Fiorina's sorting theory is certainly an interesting one, but in the end, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in the modern day it's not exactly provable.
The example of the Reconstruction-era conservative democrats is certainly a vivid one, but that same trend doesn't necessarily even mean 'misindentification' it means that when a party supported some, but not all, of the positions a voter favored they had to pick some over the other.
In 2008 the republican party lost significant holdings, especially in states that Bush had cleaned out in 2004 and 2000. But does that mean voters 'misidentified' to switch to the democratic side? Or does it mean that the positions of the Republican party changed? Does it mean voter disillusionment with the policies of the party or with Bush as a person making them discard their actual preferences?
Truth is it may be some of all of these, Bush/Kerry was close to a 50/50 split, Bush/Gore was even closer, Obama had a 7.2% lead over McCain. This clearly shows some people switched camps, but the final effect of this on the sorting theory is inconclusive because McCain didn't toe the party line strictly, Obama did moreso, so it's impossible to say if McCain's deviation cost him. In addition the democratic party overall gained tremendously, a near-bulletproof majority in both houses, meaning it's clear the nation swung, the WHY of that swing, however, is not conclusive and has as many reasons as there are swich voters. The change in the Republican party under Bush's tenure easily could account for the loss of support, if they've lost voters it can be argued changes in policy and practice made them no longer a good ideological match.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
It's a (theoretical) party!
I think that my group's part, the Maverick party, has a strong foundation in current and perennial electoral trends.
Both parties have largely lost credibility on economic matters. By putting things in kitchen-table terms powerful charges could be lobbed at democrats and republicans both. Talk to the average person in my circle at least and the 'waste' of government and distrust of big business is deeply ingrained, and that's in all of them: from fellow students to working-class college dropouts. A target of eternal ire is the hemmoraging of US funds overseas when people in our own country are still suffering poverty. Those issues are virtually can't-lose, especially in the coveted middle-class block abandoned by the democrats increasingly (see Frank readings). No one is going to come down pro-waste or pro-deficit, leaving opponents no option to outmaneuver the Maverick party.
Environmental issues are also a big hot-button, but they're largely 'owned' by the democrats. By re-using the old turn-of-the-century Republican ideal of "responsible conservation" and "preservation" we can turn the debate away from that of tree-hugger vs. evil corporatist into one of preserving resources for both future economic and recreational use. Emphasizing Wise Use and common-sense preservation of natural resources avoids angering those fearful of economic impact by focusing on the fact that we want our economic resources to last longer and produce better, and taking care of their source is the best way to do so. Eliminating dependence on foreign oil can be pitched as not economic, but geopolitical: reducing the stranglehold OPEC has on US production capability and our vulnerability to the whims of arab shieks.
The working class can be further attracted with the RIGHT pitch for universal health care. The real issue is one of the way democrats frame it. Working-class hear "for all" and think "for welfare queens and crack addicts" so we'd take a different approach, echoing the sentiment of one political ad who's candidate I can't remember: "If a criminal has a right to a lawyer, a working man has a right to a doctor."
There are small but powerful blocs of people that can be courted with select positions. Pro-equal-rights stances attract former liberal democrats but cost us only the radical right that would vote republican until the day they die or get taken by the rapture, net gain maverick party.
Overall I think our performance was somewhat disorganized, but good. It was a difficult time to organize, with thanksgiving break coming up and all, but I think we did well. everyone got at least their hand in, myself included, though I did wish I could have been more active it was tough with events in my real life. All in all I'm happy with how we did.
Both parties have largely lost credibility on economic matters. By putting things in kitchen-table terms powerful charges could be lobbed at democrats and republicans both. Talk to the average person in my circle at least and the 'waste' of government and distrust of big business is deeply ingrained, and that's in all of them: from fellow students to working-class college dropouts. A target of eternal ire is the hemmoraging of US funds overseas when people in our own country are still suffering poverty. Those issues are virtually can't-lose, especially in the coveted middle-class block abandoned by the democrats increasingly (see Frank readings). No one is going to come down pro-waste or pro-deficit, leaving opponents no option to outmaneuver the Maverick party.
Environmental issues are also a big hot-button, but they're largely 'owned' by the democrats. By re-using the old turn-of-the-century Republican ideal of "responsible conservation" and "preservation" we can turn the debate away from that of tree-hugger vs. evil corporatist into one of preserving resources for both future economic and recreational use. Emphasizing Wise Use and common-sense preservation of natural resources avoids angering those fearful of economic impact by focusing on the fact that we want our economic resources to last longer and produce better, and taking care of their source is the best way to do so. Eliminating dependence on foreign oil can be pitched as not economic, but geopolitical: reducing the stranglehold OPEC has on US production capability and our vulnerability to the whims of arab shieks.
The working class can be further attracted with the RIGHT pitch for universal health care. The real issue is one of the way democrats frame it. Working-class hear "for all" and think "for welfare queens and crack addicts" so we'd take a different approach, echoing the sentiment of one political ad who's candidate I can't remember: "If a criminal has a right to a lawyer, a working man has a right to a doctor."
There are small but powerful blocs of people that can be courted with select positions. Pro-equal-rights stances attract former liberal democrats but cost us only the radical right that would vote republican until the day they die or get taken by the rapture, net gain maverick party.
Overall I think our performance was somewhat disorganized, but good. It was a difficult time to organize, with thanksgiving break coming up and all, but I think we did well. everyone got at least their hand in, myself included, though I did wish I could have been more active it was tough with events in my real life. All in all I'm happy with how we did.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Lieberman
A member of a political party in a ruling system is more or less expected to maintain a certain ideological purity. After all, these people advance to power on the backs of others. Or more accurately on their hands, minds and feet as the party workers strive with long hours to implant their candidates in power.
This of course creates a certain obligation in return, the obligation to support the party.
In this aspect, Sen. Lieberman seems to have a serious issue.
There is one thing you don't do in politics, you don't turn your back on the party, and by extension the people that helped elect you. As Chris Mathews sums up in his book Hardball: You dance with the ones that brung 'ya.
Mathews offers some interesting examples as well, how loyalty is won in Washington ("he was the kind of man that switched teams without giving away the signals" was one example of high praise) and how it is lost.
Lieberman perhaps committed the greatest political sin of all, he not only broke with the party, he tossed a grenade into his own party's trenches. His essay in the Wall Street Journal, which came from a speech delivered for a neoconservative event no less (Salon, P1) was an unabashed attack on his own party.
He even took the conservatives own terms, their own weaponry, casting the democratic party as un-American and unpatriotic, echoing the worst of the Bush-era neoconservative Zoroastrianism.
But you have to ask what it's all for? Is he trying to woo conservative voters? after the last election you have to wonder if there are any left... is he aiming for a split in the party between left-wing antiwar liberals and moderate social liberals?
Lieberman broke with his own party to endorse McCain. This is not unheard of, some charismatic conservatives have garnered support from moderate liberals. Notably the Regan Democrats of '80 and '84, chaired by another example from hardball, Connolly, who earned derision for masquerading as a democrat.
But in the case of Regan Democrats most were the average Joe (no pun intended), not elected federal legislators. No one cares who the grocery bagger at Copps is voting for, he can switch loyalties and party identification any day of the week; but for a man who has advanced his career on the work of others in the party, such a betrayal is not as easily forgotten.
This of course creates a certain obligation in return, the obligation to support the party.
In this aspect, Sen. Lieberman seems to have a serious issue.
There is one thing you don't do in politics, you don't turn your back on the party, and by extension the people that helped elect you. As Chris Mathews sums up in his book Hardball: You dance with the ones that brung 'ya.
Mathews offers some interesting examples as well, how loyalty is won in Washington ("he was the kind of man that switched teams without giving away the signals" was one example of high praise) and how it is lost.
Lieberman perhaps committed the greatest political sin of all, he not only broke with the party, he tossed a grenade into his own party's trenches. His essay in the Wall Street Journal, which came from a speech delivered for a neoconservative event no less (Salon, P1) was an unabashed attack on his own party.
He even took the conservatives own terms, their own weaponry, casting the democratic party as un-American and unpatriotic, echoing the worst of the Bush-era neoconservative Zoroastrianism.
But you have to ask what it's all for? Is he trying to woo conservative voters? after the last election you have to wonder if there are any left... is he aiming for a split in the party between left-wing antiwar liberals and moderate social liberals?
Lieberman broke with his own party to endorse McCain. This is not unheard of, some charismatic conservatives have garnered support from moderate liberals. Notably the Regan Democrats of '80 and '84, chaired by another example from hardball, Connolly, who earned derision for masquerading as a democrat.
But in the case of Regan Democrats most were the average Joe (no pun intended), not elected federal legislators. No one cares who the grocery bagger at Copps is voting for, he can switch loyalties and party identification any day of the week; but for a man who has advanced his career on the work of others in the party, such a betrayal is not as easily forgotten.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
RIP GOP?
After their stunning defeat in two consecutive elections, costing them majorities in the senate and house, and also the presidency, some liberal commentators are already hailing the death of the Republican Party. But is it too soon to put on the toe tag? I think the answer is, unfortunately, 'yes and no'.
I think the results of the last two elections are indicative more of 'running against hoover' than of a serious long-term downturn in the party. The economy was bad, that doesn't bode well for the party in power. Bush had critically low approval ratings, yes it's true, but so did Carter, and while it took a while for the US to get in a democratic mood again, it did come back around full circle. One cynical blog post I read described the cycle as such: "This sucks, elect a democratic congress. This is working, elect a democratic president! This sucks again, elect a republican congress! This is working, elect a republican president!..." and so on sinusoidally forever. Bad economies bode poorly for the president's party, simple as that.
On the other hand, I do think that this does show the failure of the neoconservative agenda. Americans, in fact I'd venture all voters, vote behind their pocketbooks more than on moral issues. When the economy is poor, Americans vote for who they think can restore it, while you may pick up some single-issue voters, face it, single-issue voters on neocon whipping horses like abortion and gay rights are never going to vote democrat anyway, you don't need to convince them of anything.
The republicans were the party that owned economic issues, by continually stumping on budget reform and economic reforms. They appear to have lost their central credibility on the economy. Perhaps this dates as far back as Regan and the specter of voodoonomics is catching up to the Grand Old Party, maybe they've just squandered their credibility in corporate scandals, but I think that's a transient problem indicative of the current mode of conservative discussion: Their party will continue to alienate so long as they force social issues over practical ones, and let themselves be hamstrung by scandal and perceived corporate ties, but I don't think that's the death of the traditional conservative ideology.
After all conservitivism is much more than neoconservativsm and the party is much more than Bush: what the GOP needs is a strong, charismatic leader that doesn't run on specters of fear, but rather the bulwarks of conservative philosophy that I think the average american can get behind. Talk to my friends, even the most liberal ones, and some of them start sounding very conservative at times, talking about responsible government, lower deficits, business incentives, the end of porkbarrel boondoggles and the return of the expectation of morality to politicians. The problem is the Republican party seems to have lost sight of those values that made it attractive to voters, if they ever find them again, I wouldn't count them out of the running. If they don't find them: R.I.P. G O P.
I think the results of the last two elections are indicative more of 'running against hoover' than of a serious long-term downturn in the party. The economy was bad, that doesn't bode well for the party in power. Bush had critically low approval ratings, yes it's true, but so did Carter, and while it took a while for the US to get in a democratic mood again, it did come back around full circle. One cynical blog post I read described the cycle as such: "This sucks, elect a democratic congress. This is working, elect a democratic president! This sucks again, elect a republican congress! This is working, elect a republican president!..." and so on sinusoidally forever. Bad economies bode poorly for the president's party, simple as that.
On the other hand, I do think that this does show the failure of the neoconservative agenda. Americans, in fact I'd venture all voters, vote behind their pocketbooks more than on moral issues. When the economy is poor, Americans vote for who they think can restore it, while you may pick up some single-issue voters, face it, single-issue voters on neocon whipping horses like abortion and gay rights are never going to vote democrat anyway, you don't need to convince them of anything.
The republicans were the party that owned economic issues, by continually stumping on budget reform and economic reforms. They appear to have lost their central credibility on the economy. Perhaps this dates as far back as Regan and the specter of voodoonomics is catching up to the Grand Old Party, maybe they've just squandered their credibility in corporate scandals, but I think that's a transient problem indicative of the current mode of conservative discussion: Their party will continue to alienate so long as they force social issues over practical ones, and let themselves be hamstrung by scandal and perceived corporate ties, but I don't think that's the death of the traditional conservative ideology.
After all conservitivism is much more than neoconservativsm and the party is much more than Bush: what the GOP needs is a strong, charismatic leader that doesn't run on specters of fear, but rather the bulwarks of conservative philosophy that I think the average american can get behind. Talk to my friends, even the most liberal ones, and some of them start sounding very conservative at times, talking about responsible government, lower deficits, business incentives, the end of porkbarrel boondoggles and the return of the expectation of morality to politicians. The problem is the Republican party seems to have lost sight of those values that made it attractive to voters, if they ever find them again, I wouldn't count them out of the running. If they don't find them: R.I.P. G O P.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
election
Wow, what an election, still came down to a within-error-of-margin squeaker in the popular vote, but it's nice to see a little harmony for a change.
Honestly given the last two elections I expected a hardscrabble fight to the last bitter moment.
Makes me happy that the margin was really too far to be litigated away.
I expected it to go until 4am
it was over, practically, by 8:30 central when Obama hit 206 electoral votes and you could count of California Oregon and Washington to put him over the 270 mark and into the white house.
It was almost... anticlimactic. The Bush administration and eight long years of neoconservative domination died in, well from 6am to 8:30pm. Not that McCain was a neocon anyway, not a Bush-style one beholden only to the radical party fringe. That itself says something to.
A lot of pundits are going over McCain's performance with a fine-toothed come, looking for the moment it went wrong. Some say it was choosing Palin, which took experience off the issue and, in CNN's words "made voters question his judgement." Some point to wall street deciding to spontaneously and utterly lose their collective sh*t a month before the election. But in the end, it's one lone bullet point that did it. Bush. Distance from Bush, support of bush, accepting endorsement from Bush.
He screwed the pooch so badly his party was in an untenable position. Nothing associated with the Republicans could do well this year, not in the house, not in the senate, not for the white house, not govenors, heck, I think it'd be tough to get elected as a republican mayor of a small town.
in 2000 and even 2004 it's arguable whether Bush actually won, let alone if he had a clear mandate to act. But here, as fractitious as politics are a close popular vote doesn't tell the tale as much as the electoral does. And obama won almost than three fourths of the country. Whether it was a vote against Bush or against McCain or a vote for Obama the message was pretty clear: Americans want change now.
Honestly given the last two elections I expected a hardscrabble fight to the last bitter moment.
Makes me happy that the margin was really too far to be litigated away.
I expected it to go until 4am
it was over, practically, by 8:30 central when Obama hit 206 electoral votes and you could count of California Oregon and Washington to put him over the 270 mark and into the white house.
It was almost... anticlimactic. The Bush administration and eight long years of neoconservative domination died in, well from 6am to 8:30pm. Not that McCain was a neocon anyway, not a Bush-style one beholden only to the radical party fringe. That itself says something to.
A lot of pundits are going over McCain's performance with a fine-toothed come, looking for the moment it went wrong. Some say it was choosing Palin, which took experience off the issue and, in CNN's words "made voters question his judgement." Some point to wall street deciding to spontaneously and utterly lose their collective sh*t a month before the election. But in the end, it's one lone bullet point that did it. Bush. Distance from Bush, support of bush, accepting endorsement from Bush.
He screwed the pooch so badly his party was in an untenable position. Nothing associated with the Republicans could do well this year, not in the house, not in the senate, not for the white house, not govenors, heck, I think it'd be tough to get elected as a republican mayor of a small town.
in 2000 and even 2004 it's arguable whether Bush actually won, let alone if he had a clear mandate to act. But here, as fractitious as politics are a close popular vote doesn't tell the tale as much as the electoral does. And obama won almost than three fourths of the country. Whether it was a vote against Bush or against McCain or a vote for Obama the message was pretty clear: Americans want change now.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
...as the band played on
If I were McCain's advisor... wow what a question.
Well it's obvious that something's not working, unfortunately the shots you are taking are hard to volley, your credibility, as a Republican, on the economy is a negative number, and Obama is showing better in the polls.
Now, we have to talk damage control. First of all, it's time to recapture the economy issue. Republicans are historically far more credible on responsible spending. Go after Obama where it hurts, hit him right in the porkbarrel. Try to muddy up his image on the economy and then go double-whammy.
Republicans have credibility about debt, and in the midst of a massive mortgage crisis, it's suddenly REALLY easy to bring the otherwise brain-warping issue of national debt down to the public's level. Use mortgage analogies, talk about the federal debt, talk about liquidity, attack the democratic party as a whole not just Obama.
another other issue is age. Regan's issue was age too, he won the election with a single line: "I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Pull the same. It's time to frame as Chris Mathews puts it in "Hardball," Frame this as a great contest between age and youth, experience and energy.
Palin is a foot-in-mouth machine, minimize her. Sure at the debates the gaffs were minimal, but she's more-or-less a laughingstock, get her out of the public eye and someplace her skeletons don't get turned into powerful charges leveled at you.
In short: Switch to issues where you have natural credibility, distance yourself from the republican regime, reframe the debate and put skeletons back in closets, the deeper the better.
Well it's obvious that something's not working, unfortunately the shots you are taking are hard to volley, your credibility, as a Republican, on the economy is a negative number, and Obama is showing better in the polls.
Now, we have to talk damage control. First of all, it's time to recapture the economy issue. Republicans are historically far more credible on responsible spending. Go after Obama where it hurts, hit him right in the porkbarrel. Try to muddy up his image on the economy and then go double-whammy.
Republicans have credibility about debt, and in the midst of a massive mortgage crisis, it's suddenly REALLY easy to bring the otherwise brain-warping issue of national debt down to the public's level. Use mortgage analogies, talk about the federal debt, talk about liquidity, attack the democratic party as a whole not just Obama.
another other issue is age. Regan's issue was age too, he won the election with a single line: "I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Pull the same. It's time to frame as Chris Mathews puts it in "Hardball," Frame this as a great contest between age and youth, experience and energy.
Palin is a foot-in-mouth machine, minimize her. Sure at the debates the gaffs were minimal, but she's more-or-less a laughingstock, get her out of the public eye and someplace her skeletons don't get turned into powerful charges leveled at you.
In short: Switch to issues where you have natural credibility, distance yourself from the republican regime, reframe the debate and put skeletons back in closets, the deeper the better.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"consider is there any scenario where we might want to consider low turnout a sign of a healthy democracy?"
This little line from the notes on our reading really struck me, for some reason. Primarily because it's so counterintuitive. How could NOT voting be a sign of health in a democracy? I mean, voting is what democracy is all about, it's the center of the entire system. But then I started to think about potential scenarios.
The point of voting is not to take a shot in the dark, but to make an educated decision about a candidate that meets their needs and matches their positions and beliefs. If there is no such viable candidate, then the theory that some have proposed, like Dahl if I recall, say that you should just give it your best go. I disagree. If there is no candidate that matches your positions, a credible candidate now, then there really is no point in compromising the vast majority of your opinions just for the sake of feeling like you've done your civic duty. You're creating a false sense of mandate for ALL the positions of the guy you vote for, if he wins. In addition, if there just isn't enough information available to decide, then it's likewise irresponsible to vote.
To bring up an example it was for these reasons that brave dissidents in the USSR didn't vote: There was no such thing as information about candidates and the candidates were all party-loyal communists. That meant it was largely pointless to vote and as a result, if you were brave enough to stand up to the soviet system, you didn't.
Now the soviet system was not a democracy, but the same principle stands, if you are ill-informed, or ambivalent the system is better off without your vote. If there are enough people that are ill-informed (because information does not exist or is not clear) or ambivalent (usually because of frustration with the system), then a low voter turnout could be a sign of a POLITICALLY healthy system with problems in other areas.
This little line from the notes on our reading really struck me, for some reason. Primarily because it's so counterintuitive. How could NOT voting be a sign of health in a democracy? I mean, voting is what democracy is all about, it's the center of the entire system. But then I started to think about potential scenarios.
The point of voting is not to take a shot in the dark, but to make an educated decision about a candidate that meets their needs and matches their positions and beliefs. If there is no such viable candidate, then the theory that some have proposed, like Dahl if I recall, say that you should just give it your best go. I disagree. If there is no candidate that matches your positions, a credible candidate now, then there really is no point in compromising the vast majority of your opinions just for the sake of feeling like you've done your civic duty. You're creating a false sense of mandate for ALL the positions of the guy you vote for, if he wins. In addition, if there just isn't enough information available to decide, then it's likewise irresponsible to vote.
To bring up an example it was for these reasons that brave dissidents in the USSR didn't vote: There was no such thing as information about candidates and the candidates were all party-loyal communists. That meant it was largely pointless to vote and as a result, if you were brave enough to stand up to the soviet system, you didn't.
Now the soviet system was not a democracy, but the same principle stands, if you are ill-informed, or ambivalent the system is better off without your vote. If there are enough people that are ill-informed (because information does not exist or is not clear) or ambivalent (usually because of frustration with the system), then a low voter turnout could be a sign of a POLITICALLY healthy system with problems in other areas.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
party roles
Just because you don't have control of a legislative body doesn't mean that your party can't still control the way the chamber works.
America's founding father's were so obsessively paranoid that a small minority would come to popularity, get themselves elected, seize power and hold on tight that the US federal system especially is intentionally hamstrung.
Consider that one a second, they pretty much intentionally made it hard to get anything done.
Of course that leads to an entirely different problem, a small minority can get a few congressmen elected, and gum up the whole works. Now sure the senate especially has changed that, with new cloture rules, but things haven't changed that drastically.
The minority may not have the power to cause events, but they certainly, especially in a binary system like the US, especially with numbers in congress always having a fair balance of Democrats and Republicans, have the ability to gum up the works.
Now in this process of staunchly preventing government from doing anything at all, they can use this threat to extract heavy concessions from the majority party, under threat of avoiding any action at all.
In this way permanent parity is established: though one party may have the majority, so long as they are sufficiently disunited or not in enough control, you can still ensure that your platform is not utterly ignored.
America's founding father's were so obsessively paranoid that a small minority would come to popularity, get themselves elected, seize power and hold on tight that the US federal system especially is intentionally hamstrung.
Consider that one a second, they pretty much intentionally made it hard to get anything done.
Of course that leads to an entirely different problem, a small minority can get a few congressmen elected, and gum up the whole works. Now sure the senate especially has changed that, with new cloture rules, but things haven't changed that drastically.
The minority may not have the power to cause events, but they certainly, especially in a binary system like the US, especially with numbers in congress always having a fair balance of Democrats and Republicans, have the ability to gum up the works.
Now in this process of staunchly preventing government from doing anything at all, they can use this threat to extract heavy concessions from the majority party, under threat of avoiding any action at all.
In this way permanent parity is established: though one party may have the majority, so long as they are sufficiently disunited or not in enough control, you can still ensure that your platform is not utterly ignored.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
come on over here, have a cigar, boy.
If you look at the candidates in the 2008 election, it certainly seems like a mixed bag.
Both McCain and Obama should properly be called moderates, though they support significant amounts of the party's platforms, there are notable omissions and deviations: McCain opposes a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, Obama supports sanctions against iraq and has not come down strongly against the possibility of a military intervention there, McCain is against ANWAR oil drilling and Obama is for the death penalty...
So in light of this it's not easy to say that the candidates are agents of their parties, but they certainly have a certain degree of party loyalty, after all Obama's voting record shows he's heavily towed the party line, then again his transformation from junior senator into presidential candidate may have changed that.
As I discussed a few posts back, I think the ease of cross-checking using internet sources makes that a little more difficult for politicians. Gone are the days when "tailgunner Joe" McCarthy could get away with a false military record by sheer effrontery. Now candidates must maintain a higher degree of truthfulness and consistency, or it will bite them squarely in the kiester.
Looking at a local election, things get a little more clear. To pick a candidate I knew nothing about I selected Rep. David Camp, from Michigan's 4th district (Rep). He voted the party line.
Entirely. In an era where abortion is a lock-stock-and-barrel owned issue for democrats, he's still running on it, his opposition to gay marrage, union or anti-discrimination laws mirrors the core of the party's rightest-wing. There is no deviation at all.
But I'm not sure that this is going to help him much, sure he's ideologically observant, but it's a bad time to be a republican, and after the utter implosion of the Bush-boosting neocon movement an even worse time to try to push on moral issues as a republican. No credibility left.
So while he's being far more party-aligned than his presidential candidate partymate, I think it's probably going to do far more damage than anything unless the 4th district happens to be an evangelical haven that somehow still supports bushism.
Both McCain and Obama should properly be called moderates, though they support significant amounts of the party's platforms, there are notable omissions and deviations: McCain opposes a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, Obama supports sanctions against iraq and has not come down strongly against the possibility of a military intervention there, McCain is against ANWAR oil drilling and Obama is for the death penalty...
So in light of this it's not easy to say that the candidates are agents of their parties, but they certainly have a certain degree of party loyalty, after all Obama's voting record shows he's heavily towed the party line, then again his transformation from junior senator into presidential candidate may have changed that.
As I discussed a few posts back, I think the ease of cross-checking using internet sources makes that a little more difficult for politicians. Gone are the days when "tailgunner Joe" McCarthy could get away with a false military record by sheer effrontery. Now candidates must maintain a higher degree of truthfulness and consistency, or it will bite them squarely in the kiester.
Looking at a local election, things get a little more clear. To pick a candidate I knew nothing about I selected Rep. David Camp, from Michigan's 4th district (Rep). He voted the party line.
Entirely. In an era where abortion is a lock-stock-and-barrel owned issue for democrats, he's still running on it, his opposition to gay marrage, union or anti-discrimination laws mirrors the core of the party's rightest-wing. There is no deviation at all.
But I'm not sure that this is going to help him much, sure he's ideologically observant, but it's a bad time to be a republican, and after the utter implosion of the Bush-boosting neocon movement an even worse time to try to push on moral issues as a republican. No credibility left.
So while he's being far more party-aligned than his presidential candidate partymate, I think it's probably going to do far more damage than anything unless the 4th district happens to be an evangelical haven that somehow still supports bushism.
Monday, September 29, 2008
We got your credit statement ((NON-GRADED))
NOTE: this is a NON-GRADED response, I have a political blog, an event just happened which may well spell disaster for the American political and economic system and I feel compelled to write. For those of you who don't know yet: the Dow Jones tanked today. It was worse than Black Monday in terms of raw money lost and points lost off major indicies, in terms of percentage it was the worst since a similarly fateful Monday in 1929...
As a college student I'm intimately familiar with credit: Namely, with the predatory lending practices that banks engage in precisely to get me to live beyond my means to the tune of 19% APR in their pocket. Surprise surprise, when you give loans to people beyond their means to pay, they default... whoops. To put this in 'kitchen table economics' terms, imagine you, as a college student running up a very large credit card bill. That is what congress is doing with our future. Say "NO!" to Congress mortgaging our future. Spending money that you don't have is not even a matter of basic macroeconomics, it's called "not being MC Hammer," and yet congress does 'live like a rockstar' only congress can't declare bankruptcy like a moron that runs up his credit cards can. Or moreover if they did it would destroy the value of your money, as well as the global economy. Habitually, not for one year while you're growing, not for 10 years while times are tough, but 95% of years from 1935 onwards, spending more money than you take in is not a viable lifestyle for any person, corporation, family or organization. Only the government could get away with it because they have us, to put it bluntly, by the minerals. They can take citizens money through, to use a classical political philosophy term "coercive force." They can make us pay for their irresponsibility through threat of imprisonment, that is the current cornerstone of the US system.
Imagine, if you will, congress was one of those poor souls sucked in by legalized loanshark rates on credit cards:
Dear Congress,
You haven't been answering your cell-phone, so I wrote a little e-mail, Congress. We got your credit card statement today.
I can't begin to explain how upset your taxpayers and I are.
A trillion dollars for a war in Iraq! I mean, you and I sat down and had a long heart-to-heart before you moved away to Washington, that credit card is for emergencies only. And no, I'm not going to buy that Iraq was an emergency. You need to realize the difference between the things you want and the things you need. A few trillion for entitlement spending, while we're not HAPPY about it people have to live somehow, and you did make a promise to all those baby boomers. A F-22 Raptor is not a necessity, can't you be happy with all the F/A-18s we got you for graduation! You *threw away* your A-10 Thunderbolts saying they were 'too old' and I know for a fact they worked just fine. There are unarmed people in Ethiopia that would LOVE to have GAU-8 mounted fixed-wing aircraft, and you throw yours away!
Now I find out you just maxed out your credit limit buying up bad mortgages! Son you can't go on spending money that you don't have, because someone has to pay for that, do you realize that your Taxpayer just got a second job to pay your rent! She's working nights at the mini-mart because of how much we pay for your nice capitol building and your executive salaries, not to mention all those porkbarrel projects you insist you 'need'. These things cost real money, son, and someone has to pay for them! Now I know you'll get all apologetic and offer to pay us back, just like you did in the 90s, but you didn't even finish paying that back, you broke up with your President and the budget we made went out the window.
I don't want to have to do this, I really don't, but you're on your own, we can't co-sign another bailout, sure you eventually got your money back from Chrystler, but then we had to help out that friend of yours that works at the airport, and now the banks too? I'm afraid that unless you get your budget under control we can't co-sign for you anymore.
-Love, Your Constituant.
As a college student I'm intimately familiar with credit: Namely, with the predatory lending practices that banks engage in precisely to get me to live beyond my means to the tune of 19% APR in their pocket. Surprise surprise, when you give loans to people beyond their means to pay, they default... whoops. To put this in 'kitchen table economics' terms, imagine you, as a college student running up a very large credit card bill. That is what congress is doing with our future. Say "NO!" to Congress mortgaging our future. Spending money that you don't have is not even a matter of basic macroeconomics, it's called "not being MC Hammer," and yet congress does 'live like a rockstar' only congress can't declare bankruptcy like a moron that runs up his credit cards can. Or moreover if they did it would destroy the value of your money, as well as the global economy. Habitually, not for one year while you're growing, not for 10 years while times are tough, but 95% of years from 1935 onwards, spending more money than you take in is not a viable lifestyle for any person, corporation, family or organization. Only the government could get away with it because they have us, to put it bluntly, by the minerals. They can take citizens money through, to use a classical political philosophy term "coercive force." They can make us pay for their irresponsibility through threat of imprisonment, that is the current cornerstone of the US system.
Imagine, if you will, congress was one of those poor souls sucked in by legalized loanshark rates on credit cards:
Dear Congress,
You haven't been answering your cell-phone, so I wrote a little e-mail, Congress. We got your credit card statement today.
I can't begin to explain how upset your taxpayers and I are.
A trillion dollars for a war in Iraq! I mean, you and I sat down and had a long heart-to-heart before you moved away to Washington, that credit card is for emergencies only. And no, I'm not going to buy that Iraq was an emergency. You need to realize the difference between the things you want and the things you need. A few trillion for entitlement spending, while we're not HAPPY about it people have to live somehow, and you did make a promise to all those baby boomers. A F-22 Raptor is not a necessity, can't you be happy with all the F/A-18s we got you for graduation! You *threw away* your A-10 Thunderbolts saying they were 'too old' and I know for a fact they worked just fine. There are unarmed people in Ethiopia that would LOVE to have GAU-8 mounted fixed-wing aircraft, and you throw yours away!
Now I find out you just maxed out your credit limit buying up bad mortgages! Son you can't go on spending money that you don't have, because someone has to pay for that, do you realize that your Taxpayer just got a second job to pay your rent! She's working nights at the mini-mart because of how much we pay for your nice capitol building and your executive salaries, not to mention all those porkbarrel projects you insist you 'need'. These things cost real money, son, and someone has to pay for them! Now I know you'll get all apologetic and offer to pay us back, just like you did in the 90s, but you didn't even finish paying that back, you broke up with your President and the budget we made went out the window.
I don't want to have to do this, I really don't, but you're on your own, we can't co-sign another bailout, sure you eventually got your money back from Chrystler, but then we had to help out that friend of yours that works at the airport, and now the banks too? I'm afraid that unless you get your budget under control we can't co-sign for you anymore.
-Love, Your Constituant.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Money, it's a gas...
Campaign finance reform has been a continual hotbed issue. Where most Americans aren't even aware of the attempts to reform the system through the use of primaries, many more have taken positions on the use of money in elections.
It can be broadly said that both attempts are efforts to reduce the power of narrow groups: wealthy organizations and party bosses, namely. Unfortunately I think these efforts are doomed to fail.
People in high political offices, and the rich, as well as organizations with access to large amounts of cash have a political asset that goes beyond payola and superdelegates in their pocket: they have notability.
Americans, and I would say humans in general, are creatures of trend. One theory says that basically one in twenty people are the ones that decide what will be 'cool' for the rest of society. The people that are currently at the top of the political process tend to be these central trendmakers for the rest of us.
In addition, beyond name recognition some of the largest influences on people are things that are free: the influence of these central opinion-shapers, news media coverage, endorsements. By having access to the control of these functions the people that are already in power have access to substantial reserves that don't tie in to a bank account of official position.
Add to that the fact that people are able to circumvent campaign funding laws, and the hybrid system used by parties in their conventions and I'm not sure the material effect is entirely different. The public may have slightly more control but when the public is also influenced by these factors the net outcome may be identical.
It can be broadly said that both attempts are efforts to reduce the power of narrow groups: wealthy organizations and party bosses, namely. Unfortunately I think these efforts are doomed to fail.
People in high political offices, and the rich, as well as organizations with access to large amounts of cash have a political asset that goes beyond payola and superdelegates in their pocket: they have notability.
Americans, and I would say humans in general, are creatures of trend. One theory says that basically one in twenty people are the ones that decide what will be 'cool' for the rest of society. The people that are currently at the top of the political process tend to be these central trendmakers for the rest of us.
In addition, beyond name recognition some of the largest influences on people are things that are free: the influence of these central opinion-shapers, news media coverage, endorsements. By having access to the control of these functions the people that are already in power have access to substantial reserves that don't tie in to a bank account of official position.
Add to that the fact that people are able to circumvent campaign funding laws, and the hybrid system used by parties in their conventions and I'm not sure the material effect is entirely different. The public may have slightly more control but when the public is also influenced by these factors the net outcome may be identical.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Primary attributes
Ah, the primary system. It's the most direct input that voters get into the political process, but is it good for the parties? Is it good for the voters?
I think that the primary system is probably far better than the way things used to be done: it ensures that the will of the public, and not back-room deals, selects who will be the candidates for office.
In a system where party bosses simply select candidates, the primary deciding attributes are party loyalty and service. This encourages dedication to the party, not toeing the line will make it impossible for you to ever advance within politics, but on the converse side, it means that regardless of how the voters feel on an issue, the candidate is bound by the party.
The primary system ensures that the will of the public is foremost in all levels of political contest from the start of the process.
The biggest disadvantage of primaries, in my opinion, is primarily the monetary one, as well as the fact that in large races the primaries can become heated enough that they damage party cohesion-- and the candidates. Look at the beating that Hillary and Obama unleashed on each other in this most recent primary. It would not be unrealistic to say that their efforts to win the nomination may well have made both of them unelectable in the eyes of the voting public, as they probed each others' weaknesses before the Republicans even got a crack at them. Thanks to their own party's muckrakers, the public is all-to-well-aware of the shortcomings of Obama, and Hillary as well, though that's hardly material now.
In addition, party voters tend to be ideolouges, and party bosses often have an eye for strategy and a greater desire, it could be argued, to capture the seat than to maintain strict ideological purity and avoid political heterodoxy.
As a result candidates undergo an embarassing transformation from staunch liberal/conservative into electable moderate. In the modern era of 'gotcha' journalism, and, most importantly, the Internet, it is no longer possible for a politician to tell blue collar UAW-types in Detroit one thing and rich big-city liberals in New York another thing. It's a lesson politicians have consistantly failed to learn, and that is exacerbated by the transformation required between races to capture the nomination and capture the position.
I think that the primary system is probably far better than the way things used to be done: it ensures that the will of the public, and not back-room deals, selects who will be the candidates for office.
In a system where party bosses simply select candidates, the primary deciding attributes are party loyalty and service. This encourages dedication to the party, not toeing the line will make it impossible for you to ever advance within politics, but on the converse side, it means that regardless of how the voters feel on an issue, the candidate is bound by the party.
The primary system ensures that the will of the public is foremost in all levels of political contest from the start of the process.
The biggest disadvantage of primaries, in my opinion, is primarily the monetary one, as well as the fact that in large races the primaries can become heated enough that they damage party cohesion-- and the candidates. Look at the beating that Hillary and Obama unleashed on each other in this most recent primary. It would not be unrealistic to say that their efforts to win the nomination may well have made both of them unelectable in the eyes of the voting public, as they probed each others' weaknesses before the Republicans even got a crack at them. Thanks to their own party's muckrakers, the public is all-to-well-aware of the shortcomings of Obama, and Hillary as well, though that's hardly material now.
In addition, party voters tend to be ideolouges, and party bosses often have an eye for strategy and a greater desire, it could be argued, to capture the seat than to maintain strict ideological purity and avoid political heterodoxy.
As a result candidates undergo an embarassing transformation from staunch liberal/conservative into electable moderate. In the modern era of 'gotcha' journalism, and, most importantly, the Internet, it is no longer possible for a politician to tell blue collar UAW-types in Detroit one thing and rich big-city liberals in New York another thing. It's a lesson politicians have consistantly failed to learn, and that is exacerbated by the transformation required between races to capture the nomination and capture the position.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Factions, factions, everywhere
Factions. It seems that the founding fathers certainly took a dim view of them, and perhaps not without a good reason.
After all, they themselves were a sort of political party at the beginning, a group of like-minded people with a specific policy goal in mind: namely the policy of self-determination. So it might not be all that shocking that they could look at what they had done and see how dangerous a small group of highly motivated people can do.
But is such demonizing really warranted? After all it's only natural that people of a like mind get together, and that they accomplish more together than they do alone, and thus are encouraged to continue their alliance. I think that it's in this vein that Tom DeLay made his statements: that because parties have become so integral to the political system of the US, being active in party politics is synonymous with being active in politics. Speaking before the advent of the major political parties Washington and company had the luxury of issuing nonspecific warnings about the danger of factionation, where today we have to play the hand we are dealt. Now certainly Washington wasn't an uneducated man, there are dangers to factions, especially as they grow in power. Implicit in the structure of a 'party' is the concept of us, the party itself, arrayed against them, people of competing interests. Of course the danger of this kind of thinking is immediately opposite when the us is seeking political power it becomes all to easy for the nameless, faceless 'them' to be given a name, and become the target of oppression or outright aggression.
So are political parties necessary? Are they Good? Are they Bad?
In all honesty I think necessary or not, for good or evil, they are inevitable. People will join with those of like opinion to support things that are important to them, collectively. Much like the formation of unions, people of common interests and desires will almost certainly realize that stating their case together and pledging support as a voting bloc they can secure a better outcome than by acting alone.
After all, they themselves were a sort of political party at the beginning, a group of like-minded people with a specific policy goal in mind: namely the policy of self-determination. So it might not be all that shocking that they could look at what they had done and see how dangerous a small group of highly motivated people can do.
But is such demonizing really warranted? After all it's only natural that people of a like mind get together, and that they accomplish more together than they do alone, and thus are encouraged to continue their alliance. I think that it's in this vein that Tom DeLay made his statements: that because parties have become so integral to the political system of the US, being active in party politics is synonymous with being active in politics. Speaking before the advent of the major political parties Washington and company had the luxury of issuing nonspecific warnings about the danger of factionation, where today we have to play the hand we are dealt. Now certainly Washington wasn't an uneducated man, there are dangers to factions, especially as they grow in power. Implicit in the structure of a 'party' is the concept of us, the party itself, arrayed against them, people of competing interests. Of course the danger of this kind of thinking is immediately opposite when the us is seeking political power it becomes all to easy for the nameless, faceless 'them' to be given a name, and become the target of oppression or outright aggression.
So are political parties necessary? Are they Good? Are they Bad?
In all honesty I think necessary or not, for good or evil, they are inevitable. People will join with those of like opinion to support things that are important to them, collectively. Much like the formation of unions, people of common interests and desires will almost certainly realize that stating their case together and pledging support as a voting bloc they can secure a better outcome than by acting alone.
Hi everyone!
Hi there, I'm Dan, I'll be your blogger for this little forey into party politics in America.
I am a senior at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, studying political science with a legal studies concentration. I am currently a senior in my last semester here.
When you think about party politics, often you don't think of anything good, so I'm very interested in the subject of the nuts and bolts of party politics, the reason they exist even though the majority of Americans deride them. In many ways these nuts and bolts define American politics, in fact, I'd dare say they define world politics, so I'm curious to see just why they have become so intrinsic to the American Republic.
I am a senior at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, studying political science with a legal studies concentration. I am currently a senior in my last semester here.
When you think about party politics, often you don't think of anything good, so I'm very interested in the subject of the nuts and bolts of party politics, the reason they exist even though the majority of Americans deride them. In many ways these nuts and bolts define American politics, in fact, I'd dare say they define world politics, so I'm curious to see just why they have become so intrinsic to the American Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)