the stability and continuity of which will restore and encourage public confidence in the fiscal stability of the nuclear industry.

Of course, the idea of "safe" and "nuclear" going together is wild and in the next sentence they're talking about destroying the Department of Energy, but when's the last time the GOP even gave lip-service to the environment?

Oh, and that wasn't the only mention:

It is part of the Republican philosophy to preserve the best of our heritage, including our natural resources. The environment is not just a scientific or technological issue; it is a human one. Republicans put the needs of people at the center of environmental concerns. We assert the people's stewardship of our God-given natural resources. We pledge to meet the challenges of environmental protection, economic growth, regulatory reform, enhancement of our scenic and recreational areas, conservation of our non-renewable resources, and preservation of our irreplaceable natural heritage.

Americans were environmentalists long before it became fashionable. Our farmers cared for the earth and made it the world's most bountiful. Our families cared for their neighborhoods as an investment in our children's future. We pioneered the conservation that replenished our forests, preserved our wildlife, and created our national park system.

In short, the GOP appealed to the working class with the promise that they can become more prosperous. Most of the known economic indicators from Reagan's previous term supported this belief,  Issues of gender and race were addressed through children (i.e., education). Reagan himself was always careful enough not to get too much into the weeds.

Now in reality, the GOP platform boiled down to massive tax cuts and deregulation under the premise that this would encourage businesses and rich people to innovate and create opportunities for everyone else...as oppose to hoarding their money and firing workers, which is what they eventually did. The key difference is that there weren't enough activists and otherwise socially-conscious people/groups to highlight the shortcomings of Reagan and the Republicans. 

A hint of this can be seen in one the two locations that Mondale won: the District of Columbia. Here, Mondale won 85.38% of the vote (remember, this was technically Reagan's residence for the previous four years) and the population was majority non-white. And to press the point, in Maryland (which did go for Reagan) the two blackest counties overwhelmingly supported Mondale:

Compare to "left-leaning" states like Vermont (where Patrick Leahy was serving as senator), New York (where only Albany, Bronx, Erie, Kings, Manhattan, Queens and Tompkins were pro-Mondale) and Massachusetts (where Reagan won 8 of the 11 districts despite 10 of them having Democratic Representatives). 

Just the appearance to being on the side of the working class was enough to get diehard blues to crossover (like about one in four), something that would be considered blasphemy today, and by that I means both the idea of Democrats supporting a "generic Republican" (even if recent history has proven that if Michelle Obama likes you or if you oppose Trump, you're automatically one of the "good ones") and the idea that working class people should never even consider the GOP over the Democrats. 

So today's critics can save the "any blue will do" talk for the Democrats aged 55 and over voted for Reagan back in 1984.