Monday, May 4, 2009
The late Jack Kemp and the G.O.P.
While he helped to bring the disastrous supply side economic ideas to the Republican party, the late Jack Kemp also sought a "big tent" G.O.P. that would look more like America.
Specter's switch and what it tells us
Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party (actually his RETURN to the party of his younger days) reveals much about the U.S. political party system. First, As Aldrich reminds us, politicians tend to align with political parties that afford the best chance of getting and staying elected; in that respect Specter’s jettisoning of the Republican Party makes perfect self-interested sense. He was sure to lose the Republican primary in 2010, and changing parties afforded his best chance of political survival.
The Senator’s switch also indicates that the process of sorting, described by Fiorina, continues. The Republicans once had a large stock of liberals, such as Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsay of New York; Senators William Scranton and Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania; Congressman Bill Steiger of Wisconsin. The Democrats once had numerous conservatives, mainly Southern, but also such northerners as Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington. As sorting proceeds, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the G.O.P. to abide liberals and the Democrats conservatives.
The extent to which such sorting or elite polarization continues depends in large part on the success of the Obama administration. Should the President’s policies prove effective, and if he maintains his commanding popularity in the polls, it would not be surprising to see the remaining Republican moderate/liberals Snowe and Collins make the party switch as well. If the Obama administration turns out to be a one-term disaster, either because of failed economic or national security policy, it is not difficult to imagine an emboldened G.O.P. that convinces “Blue Dog Democrats” to “jump ship.”
The Senator’s switch also indicates that the process of sorting, described by Fiorina, continues. The Republicans once had a large stock of liberals, such as Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsay of New York; Senators William Scranton and Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania; Congressman Bill Steiger of Wisconsin. The Democrats once had numerous conservatives, mainly Southern, but also such northerners as Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington. As sorting proceeds, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the G.O.P. to abide liberals and the Democrats conservatives.
The extent to which such sorting or elite polarization continues depends in large part on the success of the Obama administration. Should the President’s policies prove effective, and if he maintains his commanding popularity in the polls, it would not be surprising to see the remaining Republican moderate/liberals Snowe and Collins make the party switch as well. If the Obama administration turns out to be a one-term disaster, either because of failed economic or national security policy, it is not difficult to imagine an emboldened G.O.P. that convinces “Blue Dog Democrats” to “jump ship.”
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Republicans debate how to save their party
Here is an excellent analysis of the current state of the Republican party, and the divergent views within the G.O.P. about how to improve their situation.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter to join the Democrats
While this is obviously good news for Democrats in the short term, the question is whether the Keystone State Democrats can unite behind Specter and keep him in the Senate.
Monday, April 27, 2009
What's the Matter with Larry Bartels?
Thomas Frank and Larry Bartels offer different interpretations of working class voting in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Thomas Frank, in What’s The Matter With Kansas and other articles argues that the nation’s working class neglected its economic self interest in supporting Republican candidates such as George W. Bush. With special emphasis on the 2004 election, Frank illustrates how the Republicans, under the leadership of Karl Rove, became adept at convincing working class voters that the Republicans could best protect their interests on the “social” or “wedge” issues such as abortion, prayer in the schools and gay marriage. Bartels, in an effort to discredit the work of Frank, offers a highly restricted definition of lower-income voters that all but excludes a large portion of workers in the middle class. Bartels also ignores a long history of Republican efforts to woo the middle classes going back to Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Overall, Frank offers the more convincing and compelling analysis.
Even a cursory glance at the political history of the United States since the 1960s confirms the long, successful efforts to portray the Democrats as unreliable and dangerous outsiders of one sort or another and the Republicans as the real friends of working class people. This began with Richard Nixon’s appeal to the “Great Silent Majority” and his successful campaign to paint the Democrats as soft on crime, pro-welfare radicals. By 1972 Nixon’s C.R.E.E.P. successfully derided George McGovern as the candidate of “Acid, Amnesty and Abortion.” George H.W. Bush and his campaign manager Lee Atwater took this sort of campaign to a whole new level in 1988 in portraying Michael Dukakis as an unreliable liberal who would endanger school prayer, promote abortion and let dangerous criminals out of jail. This campaign strategy did not arise, de novo, in 2000; it had been around for decades; it worked; to deny that working class people were coming over to the Republican Party in droves defies both common sense and an examination of any political history of those decades.
Also troubling in Bartels’ analysis is his very narrow, restrictive definition of “working class” as those making under $35,000 per year. Certainly there are many in the working class making far more than that. Beyond that, it is too restrictive to attempt a quantitative definition of working class, which is really more of a state of mind or cultural inclination than something to be measured with numbers.
While Frank presented a dire portrait of the state of the Democratic Party in 2005, the November 2008 election, and the breadth and depth of Barack Obama’s victory, give Democrats abundant reasons for optimism. Certainly most of the reliably Republican red states remained red, including Kansas. But Obama was able to win back both Ohio and Florida, which had gone to the Republican column both times for Bush. Beyond that, Obama made inroads into areas previously deemed red or at least purple, such as Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina and Nevada. Theories abound explaining the Obama victory, but surely a large part of his success lay in the fact that, as exit polls indicate, economics trumped the social issues for many voters in 2008, and the Democrats likely won back voters wooed away by the Republicans over several decades. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15270.html
Even a cursory glance at the political history of the United States since the 1960s confirms the long, successful efforts to portray the Democrats as unreliable and dangerous outsiders of one sort or another and the Republicans as the real friends of working class people. This began with Richard Nixon’s appeal to the “Great Silent Majority” and his successful campaign to paint the Democrats as soft on crime, pro-welfare radicals. By 1972 Nixon’s C.R.E.E.P. successfully derided George McGovern as the candidate of “Acid, Amnesty and Abortion.” George H.W. Bush and his campaign manager Lee Atwater took this sort of campaign to a whole new level in 1988 in portraying Michael Dukakis as an unreliable liberal who would endanger school prayer, promote abortion and let dangerous criminals out of jail. This campaign strategy did not arise, de novo, in 2000; it had been around for decades; it worked; to deny that working class people were coming over to the Republican Party in droves defies both common sense and an examination of any political history of those decades.
Also troubling in Bartels’ analysis is his very narrow, restrictive definition of “working class” as those making under $35,000 per year. Certainly there are many in the working class making far more than that. Beyond that, it is too restrictive to attempt a quantitative definition of working class, which is really more of a state of mind or cultural inclination than something to be measured with numbers.
While Frank presented a dire portrait of the state of the Democratic Party in 2005, the November 2008 election, and the breadth and depth of Barack Obama’s victory, give Democrats abundant reasons for optimism. Certainly most of the reliably Republican red states remained red, including Kansas. But Obama was able to win back both Ohio and Florida, which had gone to the Republican column both times for Bush. Beyond that, Obama made inroads into areas previously deemed red or at least purple, such as Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina and Nevada. Theories abound explaining the Obama victory, but surely a large part of his success lay in the fact that, as exit polls indicate, economics trumped the social issues for many voters in 2008, and the Democrats likely won back voters wooed away by the Republicans over several decades. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15270.html
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Eternal Minnesota Senate Race
While it looks as though Al Franken WILL be the junior Senator from Minnesota, there is ongoing litigation.
The New Conservative Party
For those wondering whether today’s Republicans will wither away, a look at the demise of the Whigs is instructive. As John H. Aldrich argues in Why Parties?, the Whigs failed to survive as an effective national party as they were increasingly split by the slavery question. The Republicans arose as a regional, northern-based alternative to the Whigs aware that they could dominate national politics due to the sheer size and political clout of the North. Eventually, as Earl and Merle Black observe, the Republicans became a dominant national party by the 1980s, most triumphantly with Ronald Reagan’s landslide 1984 victory. If the Obama presidency is successful, and he holds onto and expands his diverse 2008 victory coalition, the Republican Party is doomed to an increasingly smaller national role. Ironically, today’s G.O.P. is becoming more and more a reverse image of its original self as a southern-based party. While the Republicans could survive for decades as a northern party, the reverse is not true. Unless the Republicans can once again become a national force, they will meet the fate of the Whigs, and a new moderate conservative party will arise to replace them, perhaps called the New Conservative Party.
The New Conservative Party, as befits a conservative party, would look to the past for inspiration, and it would find much of that in the ideas and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and to some extent Richard M. Nixon. This is a party that would, like the first Republicans, have a deep commitment to equality of opportunity. Also, in the old Whig/Republican tradition, it would not be afraid to spend public funds and do bold things in the name of “internal improvements.” Like Theodore Roosevelt, this party would support a strong role for the federal government in preserving the natural environment and regulating the excesses of large corporations. While the New Conservatives would be as mindful as Dwight D. Eisenhower of the need to balance the budget and spend responsibly, it would not be afraid, like “Ike” to spend lavishly on needed programs, as he was with N.A.S.A., the National Defense Education Act, the National Highway Act and the St. Lawrence Seaway. This new party would endorse creations of Richard Nixon, such as O.S.H.A. and the E.P.A. In terms of foreign policy, the New Conservatives would certainly “Walk softly and carry a big stick” but they would do so with Eisenhower’s concern for avoiding unnecessary expenditures of money and lives in the process. In terms of civil rights, this is a party that would embrace the African American community and welcome its participation, and demonstrate its commitment as Eisenhower did in 1957 at Little Rock and by signing the 1957 Civil Rights Act. This would not be the party of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich!
Potential support would come from several areas. Like the earlier incarnations of the Republican Party, the New Conservatives would likely find their strongest support in the current “purple” states, as well as the more conservative “blue” states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. They could likely win support in the South, except for those areas with strong concentrations of “religious right” voters, such as South Carolina. It is unlikely that they would do well consistently in New York or California, but a popular candidate from either of those states could change that.
In terms of candidates and leaders, several names come to mind. Arnold Schwarzenegger, while of course ineligible to become President, would clearly be happy in such a party. Senators Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe and Susan M. Collins also would be likely members. Moderate, “budget hawk” Democrats from purple states, such as Evan Bayh and Jon Tester might also find a home among the New Conservatives. Governor Bobby Jindal would not only find this an agreeable place, but would also be in the position of being an immediate contender for the presidential nomination. Overall, this would be a place for Democrats unhappy with the expansion of government and the increase of taxes of the Obama administration, combined with Republicans who could no longer cope with having their party hijacked by the likes of Sarah Palin.
How soon and how successfully such a party could compete depends in large part on the events of the next few years. If the Obama recovery plan is slow to take effect, this would certainly accelerate the demands for such a new party. Should the radical religious right succeed in taking over the Republican Party in 2012, this would likely cause moderate Republicans to seek an alternative party. While the New Conservatives could possibly win local and state offices in 2012, they would probably not be a serious contender for the White House until 2016.
Finally, every major political party in the U.S. must, it seems, have an animal symbol. The Whigs, trying to affect a frontier sensibility, had their raccoon. Today’s major parties have the donkey and elephant. A good choice for the New Conservatives would be the squirrel—hard-working and honest yet friendly, sociable and welcoming of all.
The New Conservative Party, as befits a conservative party, would look to the past for inspiration, and it would find much of that in the ideas and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and to some extent Richard M. Nixon. This is a party that would, like the first Republicans, have a deep commitment to equality of opportunity. Also, in the old Whig/Republican tradition, it would not be afraid to spend public funds and do bold things in the name of “internal improvements.” Like Theodore Roosevelt, this party would support a strong role for the federal government in preserving the natural environment and regulating the excesses of large corporations. While the New Conservatives would be as mindful as Dwight D. Eisenhower of the need to balance the budget and spend responsibly, it would not be afraid, like “Ike” to spend lavishly on needed programs, as he was with N.A.S.A., the National Defense Education Act, the National Highway Act and the St. Lawrence Seaway. This new party would endorse creations of Richard Nixon, such as O.S.H.A. and the E.P.A. In terms of foreign policy, the New Conservatives would certainly “Walk softly and carry a big stick” but they would do so with Eisenhower’s concern for avoiding unnecessary expenditures of money and lives in the process. In terms of civil rights, this is a party that would embrace the African American community and welcome its participation, and demonstrate its commitment as Eisenhower did in 1957 at Little Rock and by signing the 1957 Civil Rights Act. This would not be the party of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich!
Potential support would come from several areas. Like the earlier incarnations of the Republican Party, the New Conservatives would likely find their strongest support in the current “purple” states, as well as the more conservative “blue” states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. They could likely win support in the South, except for those areas with strong concentrations of “religious right” voters, such as South Carolina. It is unlikely that they would do well consistently in New York or California, but a popular candidate from either of those states could change that.
In terms of candidates and leaders, several names come to mind. Arnold Schwarzenegger, while of course ineligible to become President, would clearly be happy in such a party. Senators Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe and Susan M. Collins also would be likely members. Moderate, “budget hawk” Democrats from purple states, such as Evan Bayh and Jon Tester might also find a home among the New Conservatives. Governor Bobby Jindal would not only find this an agreeable place, but would also be in the position of being an immediate contender for the presidential nomination. Overall, this would be a place for Democrats unhappy with the expansion of government and the increase of taxes of the Obama administration, combined with Republicans who could no longer cope with having their party hijacked by the likes of Sarah Palin.
How soon and how successfully such a party could compete depends in large part on the events of the next few years. If the Obama recovery plan is slow to take effect, this would certainly accelerate the demands for such a new party. Should the radical religious right succeed in taking over the Republican Party in 2012, this would likely cause moderate Republicans to seek an alternative party. While the New Conservatives could possibly win local and state offices in 2012, they would probably not be a serious contender for the White House until 2016.
Finally, every major political party in the U.S. must, it seems, have an animal symbol. The Whigs, trying to affect a frontier sensibility, had their raccoon. Today’s major parties have the donkey and elephant. A good choice for the New Conservatives would be the squirrel—hard-working and honest yet friendly, sociable and welcoming of all.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Shirley Abrahamson's victory analyzed
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/42648362.html
Here is a post-election analysis of Justice Shirley Abrahamson's victory over Judge Randy Koshnick. Unlike Gableman's vicious campaign against Justice Louis Butler last year, this election was a more genteel affair, in the tradition of many past nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. In a course on U.S. party politics, it is appropriate, I think, to take at least a moment to consider how much partisanship we want in our judicial selection process.
Here is a post-election analysis of Justice Shirley Abrahamson's victory over Judge Randy Koshnick. Unlike Gableman's vicious campaign against Justice Louis Butler last year, this election was a more genteel affair, in the tradition of many past nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. In a course on U.S. party politics, it is appropriate, I think, to take at least a moment to consider how much partisanship we want in our judicial selection process.
The Republicans are not the Whigs
In his analysis of the U.S. party system, John Aldrich examines the rise, fall and transformation of political parties. In his view parties formed to solve the “collective action problem” as like-minded individuals coalesced into organizations designed to advance their own careers and promote their policy agendas. Parties ceased to exist when there was a disincentive to remain in these organizations, either because of their lack of electoral success, or because of serious internal divisions that left them impotent as national political organizations. The Federalists finally disappeared due to a propensity to run strong in New England but not in the expanding U.S. frontier. The Whigs, beset by serious internal division over slavery, ceased to function as an effective party after the failed compromises over slavery in 1850 and 1854. In light of the recent Republican electoral failures in national politics, some have drawn a parallel between today’s Republicans and the Whigs of yore, insisting that the GOP is on the verge of extinction. While the Republican Party will be severely wounded by a successful Obama presidency, it is not about to end anytime soon.
While President Obama and the Democratic Party won impressive victories nationwide in November 2008, the Republican Party certain remains a strong, if diminished presence. Although Democrats currently hold a majority of the governorships and control most of the state legislatures, their lead is by no means insurmountable. http://ballotbox.governing.com/2009/01/which-party-runs-state-government.html
A glance at the composite US electoral map for 2008 reveals abundant red, and more importantly purple areas scattered throughout the United States. These are areas where many voters still tend to skew more conservative on many issues, particularly areas such as gun control, abortion and gay rights.
The great variable, though, in deciding the fate of the Republican Party is what happens with the Obama presidency. Several months into office President Obama remains enormously popular. Recent polls also indicate that Americans feel more optimistic about the economy and their country than they did before January 20. President Obama reassembled much of the old New Deal coalition (except the South) and they will remain intensely loyal to him and his party if he succeeds. Should the President’s policies prove unable to end the recession, or meet the challenge of terrorism, he could very well be turned out of office and the Republican Party see a new rebirth. If the Obama presidency succeeds, and I hope it does, the Republicans will be wandering in the wilderness for awhile, but they will not go away; they have enough inherent strength to avoid that fate.
While President Obama and the Democratic Party won impressive victories nationwide in November 2008, the Republican Party certain remains a strong, if diminished presence. Although Democrats currently hold a majority of the governorships and control most of the state legislatures, their lead is by no means insurmountable. http://ballotbox.governing.com/2009/01/which-party-runs-state-government.html
A glance at the composite US electoral map for 2008 reveals abundant red, and more importantly purple areas scattered throughout the United States. These are areas where many voters still tend to skew more conservative on many issues, particularly areas such as gun control, abortion and gay rights.
The great variable, though, in deciding the fate of the Republican Party is what happens with the Obama presidency. Several months into office President Obama remains enormously popular. Recent polls also indicate that Americans feel more optimistic about the economy and their country than they did before January 20. President Obama reassembled much of the old New Deal coalition (except the South) and they will remain intensely loyal to him and his party if he succeeds. Should the President’s policies prove unable to end the recession, or meet the challenge of terrorism, he could very well be turned out of office and the Republican Party see a new rebirth. If the Obama presidency succeeds, and I hope it does, the Republicans will be wandering in the wilderness for awhile, but they will not go away; they have enough inherent strength to avoid that fate.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
President Obama and YouTube
This article reviews President Obama's well-known embrace of YouTube. This medium allows the President to continue to connect and engage with many of his most passionate supporters. (Click title to go directly to the article)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama's Mandate
Americans have become accustomed to seeing “mandates” in victories of presidential candidates. With the exception of anomalous races such as 2000, it is usually possible for the winning side to claim a “mandate” of one sort or another. Creating a precise definition of what a mandate is can be difficult, though, and it has been a subject of much debate among political scientists and others. Robert Dahl, for example, challenges the very notion of presidential mandates.http://transition.cqpress.com/assets/MandateControversy.htm. Andrew Busch observes that defining a mandate is a most subjective enterprise, and that one person’s mandate might be someone else’s narrow victory. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/busch/04/mandates.html Even a landslide such as Nixon’s trouncing of McGovern in 1972 raises the “mandate” question insofar as Nixon’s personal victory did not translate into the Republicans winning control of the House and the Senate. Any discussion of presidential mandates, then, must define precisely what mandates are and how they are determined before doing anything else.
In my view, several criteria must be met for a new President to have a mandate. First, he must have received more than 300 electoral votes and a majority of all popular votes cast. Next, he must have shown the ability to translate his victory into additional seats for his party in the House and the Senate. Third, he must have improved upon the performance of the last nominee of his party in terms of the popular votes and the electoral vote. Finally, he must have won a diverse array of demographic groups across the electorate. In all of these respects, Barack Obama clearly won a mandate in the November 2008 elections.
Whether President Obama has maintained his mandate can be measured by how well he is doing in the polls. The most recent Gallup Poll shows him with a job approval rating of 61%, which is down from two months ago, but higher than the 52.9% of the popular vote he won in November 2008. Given the boost that Presidents usually get from overseas trips, his approval rating is likely to be higher upon his return from the G20 Summit.
The President also acts as one who has a powerful mandate. He worked quickly to craft and win passage of the gigantic stimulus package. He has also proposed an ambitious, costly and controversial agenda of additional legislation, including health care reform. The President has felt emboldened to take a new, tougher approach with the U.S. auto industry.
The key to the survival of the President’s popularity, and his mandate, is the success of his stimulus package. Should his programs prove successful in improving the U.S. economy he will remain popular, and Democrats in Congress will continue to support his programs, and voters will reward the Democrats with even larger majorities in the next Congress. If his programs prove unsuccessful, his approval ratings and mandate will decline, and Democrats will begin to “run for cover” by opposing his policies.
In my view, several criteria must be met for a new President to have a mandate. First, he must have received more than 300 electoral votes and a majority of all popular votes cast. Next, he must have shown the ability to translate his victory into additional seats for his party in the House and the Senate. Third, he must have improved upon the performance of the last nominee of his party in terms of the popular votes and the electoral vote. Finally, he must have won a diverse array of demographic groups across the electorate. In all of these respects, Barack Obama clearly won a mandate in the November 2008 elections.
Whether President Obama has maintained his mandate can be measured by how well he is doing in the polls. The most recent Gallup Poll shows him with a job approval rating of 61%, which is down from two months ago, but higher than the 52.9% of the popular vote he won in November 2008. Given the boost that Presidents usually get from overseas trips, his approval rating is likely to be higher upon his return from the G20 Summit.
The President also acts as one who has a powerful mandate. He worked quickly to craft and win passage of the gigantic stimulus package. He has also proposed an ambitious, costly and controversial agenda of additional legislation, including health care reform. The President has felt emboldened to take a new, tougher approach with the U.S. auto industry.
The key to the survival of the President’s popularity, and his mandate, is the success of his stimulus package. Should his programs prove successful in improving the U.S. economy he will remain popular, and Democrats in Congress will continue to support his programs, and voters will reward the Democrats with even larger majorities in the next Congress. If his programs prove unsuccessful, his approval ratings and mandate will decline, and Democrats will begin to “run for cover” by opposing his policies.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
An Analysis of Bill Clinton's 1996 Re-election
Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election victory was historic for several reasons. He was the first (and only) Democratic president reelected to a second term since Franklin Roosevelt 60 years earlier. Despite the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, in which the Republicans wrested control of both the House and the Senate from Democrats, Bill Clinton won a resounding, if not landslide victory. After winning just 43% of the popular vote in the three-way Clinton/Bush/Perot race of 1992, Bill Clinton received 49.2% of the popular vote in 1996 and 379 electoral votes. An analysis of the election reveals several reasons for his success; analysis of polling data reveals the breadth of his victory. In looking at the data from 1996, it is clear that while Bill Clinton was adept at insuring his own political success, he was not necessarily building a strong Democratic party.
Clinton’s success was due in part to the “double Southern strategy” of the Clinton/Gore ticket (Arkansas/Tennessee). Clinton and Gore won the reliably Democratic Northeast, Midwest and West, while building on the Clinton/Gore base in the upper South. The perennial Democratic problem since the mid-1960s (except for Jimmy Carter) of being “shut out” in the South was avoided.
Bill Clinton’s communication skills are also unsurpassed, as anyone who has heard him (including this author) can attest. He is equally profound, and moving, in a large group, small group, with audiences of any age or race, with people of any social class. He can make almost any group feel that he empathizes with and cares about them. The honorable, yet less gifted Senator Dole was simply outperformed in almost every step of the campaign by President Clinton.
As a leader of the centrist, Democratic Leadership Council, Clinton consciously strove to moderate the policies of the Democratic Party and his presidency, particularly in the election year of 1996. In that year alone, working with the Republican-led House and Senate, he signed into law such measures as the Communications Decency Act (to control pornography), the Defense of Marriage Act (to allow states to ban gay marriage), and, most importantly, the Welfare Reform Act. Clinton positioned himself as a social and economic conservative while maintaining the loyalty of traditionally Democratic groups.
A comparison of exit poll data between the 1992 and 1996 elections reveals the success of Clinton’s strategies, and the astonishing breadth of his reelection victory. Clinton lost support among only two demographic groups, and only by small margins. (He lost support among those over 60 from 50% to 48% and among Jews from 80% to 78 %.)
Among every other group his support remained at the same level or rose considerably.
Particularly notable were the dramatic increases in support he received among the following groups from 1992 to 1996: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
Women (from 45% to 54%)
Whites (39 to 43%)
Hispanics (61 to 72%)
No high school ((54 to 59%)
Some college (41 to 48%)
Protestant (36 to 41%)
Big Cities (58 to 68%)
Suburbs (41 to 47%)
Rural (39 to 44%)
Clinton’s broad victory among almost every demographic group defied many expectations. Considering that the Republicans retained control of Congress in 1996, and that the Democrats lost the White House in the next two presidential elections, Clinton’s 1996 reelection victory certainly stands out as a testimony to his personal political skills, rather than his ability to lead his party.
Clinton’s success was due in part to the “double Southern strategy” of the Clinton/Gore ticket (Arkansas/Tennessee). Clinton and Gore won the reliably Democratic Northeast, Midwest and West, while building on the Clinton/Gore base in the upper South. The perennial Democratic problem since the mid-1960s (except for Jimmy Carter) of being “shut out” in the South was avoided.
Bill Clinton’s communication skills are also unsurpassed, as anyone who has heard him (including this author) can attest. He is equally profound, and moving, in a large group, small group, with audiences of any age or race, with people of any social class. He can make almost any group feel that he empathizes with and cares about them. The honorable, yet less gifted Senator Dole was simply outperformed in almost every step of the campaign by President Clinton.
As a leader of the centrist, Democratic Leadership Council, Clinton consciously strove to moderate the policies of the Democratic Party and his presidency, particularly in the election year of 1996. In that year alone, working with the Republican-led House and Senate, he signed into law such measures as the Communications Decency Act (to control pornography), the Defense of Marriage Act (to allow states to ban gay marriage), and, most importantly, the Welfare Reform Act. Clinton positioned himself as a social and economic conservative while maintaining the loyalty of traditionally Democratic groups.
A comparison of exit poll data between the 1992 and 1996 elections reveals the success of Clinton’s strategies, and the astonishing breadth of his reelection victory. Clinton lost support among only two demographic groups, and only by small margins. (He lost support among those over 60 from 50% to 48% and among Jews from 80% to 78 %.)
Among every other group his support remained at the same level or rose considerably.
Particularly notable were the dramatic increases in support he received among the following groups from 1992 to 1996: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
Women (from 45% to 54%)
Whites (39 to 43%)
Hispanics (61 to 72%)
No high school ((54 to 59%)
Some college (41 to 48%)
Protestant (36 to 41%)
Big Cities (58 to 68%)
Suburbs (41 to 47%)
Rural (39 to 44%)
Clinton’s broad victory among almost every demographic group defied many expectations. Considering that the Republicans retained control of Congress in 1996, and that the Democrats lost the White House in the next two presidential elections, Clinton’s 1996 reelection victory certainly stands out as a testimony to his personal political skills, rather than his ability to lead his party.
The Green Party and Foreign Policy
In the view of many, including myself, bipartisanship has declined. But for some Americans, such as the Green party, the Democrats and Republicans are still Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Here are the views of the Greens on foreign policy, which would be anathema to both parties.
http://www.gp.org/first100/?cat=16
http://www.gp.org/first100/?cat=16
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The State of Bipartisanship Today
In the last half of the 20th century the United States enjoyed a golden age of bipartisanship. When it came to the Cold War, politics truly did stop “at the waters’ edge,” with such momentous Congressional actions as the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan and Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. While the Democratic Party eventually suffered internal division over the Vietnam War, Republicans and Democrats remained committed to the central Cold War principle of containment until the fall of the Berlin Wall, even while they disagreed about levels of defense spending or strategies for waging the Cold War. On the domestic side, both parties essentially agreed on the need to maintain the old New Deal safety net until the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. As late as the 1980s, as Hetherington and Keefe observe (153) there was considerable “heterogeneity and overlap” between the parties. While this classic, mid-twentieth century bipartisanship has likely gone the way of the slide rule, there are many who persist in calling for bipartisanship, for a variety of reasons.
The earlier bipartisanship is unlikely to be duplicated in the near future. The sharpest fault line between the parties, going back to the rise of the Reagan conservatives in the 1980s, remains economics. As we see with the Republican reaction to the Democratic stimulus package, Republicans remained wedded to the supply-side mantras of “lower taxes” and “cut spending,” as Democrats embrace Keynesianism unbound. The current recession has only deepened the chasm between the parties.
The moderates, or at least those willing to reach across the aisle and join forces in bipartisanship, are fewer in numbers. The old southern, conservative Democrats have virtually disappeared. The eastern “Rockefeller” and “Percy” liberal Republicans are also a vanishing breed. There are the mavericks of both parties, especially in the Senate, still willing to work out deals, but not as much as in the past.
So why, then, is there such a strong, persistent chorus for bipartisanship, particularly from the chattering class? The recent presidential election, with “maverick” McCain and “post partisan” Obama, revived hopes that a new bipartisan era beckoned. There is also, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out in a Salon piece, a great deal of confusion about just what bipartisanship really means. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/24/bipartisanship/ Perhaps the most incisive analysis of the state of bipartisanship today, though, comes from David Broder, who argues that it is both possible and necessary today, although alliances will shift repeatedly on an issue-by-issue basis. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/19/bipartisanship-remains-crucial/
The earlier bipartisanship is unlikely to be duplicated in the near future. The sharpest fault line between the parties, going back to the rise of the Reagan conservatives in the 1980s, remains economics. As we see with the Republican reaction to the Democratic stimulus package, Republicans remained wedded to the supply-side mantras of “lower taxes” and “cut spending,” as Democrats embrace Keynesianism unbound. The current recession has only deepened the chasm between the parties.
The moderates, or at least those willing to reach across the aisle and join forces in bipartisanship, are fewer in numbers. The old southern, conservative Democrats have virtually disappeared. The eastern “Rockefeller” and “Percy” liberal Republicans are also a vanishing breed. There are the mavericks of both parties, especially in the Senate, still willing to work out deals, but not as much as in the past.
So why, then, is there such a strong, persistent chorus for bipartisanship, particularly from the chattering class? The recent presidential election, with “maverick” McCain and “post partisan” Obama, revived hopes that a new bipartisan era beckoned. There is also, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out in a Salon piece, a great deal of confusion about just what bipartisanship really means. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/24/bipartisanship/ Perhaps the most incisive analysis of the state of bipartisanship today, though, comes from David Broder, who argues that it is both possible and necessary today, although alliances will shift repeatedly on an issue-by-issue basis. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/19/bipartisanship-remains-crucial/
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Obama's Iraq Plan Pleases McCain; Offends Left
As we can see from this dispatch from THE NATION, the left is upset about President Obama's Iraq troop withdrawal plan while John McCain generally supports it. Considering the President's high standing in the polls, and his goal of creating a new Democratic majority, offending the left is the last thing he is worrying about. He retains the enthusiastic support of the party base, and he enhances his image as a sober, responsible leader with everyone else. He can't really lose with such an approach. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/412497
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The 2008 Election
In the 2008 presidential elections Americans hungered for change, and they were offered two major candidates who attempted to satisfy that appetite. Barack Obama benefited from his clear and early opposition to an unpopular war, as well as his compelling personal biography and stunning ability to connect with and engage voters. John McCain, the perennial Senate maverick and often enemy of the party establishment, attempted to portray himself as the one best suited to change the way Washington worked. In terms of structure, both campaigns were at times party-centric and at other times candidate centered. To some extent each candidate was party agent and independent of his party. The major difference, though, and this was perhaps crucial, was that Barack Obama and his campaign clearly understood and mastered Internet campaigning and fundraising as they built upon the pioneering work of the Howard Dean 2004 primary campaign.
One year before the 2008 convention, the clear favorites of the party insiders were Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/04/nation/na-timespoll4
There was residual suspicion of McCain because of his unpredictable, maverick nature, and his past cooperation with Democratic senators such as Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy on key pieces of legislation. Hilary Clinton had the endorsement of many key party leaders, including many African American leaders, due in large part to the continuing reservoir of goodwill for her husband and his presidency, Obama was regarded by many party leaders as too young, inexperienced and risky as a general election candidate. Had the smoke-filled rooms of old prevailed, or the “parties resurgent” model of Cohen, et.al, McCain and Obama would not have been the nominees
.Despite Hilary Clinton’s impressive resume, her abundant endorsements, and the vast resources of the Bill Clinton political machine, Barack Obama prevailed over the conventional wisdom of the party establishment and many pundits. For many Democrats, the Iraq war was a key issue, and former Senator Clinton’s vote to support the war severely handicapped her on that issue. Obama’s oratory of hope and uplift stirred the passions of many voters in a way that Senator Clinton’s did not. Obama and his campaign were relentlessly focused, organized and on message and quick to deal with the brushfires that did crop up, such as the Reverend Wright affair. Obama’s personal story resonated with many voters of diverse backgrounds, only adding to his appeal. Beyond all of that, though, Obama was able to use the Internet, and particularly social networking sites such as Facebook, to engage and involve voters in a way that no candidate had done before, with the exception of Howard Dean four years earlier.
In reaching the White House, Obama did not, of course, ignore the party establishment. The extraordinarily close primary contest involved some compromise with the Clinton forces. In choosing a running mate, Obama chose an old Senate warhorse rather than a young agent of change such as himself.
The McCain campaign achieved the nomination as a candidate-centered campaign and lost the general election as a campaign too beholden to the party establishment. With no one Republican primary candidate able to appeal to a broad cross-section of the party, the primary contests became personality-driven campaigns. McCain’s maverick image helped him to win a plurality of the vote in enough winner-take-all contests to seize the nomination. Once nominated, though, McCain tried to be the outsider while being inextricably linked to the failed policies of President Bush. The fact that his advisers ran a general election campaign in the “slash and burn” mode of Karl Rove, only added to the feeling that he was Bush Redux.
It is too early to pronounce the death of party-dominated presidential elections, but it is clear that all future candidates will need to heed the words of Teachout and the deeds of Obama in 2008.
(Note: The Obama campaign most definitely carries on the “netroots” campaign even after the election.)
One year before the 2008 convention, the clear favorites of the party insiders were Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/04/nation/na-timespoll4
There was residual suspicion of McCain because of his unpredictable, maverick nature, and his past cooperation with Democratic senators such as Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy on key pieces of legislation. Hilary Clinton had the endorsement of many key party leaders, including many African American leaders, due in large part to the continuing reservoir of goodwill for her husband and his presidency, Obama was regarded by many party leaders as too young, inexperienced and risky as a general election candidate. Had the smoke-filled rooms of old prevailed, or the “parties resurgent” model of Cohen, et.al, McCain and Obama would not have been the nominees
.Despite Hilary Clinton’s impressive resume, her abundant endorsements, and the vast resources of the Bill Clinton political machine, Barack Obama prevailed over the conventional wisdom of the party establishment and many pundits. For many Democrats, the Iraq war was a key issue, and former Senator Clinton’s vote to support the war severely handicapped her on that issue. Obama’s oratory of hope and uplift stirred the passions of many voters in a way that Senator Clinton’s did not. Obama and his campaign were relentlessly focused, organized and on message and quick to deal with the brushfires that did crop up, such as the Reverend Wright affair. Obama’s personal story resonated with many voters of diverse backgrounds, only adding to his appeal. Beyond all of that, though, Obama was able to use the Internet, and particularly social networking sites such as Facebook, to engage and involve voters in a way that no candidate had done before, with the exception of Howard Dean four years earlier.
In reaching the White House, Obama did not, of course, ignore the party establishment. The extraordinarily close primary contest involved some compromise with the Clinton forces. In choosing a running mate, Obama chose an old Senate warhorse rather than a young agent of change such as himself.
The McCain campaign achieved the nomination as a candidate-centered campaign and lost the general election as a campaign too beholden to the party establishment. With no one Republican primary candidate able to appeal to a broad cross-section of the party, the primary contests became personality-driven campaigns. McCain’s maverick image helped him to win a plurality of the vote in enough winner-take-all contests to seize the nomination. Once nominated, though, McCain tried to be the outsider while being inextricably linked to the failed policies of President Bush. The fact that his advisers ran a general election campaign in the “slash and burn” mode of Karl Rove, only added to the feeling that he was Bush Redux.
It is too early to pronounce the death of party-dominated presidential elections, but it is clear that all future candidates will need to heed the words of Teachout and the deeds of Obama in 2008.
(Note: The Obama campaign most definitely carries on the “netroots” campaign even after the election.)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Republicans Embracing Online Organizing
The Republicans, belatedly, seem to be embracing the notion of online organizing, which Barack Obama did so effectively in 2008. Why anyone involved in politics these days would NOT use facebook and other online social networking sites is the question. Here is a link to an article about Republican efforts to catch this wave.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003054985
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003054985
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Electoral Reform
The Progressive reformers of the early 1900s and their heirs sought to remake the U.S. political system. They supported electoral reforms such as the open and direct primaries that were designed to take power from the political bosses and machines and give it to the voters. In the last decades of the twentieth century reformers focused on reforming the U.S. campaign finance system, first with FECA and most recently with the McCain-Feingold Act. While both types of reforms sought to create a political system that would be more representative of the people, the results have been mixed.
Certainly electoral reform, especially the “nouveau Progressive” thrust of the Democratic Party since the 1970s, has enabled more people to participate in the political process. The embarrassing 1968 Chicago convention, which nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey despite the fact that he had not competed in a single primary, could not be repeated. There are no longer king-makers such as former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley who could make or break candidacies with a single word. Today nominations must be fought for and slugged out state-by-state in the primaries and caucuses.
While citizens have gained power at the expense of the parties and party bosses, there are limitations on that power. The recent trend toward “front loading” primaries gives the voters of the early primary states a stronger voice than those of the middle or later primaries, unless there is a close race such as the 2008 Obama/Clinton fight. Although the days of the party bosses acting as kingmakers are over, the media often end up becoming modern “kingmakers,” as they proclaim candidates winners or losers after the early primaries. The extent of a citizen’s power to affect the nomination process also depends on whether he or she lives in a primary or caucus state; in the caucus states it is may be difficult for working people to find the time to leave work to attend party caucuses. Finally, while political parties and their state and local leaders have become less important in the presidential nomination process, the individual presidential candidates and their staffs have increased in power and prominence.
Recent campaign finance reform, particularly the Mc Cain Feingold Act, sought to curtail the influence of large donors and special interests on the electoral process, but this has been a mixed success as well. Despite the ban of “soft money” by the McCain Feingold Act, the “527” groups can still exert great influence in presidential campaigns. While banning soft money donations, the Act raised the limits for hard-money contributions. While both McCain and Feingold would prefer that presidential candidates accept only public financing, as a means of lowering the cost of elections, the McCain-Feingold Act does not prohibit candidates from opting out of public financing, as Obama did in 2008. Both McCain and Feingold sharply criticized Obama for doing so, and for raising a record amount of money in his successful presidential bid. In challenging some of the basic premises behind McCain-Feingold, and campaign finance reform generally, Obama and his supporters ended up running a very democratic campaign that engaged the interest and funds of many small donors.www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638
Certainly electoral reform, especially the “nouveau Progressive” thrust of the Democratic Party since the 1970s, has enabled more people to participate in the political process. The embarrassing 1968 Chicago convention, which nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey despite the fact that he had not competed in a single primary, could not be repeated. There are no longer king-makers such as former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley who could make or break candidacies with a single word. Today nominations must be fought for and slugged out state-by-state in the primaries and caucuses.
While citizens have gained power at the expense of the parties and party bosses, there are limitations on that power. The recent trend toward “front loading” primaries gives the voters of the early primary states a stronger voice than those of the middle or later primaries, unless there is a close race such as the 2008 Obama/Clinton fight. Although the days of the party bosses acting as kingmakers are over, the media often end up becoming modern “kingmakers,” as they proclaim candidates winners or losers after the early primaries. The extent of a citizen’s power to affect the nomination process also depends on whether he or she lives in a primary or caucus state; in the caucus states it is may be difficult for working people to find the time to leave work to attend party caucuses. Finally, while political parties and their state and local leaders have become less important in the presidential nomination process, the individual presidential candidates and their staffs have increased in power and prominence.
Recent campaign finance reform, particularly the Mc Cain Feingold Act, sought to curtail the influence of large donors and special interests on the electoral process, but this has been a mixed success as well. Despite the ban of “soft money” by the McCain Feingold Act, the “527” groups can still exert great influence in presidential campaigns. While banning soft money donations, the Act raised the limits for hard-money contributions. While both McCain and Feingold would prefer that presidential candidates accept only public financing, as a means of lowering the cost of elections, the McCain-Feingold Act does not prohibit candidates from opting out of public financing, as Obama did in 2008. Both McCain and Feingold sharply criticized Obama for doing so, and for raising a record amount of money in his successful presidential bid. In challenging some of the basic premises behind McCain-Feingold, and campaign finance reform generally, Obama and his supporters ended up running a very democratic campaign that engaged the interest and funds of many small donors.www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Prohibition Party Soldiers On
The Prohibition Party marches on! Here is a link to their website with information about their platform. While they no longer favor the abolition of alcoholic beverages in the U.S., they want a drastic increase in the liquor tax, to reflect the true social cost of drinking.
http://www.prohibitionists.org/Background/Party_Platform/party_platform.html
http://www.prohibitionists.org/Background/Party_Platform/party_platform.html
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
How the Far Left Sees Obama
Here is a story on President Obama's handling of the financial crisis from The World Socialist Website, an online Trotskyite newspaper. In their view, of course, the root of the crisis is capitalism itself, and since Obama's plan does not introduce a socialist system, they feel it will ultimately fail. While I do not agree with this paper, I like to look at it from time to time to get their radically different perspective.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/obam-f10.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/obam-f10.shtml
No Organized Party
Will Rogers once quipped, famously: “I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat.” The humorous remark speaks to one of the problems of the Democratic Party today: While the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the party is decentralized, with the President and each house of Congress appealing to different constituencies and promoting different agendas. While President Obama is currently strong enough to lead the Congressional Democrats to support his agenda, his continued success in this regard is dependent on the success of his overall policies.
President Obama shattered various assumptions in his quest for the White House. Building upon the pioneering work of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, he ran the first successful, interactive “Facebook” style presidential campaign, amassing both large numbers of volunteers and enormous sums of funds. He deliberately sought to win the votes of groups who had not voted Democratic in recent elections, and he was successful in doing so. According to one study, Obama outperformed John Kerry in most demographic groups with the exception of those over 65 and gays and lesbians..http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.html
He picked up states that had long been considered safely “red” and increased Democratic majorities in states previously considered “swing,” such as Wisconsin.
Given the nature of his victory, Obama has a strong need to maintain a presidency of outreach and accommodation as much as possible. As a result, he has nominated 3 Republicans to his cabinet, and he has made extraordinary efforts to reach out to the Republicans as he pursues his stimulus package. That the House and Senate Republicans have largely rebuffed him is immaterial; by making the EFFORT at bipartisanship, he has already enhanced his image with HIS constituency—http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/2/9/-obama-beating-republicans-on-economic-stimulus-polls-show.html
The House Democrats’ actions must be understood in terms of their very different situation. Appealing to very narrowly-defined districts, largely gerrymandered to perpetuate their incumbency, House Democrats see little need for, or value in, compromise. They want a stimulus bill as laden as possible with benefits for their districts, and they are irritated with their President for his efforts at accommodation.
The Senate Democrats, with the support of their moderate Republican brethren (and sisters) have crafted a less ambitious, cheaper bill, and this largely reflects their different political realities. As representatives of entire states, with more diverse constituencies, they feel more of a need for compromise and less of a need to appeal to the most partisan groups within their states.
Clearly, despite some initial missteps, President Osama seems to be in charge of his party at this point, given his high approval ratings and his ability to “go over the heads of the Congress” and appeal directly to the American people via social networking and barnstorming tours such as the one he is currently conducting. As long as he remains popular, congressional Democrats will need to temper their criticisms and match their agendas with his as much as possible. This could change quickly, though, if the stimulus package proves to be unsuccessful or if economic or other conditions grow worse.
President Obama shattered various assumptions in his quest for the White House. Building upon the pioneering work of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, he ran the first successful, interactive “Facebook” style presidential campaign, amassing both large numbers of volunteers and enormous sums of funds. He deliberately sought to win the votes of groups who had not voted Democratic in recent elections, and he was successful in doing so. According to one study, Obama outperformed John Kerry in most demographic groups with the exception of those over 65 and gays and lesbians..http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.html
He picked up states that had long been considered safely “red” and increased Democratic majorities in states previously considered “swing,” such as Wisconsin.
Given the nature of his victory, Obama has a strong need to maintain a presidency of outreach and accommodation as much as possible. As a result, he has nominated 3 Republicans to his cabinet, and he has made extraordinary efforts to reach out to the Republicans as he pursues his stimulus package. That the House and Senate Republicans have largely rebuffed him is immaterial; by making the EFFORT at bipartisanship, he has already enhanced his image with HIS constituency—http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/2/9/-obama-beating-republicans-on-economic-stimulus-polls-show.html
The House Democrats’ actions must be understood in terms of their very different situation. Appealing to very narrowly-defined districts, largely gerrymandered to perpetuate their incumbency, House Democrats see little need for, or value in, compromise. They want a stimulus bill as laden as possible with benefits for their districts, and they are irritated with their President for his efforts at accommodation.
The Senate Democrats, with the support of their moderate Republican brethren (and sisters) have crafted a less ambitious, cheaper bill, and this largely reflects their different political realities. As representatives of entire states, with more diverse constituencies, they feel more of a need for compromise and less of a need to appeal to the most partisan groups within their states.
Clearly, despite some initial missteps, President Osama seems to be in charge of his party at this point, given his high approval ratings and his ability to “go over the heads of the Congress” and appeal directly to the American people via social networking and barnstorming tours such as the one he is currently conducting. As long as he remains popular, congressional Democrats will need to temper their criticisms and match their agendas with his as much as possible. This could change quickly, though, if the stimulus package proves to be unsuccessful or if economic or other conditions grow worse.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Some Thoughts on U.S. Political Parties
Political parties, in the context of U.S. politics, can be defined in several ways. Broadly, a political party is an organization of individuals dedicated to advancing and promoting a particular belief or set of beliefs. In this sense, a political party could be any one of the hundreds of groups that inhabit the U.S. political landscape, including the Libertarians, various kinds of Socialists, Greens, Communists, assorted fascist groups and even the modern Prohibition Party.
In reality, though, the United States has had a de facto two-party system throughout most of its history; while the names have changed, at any one time two particular parties tended to dominate. The Democratic-Republican/Federalist split eventually gave way to the Democratic/Whig division. When the Whigs split over slavery, the Republicans became the new opposition to the Democrats. Party policies and sources of support have changed over the years, but not the fundamental duality of the U.S. political party system. While third parties have often enjoyed successes of a kind, and may have even influenced the outcome of elections, only the two major parties have enjoyed and continue to enjoy effective power.
The political institutions established by the Founding Fathers created checks and balances that still help to insure this two-party dominance. The U.S. Senate is one example. The U.S. Senate was established to provide a mature, responsible “check” upon the expected wilder, popular passions of the House. Senators would represent the broad interests of entire states rather than the narrow, more partisan views of Congressional districts. The chance of having Senators too outside the political mainstream was expected to be slight, and this is still the case, Bernie Sanders excepted.
The most important institution, though, in insuring a two-party system is the Electoral College. Every few decades the occasional third party candidate such as George Wallace is strong enough to win entire states, but that is rare. To win electoral votes one must win entire states, and that is an impossibly difficult hurdle for most third party candidates. This is certainly less democratic, in that diverse voices are shut out of having effective power, but it does promote stability, and truly dangerous fringe candidates cannot win.
Our Founding Fathers would be pleased to see how their ideas have come to fruition. James Madison, who feared the divisive influences of faction, would surely be pleased with the stability of today’s U.S. political system. He would delight in the fact that our very large republic works against the divisive influence of small factions. Madison would also be glad to see that the checks and balances he advocated in Federalist 51 continue to keep the system stable. Washington would no doubt admire the efforts of President Obama to bring more bi-partisanship to the nation’s capital but would lament our many “entangling alliances.”
In reality, though, the United States has had a de facto two-party system throughout most of its history; while the names have changed, at any one time two particular parties tended to dominate. The Democratic-Republican/Federalist split eventually gave way to the Democratic/Whig division. When the Whigs split over slavery, the Republicans became the new opposition to the Democrats. Party policies and sources of support have changed over the years, but not the fundamental duality of the U.S. political party system. While third parties have often enjoyed successes of a kind, and may have even influenced the outcome of elections, only the two major parties have enjoyed and continue to enjoy effective power.
The political institutions established by the Founding Fathers created checks and balances that still help to insure this two-party dominance. The U.S. Senate is one example. The U.S. Senate was established to provide a mature, responsible “check” upon the expected wilder, popular passions of the House. Senators would represent the broad interests of entire states rather than the narrow, more partisan views of Congressional districts. The chance of having Senators too outside the political mainstream was expected to be slight, and this is still the case, Bernie Sanders excepted.
The most important institution, though, in insuring a two-party system is the Electoral College. Every few decades the occasional third party candidate such as George Wallace is strong enough to win entire states, but that is rare. To win electoral votes one must win entire states, and that is an impossibly difficult hurdle for most third party candidates. This is certainly less democratic, in that diverse voices are shut out of having effective power, but it does promote stability, and truly dangerous fringe candidates cannot win.
Our Founding Fathers would be pleased to see how their ideas have come to fruition. James Madison, who feared the divisive influences of faction, would surely be pleased with the stability of today’s U.S. political system. He would delight in the fact that our very large republic works against the divisive influence of small factions. Madison would also be glad to see that the checks and balances he advocated in Federalist 51 continue to keep the system stable. Washington would no doubt admire the efforts of President Obama to bring more bi-partisanship to the nation’s capital but would lament our many “entangling alliances.”
Friday, January 30, 2009
Polls show risks for Republicans in opposing Obama's stimulus plan
A Christian Science Monitor article describes polling data collected by Stanley Greenberg showing that Republican opposition to the Obama stimulus plan is a risky political strategy:
http://features.csmonitor.com/monitorbreakfast/2009/01/30/new-poll-shows-risks-to-opponents-of-obamas-economic-stimulus-plan/
http://features.csmonitor.com/monitorbreakfast/2009/01/30/new-poll-shows-risks-to-opponents-of-obamas-economic-stimulus-plan/
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Welcome to my blog!
Hello, and welcome to my blog.
I am in my 20th year of teaching history at
While my M.A. is in U.S. History (from U.W.M.), I have been interested in politics as far back as I can recall. I majored in Political Science at
I have had a long, pleasant and varied association with UWM through the years. I actually began my grad. Studies at UWM in the
When I am not learning or teaching, I can be found doing one of several things. I enjoy spending time at home with my wife and three cats. I also enjoy baseball and facebook. If you go to the
While this will be my first time studying online, I am looking forward to the experience. I hope to expand my knowledge of the political party system while interacting with the instructors and fellow students. One of the really neat things for me about this course is that my niece is also enrolled, which will mark the first time that I have ever taken a college class with a relative!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
