Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Specter Speaks, Defends Decision to Leave Republican Party
To continue the Specter theme, I give you this article. Here, he provides more insight into his decision to defect, including his contention that the Republican Party has drifted too far to the right for his liking.
Party Allegiance
Although it was suggested that Senator Arlen Specter had been considering a switch to the Democratic side of the aisle for some time, this certainly was a surprising development. For one thing, this type of action doesn't seem to occur very frequently. Specter is an old senatorial warhorse, currently serving his fifth term representing the state of Pennsylvania as a Republican. While he has always been a moderate, leaning to the left on many issues, to actually change party allegiance, particularly this late in his career, is a significant move. Of course, the most immediate byproduct of this decision is the filibuster proof majority that the switch provides the Democrats in the Senate.
In regard to how this reflects on the party system as a whole, I feel it displays the strength and vitality of the contemporary party structure. The Specter move illustrates how much significance can be attached to aligning with a particular party as well as the importance of party identification in general. If the parties were interchangeable in the eyes of the voting public, then there would be no valid reason to make a change of this magnitude.
I suppose that Aldrich would consider the Specter change of allegiance an example of an ambitious politician who is seeking to maximize his chances of retaining office. Specter has publicly acknowledged that he based this decision solely on his desire to win reelection to the Senate. In addition, it is also possible that he is now properly aligned ideologically with the correct party.
In Culture War?, Fiorina presents a logical and convincing argument that places political elites at the extreme left or right in terms of ideology, while the vast majority of the public rests somewhere near the middle. The fact that this theory is probably accurate makes the Specter shift all the more remarkable. Perhaps this is simply an isolated case of political survival, wherein one opportunistic politician is attempting to capitalize on the momentum and electoral advantage currently held by one particular party, and not something more profound.
In regard to how this reflects on the party system as a whole, I feel it displays the strength and vitality of the contemporary party structure. The Specter move illustrates how much significance can be attached to aligning with a particular party as well as the importance of party identification in general. If the parties were interchangeable in the eyes of the voting public, then there would be no valid reason to make a change of this magnitude.
I suppose that Aldrich would consider the Specter change of allegiance an example of an ambitious politician who is seeking to maximize his chances of retaining office. Specter has publicly acknowledged that he based this decision solely on his desire to win reelection to the Senate. In addition, it is also possible that he is now properly aligned ideologically with the correct party.
In Culture War?, Fiorina presents a logical and convincing argument that places political elites at the extreme left or right in terms of ideology, while the vast majority of the public rests somewhere near the middle. The fact that this theory is probably accurate makes the Specter shift all the more remarkable. Perhaps this is simply an isolated case of political survival, wherein one opportunistic politician is attempting to capitalize on the momentum and electoral advantage currently held by one particular party, and not something more profound.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats
Well, this is certainly noteworthy. Of course, the most significant aspect of the Specter defection is the prospect of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, assuming that Franken actually is allowed to take his seat. While Specter is a moderate and tends to lean toward the Democrats on many issues, he has publicly admitted that this move was motivated entirely by his desire to win reelection to the Senate, as he correctly feels that his chances will be greatly improved by running as a Democrat.
Bartels and Frank
It was rather amusing and entertaining to follow the literary jousting between Bartels and Frank. Both sides provide convincing arguments while at the same time successfully mangling the others thesis. However, if compelled to choose a side, I suppose I would consider Frank's position to be the most tenable.
The Bartels essay relies quite heavily on statistical data compiled through National Election Studies(NES). These various surveys focused on political attitudes and behavior at the national level over a period of 50 years. However, this type of empirical approach is far from infallible. As Frank observes, Bartels uses this data in a rather haphazard way. A group as diverse as the working class is extremely difficult to define. Therefore, broad strokes can be used to decide what information is pertinent and what can be conveniently omitted. While Bartels does make some interesting observations and there is inherent logic in his argument, it does seem that there are some instances where he simply manipulates the data in order to substantiate his thesis.
As the material in question is from 2005, I feel it is important to recall the mentality of the country after the reelection of George W. Bush. Personally, I remember being rather disillusioned and perceiving a palpable shift in ideology across the country. Whether this had actually occurred or was continuing to occur, the perception was that a profound conservative wave had swept over the land and that the moral majority had won the hearts and minds of the populace.
While it is certainly possible to find inconsistencies in some of Frank's work through the use of curious statistical analysis, I feel that his central theme is more than valid. Regardless of how you spin the numbers, there were large swaths of the populace voting in direct contradiction to their own economic interests in the 2004 presidential election. The point about the G.O.P. forming a new dominant political coalition through the advancement of a particular social agenda is debatable, however, there was no disputing the fact that the Republicans had become significantly more conservative during Bush's first term.
Of course, when one attempts to mediate this debate through the prism of our current political landscape, the perspective may change. Although I sided with Frank on his interpretation, our current view reveals some flaws in his reasoning. First and foremost, this perceived shift to the right and formation of a dominant Republican coalition was in fact fleeting. Frank's claim that some of these trends which had developed over the previous 10 to 15 years were permanent and irreversible was false. In 2005, I believe it was true that the Democrats had alienated middle America to a certain extent, and that they lacked a coherent message or strategy.
Our recent election produced a complete repudiation of the Bush administration. This was caused by a myriad of issues, but was largely due to the failing economy and an increasingly unpopular war. So, the movement Frank alluded to in his book turned out to be part of the political cycle, as now it is the Republicans who have lost their way and are struggling to remain on point and stay in touch with a diverse population.
The Bartels essay relies quite heavily on statistical data compiled through National Election Studies(NES). These various surveys focused on political attitudes and behavior at the national level over a period of 50 years. However, this type of empirical approach is far from infallible. As Frank observes, Bartels uses this data in a rather haphazard way. A group as diverse as the working class is extremely difficult to define. Therefore, broad strokes can be used to decide what information is pertinent and what can be conveniently omitted. While Bartels does make some interesting observations and there is inherent logic in his argument, it does seem that there are some instances where he simply manipulates the data in order to substantiate his thesis.
As the material in question is from 2005, I feel it is important to recall the mentality of the country after the reelection of George W. Bush. Personally, I remember being rather disillusioned and perceiving a palpable shift in ideology across the country. Whether this had actually occurred or was continuing to occur, the perception was that a profound conservative wave had swept over the land and that the moral majority had won the hearts and minds of the populace.
While it is certainly possible to find inconsistencies in some of Frank's work through the use of curious statistical analysis, I feel that his central theme is more than valid. Regardless of how you spin the numbers, there were large swaths of the populace voting in direct contradiction to their own economic interests in the 2004 presidential election. The point about the G.O.P. forming a new dominant political coalition through the advancement of a particular social agenda is debatable, however, there was no disputing the fact that the Republicans had become significantly more conservative during Bush's first term.
Of course, when one attempts to mediate this debate through the prism of our current political landscape, the perspective may change. Although I sided with Frank on his interpretation, our current view reveals some flaws in his reasoning. First and foremost, this perceived shift to the right and formation of a dominant Republican coalition was in fact fleeting. Frank's claim that some of these trends which had developed over the previous 10 to 15 years were permanent and irreversible was false. In 2005, I believe it was true that the Democrats had alienated middle America to a certain extent, and that they lacked a coherent message or strategy.
Our recent election produced a complete repudiation of the Bush administration. This was caused by a myriad of issues, but was largely due to the failing economy and an increasingly unpopular war. So, the movement Frank alluded to in his book turned out to be part of the political cycle, as now it is the Republicans who have lost their way and are struggling to remain on point and stay in touch with a diverse population.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Top G.O.P. Consultant Endorses Gay Marriage
This is one of several social issues that the G.O.P. could afford to be a bit more progressive on. However, as the article states, Republicans are not going to suddenly begin advocating gay marraige en masse. But with more and more legislation in various states leading down the path to legalization, the trend suggests a gradual move in a more tolerant direction for the G.O.P.
Hypothetical Political Landscape
This is a rather difficult hypothetical to ponder. We discussed this unlikely possibility in a previous module. I cannot even fathom the demise of one of the two major parties, but for the sake of argument, it should be considered.
For countless partisan reasons, I choose the destruction of the Republican Party. It is hard to imagine the political chaos that would ensue in the aftermath of this event, in an effort to fill this massive power vacuum. In Dynamics of the Party System by James L. Sundquist, A New York Times article is quoted as suggesting that during the late 1960's and early 1970's, America was experiencing a profound political transition that could possibly lead to a fragmented system of four or five parties based on the European model and also that the modern political party as we know it was becoming obsolete. While this theory was posed around forty years ago, I do not believe that this scenario was ever at all feasible, however, it is interesting to consider if only for its radical nature.
A more realistic possibility involves a sort of reincarnation of the Republican Party equipped with a more refined message. The G.O.P. is hopelessly out of touch with a majority of the electorate on a number of issues, more specifically of the social variety, and desperately needs to modify their views. If this does not occur, they run the risk of alienating more of the voting population and making it increasingly difficult for them to win national elections, thereby further marginalizing themselves as a major party.
If the G.O.P. would take a more moderate stance, then it can be logically assumed that there would be dissent ion in the ranks of the extreme right of the party. This possible revolt could lead to the formation of a fringe third party that would restore the clear ideological divide that would be more ambiguous in the event of a Republican shift to the middle.
In one of our readings pertaining to third parties in America authored by J. David Gillespie, it is suggested that one possible genesis of a third party is as a faction that decides to secede from a major party. This type of secessionist party could take this action in the hope of forcing their party to acquiesce to their ideological demands or to become relevant themselves as a separate party. Again, I do not anticipate any of this actually coming to pass, but it is fun to speculate.
For countless partisan reasons, I choose the destruction of the Republican Party. It is hard to imagine the political chaos that would ensue in the aftermath of this event, in an effort to fill this massive power vacuum. In Dynamics of the Party System by James L. Sundquist, A New York Times article is quoted as suggesting that during the late 1960's and early 1970's, America was experiencing a profound political transition that could possibly lead to a fragmented system of four or five parties based on the European model and also that the modern political party as we know it was becoming obsolete. While this theory was posed around forty years ago, I do not believe that this scenario was ever at all feasible, however, it is interesting to consider if only for its radical nature.
A more realistic possibility involves a sort of reincarnation of the Republican Party equipped with a more refined message. The G.O.P. is hopelessly out of touch with a majority of the electorate on a number of issues, more specifically of the social variety, and desperately needs to modify their views. If this does not occur, they run the risk of alienating more of the voting population and making it increasingly difficult for them to win national elections, thereby further marginalizing themselves as a major party.
If the G.O.P. would take a more moderate stance, then it can be logically assumed that there would be dissent ion in the ranks of the extreme right of the party. This possible revolt could lead to the formation of a fringe third party that would restore the clear ideological divide that would be more ambiguous in the event of a Republican shift to the middle.
In one of our readings pertaining to third parties in America authored by J. David Gillespie, it is suggested that one possible genesis of a third party is as a faction that decides to secede from a major party. This type of secessionist party could take this action in the hope of forcing their party to acquiesce to their ideological demands or to become relevant themselves as a separate party. Again, I do not anticipate any of this actually coming to pass, but it is fun to speculate.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Frum's Right on Limbaugh and GOP: Conservatives, Republicans Must Evolve
Since we are chronicling the many recent struggles of the Republicans this week, I thought this article may prove to be insightful. It is from a conservative perspective, and it offers a pretty accurate critique of the current state of the G.O.P. There is no denying the merit of the argument here, which states that the Republicans desperately need to update their message.
Is the G.O.P Doomed?
This is certainly an interesting question worth pondering. There is no denying the fact that the Republicans have been punished severely in the electorate recently, dating back to 2006. The many transgressions of the Bush Administration have been well documented, and the party is now being held accountable electorally. It appears that in addition to losing the White House, as well as the House and Senate in recent years, another casualty has been the ideological compass of the party in general. While the deck was clearly stacked against them during the election, the Republicans lacked a cohesive strategy or direction, and the very soul of the party seemed haunted and conflicted. Their traditional message was not resonating, and there was resulting confusion as to what direction to follow. However, despite the preponderance of evidence suggesting the possible marginalizing and ultimate demise of the G.O.P., it is highly unlikely that this will actually come to pass.
There are countless arguments that can be used to dispute the feasibility of this theory. Since the ascendancy of the Republican Party in the wake of the Whig's collapse in the mid 19th century, there have been two major mass parties in America. While the design of parties has evolved and their significance varied over the years, the Democrats and Republicans have been the standard in American politics. This standard has been firmly established in the psyche of the electorate and is regarded as the status quo. Because of this fact, the possibility of any significant third party uprising is extremely remote, if not impossible.
In our current text, Aldrich incorporates the choice of party affiliation by a politician into the ambition theory. This theory involves the choices of political office that will ensure the longest, most successful possible career for a politician. When this theory is applied to party affiliation, we find politicians choosing parties on the basis of major party status and long term viability. From a contemporary perspective, it is unfathomable to think that any politician who desires a long and productive career in politics would choose a party other than the Democratic or the Republican. Therefore, because of ideological concerns and the chance of being elected to office, ambitious politicians will always consider the G.O.P a reasonable option. I feel that the fickle nature of the electorate and cyclical patterns in American politics ensure that the Republicans will always be viable, regardless of how muddled their agenda may become.
There are countless arguments that can be used to dispute the feasibility of this theory. Since the ascendancy of the Republican Party in the wake of the Whig's collapse in the mid 19th century, there have been two major mass parties in America. While the design of parties has evolved and their significance varied over the years, the Democrats and Republicans have been the standard in American politics. This standard has been firmly established in the psyche of the electorate and is regarded as the status quo. Because of this fact, the possibility of any significant third party uprising is extremely remote, if not impossible.
In our current text, Aldrich incorporates the choice of party affiliation by a politician into the ambition theory. This theory involves the choices of political office that will ensure the longest, most successful possible career for a politician. When this theory is applied to party affiliation, we find politicians choosing parties on the basis of major party status and long term viability. From a contemporary perspective, it is unfathomable to think that any politician who desires a long and productive career in politics would choose a party other than the Democratic or the Republican. Therefore, because of ideological concerns and the chance of being elected to office, ambitious politicians will always consider the G.O.P a reasonable option. I feel that the fickle nature of the electorate and cyclical patterns in American politics ensure that the Republicans will always be viable, regardless of how muddled their agenda may become.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Obama Will Headline Fund-Raiser for Senate Majority Leader
This article discusses how the president will throw his mandate and formidable approval ratings behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and attend a fundraiser in May. The article eludes to the productive political relationship between Reid and the president, a relationship that both parties would obviously prefer to continue. Also, I think delaying any significant fundraising activity these past few tumultuous months was a wise move on the part of the administration.
The Obama Mandate
I believe it is safe to conclude that most people interpreted the 2008 election as a fairly definitive mandate for Obama. It seems to me that any other alternative explanation would be invalid. Of course, there were certain conservative pundits who desperately attempted to spin the results in a different way, and there were those who accepted this spin as fact. However, there was simply no rational way to deny the sheer force and decisiveness of the numbers.
Obama's victory was impressive on several fronts. Needing 270 electoral votes to win the election, Obama collected 365 to McCain's 173. By anyone's definition, this margin would have to be regarded as an electoral mandate. In regard to the popular vote, the spread was a convincing 53% to 46% in favor of Obama. These numbers clearly indicate a strong desire for change and a new direction on the part of the voting public, and in this particular election it was Obama who manifested this change most effectively. Obviously, he benefited from a failing economy and the ineptitude of the previous administration, however, because of his youth and enthusiasm, Obama seemed to instill a genuine sense of hope in people.
If we accept the premise of an electoral mandate for Obama, then we also need to determine what this means for his administration. I feel that this mandate was given on the contingency that Obama would act quickly and decisively on the myriad of issues currently at play, foreign and domestic. While there is a honeymoon period, there is also a sense of urgency because of the immediacy of our problems and the current dire nature of the economy. Personally, I feel that the mandate still exists and the administration has performed sufficiently enough to justify continued support and confidence.
Obama's victory was impressive on several fronts. Needing 270 electoral votes to win the election, Obama collected 365 to McCain's 173. By anyone's definition, this margin would have to be regarded as an electoral mandate. In regard to the popular vote, the spread was a convincing 53% to 46% in favor of Obama. These numbers clearly indicate a strong desire for change and a new direction on the part of the voting public, and in this particular election it was Obama who manifested this change most effectively. Obviously, he benefited from a failing economy and the ineptitude of the previous administration, however, because of his youth and enthusiasm, Obama seemed to instill a genuine sense of hope in people.
If we accept the premise of an electoral mandate for Obama, then we also need to determine what this means for his administration. I feel that this mandate was given on the contingency that Obama would act quickly and decisively on the myriad of issues currently at play, foreign and domestic. While there is a honeymoon period, there is also a sense of urgency because of the immediacy of our problems and the current dire nature of the economy. Personally, I feel that the mandate still exists and the administration has performed sufficiently enough to justify continued support and confidence.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Early Voting and Exit Polls
This is an articlewritten a week prior to the 2008 election. It examines the relevance of exit poll data accumulated from early voting. While the information is obviously useful, it is questionable whether these early numbers provide a large enough sample to detect any potential trends in voting behavior or predict a higher turnout. It is suggesting that relying to heavily on early data, even a week before the election, can be counterproductive.
The Transcendent Candidate
After probing several exit polls from the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, I would venture to say that examining these statistics in detail is the equivalent of political cocaine. It really is quite addictive, and somewhat overwhelming. Initially, I was going to attempt to single out one crucial issue that may have resonated with the voting public and therefore propelled Obama to victory. However, there really were a myriad of forces at work in this election, including the residue of the previous administration as well as the transcendent nature of the Obama candidacy. Therefore, I decided to simply compare exit polls from 2004 and 2008 and provide some random musings on these numbers.
Of course, there were different variables at play in 2004, as Kerry was running against an incumbent, albeit an unpopular one who’s approval rating had already begun to decline. While the circumstances were obviously different, there is much to learn from these numbers.
Obama enjoyed a five-point advantage over Kerry amongst male and female voters, garnering 49% of the male vote and an impressive 56% of the female vote. There was an increase of four points to 41% amongst white men and a modest two-point gain to 46% in regard to white women.
Also in reference to the racial dynamic, Obama earned 95% of the African-American vote, which represented a seven-point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the Democratic candidate usually wins the vast majority of this group, it should be noted that along with this significant increase there was also a much larger African-American turnout at the polls in 2008. In addition, the breakdown of the Latino vote is enlightening. The Republicans had actively courted the Latino vote in 2004, and this effort prove to be successful as Bush improved from 35% in 2000 to 44% in 2004. However, this was quickly reversed in 2008, as McCain’s support among Latinos fell a staggering 13 points from Bush in 2004 to 31%. At the same time, Obama won 67% of the Latino vote as compared to Kerry’s 53% in 2004.
Some additional categories of note include the youth vote, where Obama earned 66%, a 12 -point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the generational divide between the two candidates certainly explains the disparity, the numbers remain significant, although the turnout of the 18-29 demographic was not as profound as expected. Also, among voters who reported income of more than $100,000 or more annually, Obama made surprising headway as he split this group evenly with McCain. This 49% is impressive when you consider that Kerry was at 41% in 2004.
Finally, this brings us to the independent voters, whom I believe were the most important group in the electorate. Because of the consistent partisanship in voting on both sides, self-described independents turned out to be a critical voting bloc to curry favor with. Obama claimed this group in convincing fashion, collecting 52% compared to McCain’s 44%. These numbers are more significant because of the larger turnout of independent voters than in previous elections.
Again, considering factors such as Iraq and the economy and how the electorate perceived them, an Obama victory was likely inevitable regardless of what the Republicans may have done. I still maintain that Obama is a generational candidate who has transcended many traditional political norms and realities. However, there remains a wealth of information to be found in the examination of polling data.
The polling data in question comes courtesy of observationalism
Of course, there were different variables at play in 2004, as Kerry was running against an incumbent, albeit an unpopular one who’s approval rating had already begun to decline. While the circumstances were obviously different, there is much to learn from these numbers.
Obama enjoyed a five-point advantage over Kerry amongst male and female voters, garnering 49% of the male vote and an impressive 56% of the female vote. There was an increase of four points to 41% amongst white men and a modest two-point gain to 46% in regard to white women.
Also in reference to the racial dynamic, Obama earned 95% of the African-American vote, which represented a seven-point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the Democratic candidate usually wins the vast majority of this group, it should be noted that along with this significant increase there was also a much larger African-American turnout at the polls in 2008. In addition, the breakdown of the Latino vote is enlightening. The Republicans had actively courted the Latino vote in 2004, and this effort prove to be successful as Bush improved from 35% in 2000 to 44% in 2004. However, this was quickly reversed in 2008, as McCain’s support among Latinos fell a staggering 13 points from Bush in 2004 to 31%. At the same time, Obama won 67% of the Latino vote as compared to Kerry’s 53% in 2004.
Some additional categories of note include the youth vote, where Obama earned 66%, a 12 -point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the generational divide between the two candidates certainly explains the disparity, the numbers remain significant, although the turnout of the 18-29 demographic was not as profound as expected. Also, among voters who reported income of more than $100,000 or more annually, Obama made surprising headway as he split this group evenly with McCain. This 49% is impressive when you consider that Kerry was at 41% in 2004.
Finally, this brings us to the independent voters, whom I believe were the most important group in the electorate. Because of the consistent partisanship in voting on both sides, self-described independents turned out to be a critical voting bloc to curry favor with. Obama claimed this group in convincing fashion, collecting 52% compared to McCain’s 44%. These numbers are more significant because of the larger turnout of independent voters than in previous elections.
Again, considering factors such as Iraq and the economy and how the electorate perceived them, an Obama victory was likely inevitable regardless of what the Republicans may have done. I still maintain that Obama is a generational candidate who has transcended many traditional political norms and realities. However, there remains a wealth of information to be found in the examination of polling data.
The polling data in question comes courtesy of observationalism
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Partisanship Is a Worthy Foe in Debate on Stimulus
As our subject this week is Congress and attempts at bipartisanship within this structure, I give you an interestingarticlethat discusses the maneuvering that Obama and the Democrats performed in trying to get the stimulus passed without making to many concessions to the Republicans. It also suggests that the tradition and long history of partisanship in Congress is so deeply embedded that it would be exceedingly difficult to reverse and that the general makeup of the House makes this problematic as well.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Congress and the Minority Party
In Congress, the role of the minority party can be extremely difficult to define. There are a myriad of forces at play that dictate just how much legislative influence the minority party can wield. One mitigating factor would be the temperament of the majority party at the time and the genuineness of their promises to set aside partisan rancor and work together for the common good.
When the political climate is conducive, the minority party can have a significant impact on the shaping of policy in government. Obviously, the competence of the respective house leaderships is crucial to the success of either party. As documented in our readings, because of various rules changes and the neutering of committees and subcommittees, more power and influence has been placed in the hands of the Speaker of the House. This trend, along with the increasingly partisan nature of Congress, has put the minority party in a more precarious position than ever.
It has been argued that the primary role of the minority party is to be the voice of dissent and to protect the people from tyranny by the party in control. This argument is a convenient one and can be used to justify obstructionist behavior in Congress. Consider the efforts of the Republicans in 2006, who after losing the House after twelve years in control, proceeded to use the filibuster and other parliamentary procedures to thwart the Democratic legislative agenda. Now I do appreciate that there was culpability on both sides for the stalemate, as the Democrats did not exhibit enough party unity and Nancy Pelosi, while tenacious, can be rather polarizing at times.
As far as the Republicans being discouraged or feeling ineffectual, there is always another election right around the corner. While they have now lost control of the White House as well, they could still regain control of the House and Senate in two years. Of course, this possibility is directly contingent on the Obama agenda failing miserably and the country plunging further into the depths of despair, so we would prefer this didn’t occur.
When the political climate is conducive, the minority party can have a significant impact on the shaping of policy in government. Obviously, the competence of the respective house leaderships is crucial to the success of either party. As documented in our readings, because of various rules changes and the neutering of committees and subcommittees, more power and influence has been placed in the hands of the Speaker of the House. This trend, along with the increasingly partisan nature of Congress, has put the minority party in a more precarious position than ever.
It has been argued that the primary role of the minority party is to be the voice of dissent and to protect the people from tyranny by the party in control. This argument is a convenient one and can be used to justify obstructionist behavior in Congress. Consider the efforts of the Republicans in 2006, who after losing the House after twelve years in control, proceeded to use the filibuster and other parliamentary procedures to thwart the Democratic legislative agenda. Now I do appreciate that there was culpability on both sides for the stalemate, as the Democrats did not exhibit enough party unity and Nancy Pelosi, while tenacious, can be rather polarizing at times.
As far as the Republicans being discouraged or feeling ineffectual, there is always another election right around the corner. While they have now lost control of the White House as well, they could still regain control of the House and Senate in two years. Of course, this possibility is directly contingent on the Obama agenda failing miserably and the country plunging further into the depths of despair, so we would prefer this didn’t occur.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The 2008 Election
The two major party representatives in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and John McCain, weren't completely in step with their parties respective elite and general ideology. That is to say, in comparison to nominees in previous elections, these two candidates didn't bring together their parties coalitions and the many factions contained within quite as unanimously.
On the Democratic side, the primaries became a two candidate race after John Edwards was forced to remove himself from consideration. In the invisible primary, discussed at some length in the Cohen piece, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive party favorite who had garnered the majority of the major party endorsements, although it certainly wasn't a consensus and there was some trepidation within the party ranks. However, after the initial primaries, Obama quickly emerged and it became clear to most that he was a polished campaigner and had put together an impressive organization. I feel in the end that the Democratic Party must have realized that Obama represented their best chance of taking back the White House, even though he wasn't a creature of the party and the party establishment may have been somewhat hesitant to support him.
On a quick note, I recall supporting Obama initially because I believed he would fare better than Hillary in the general election, as there was more ammunition for the Republicans to fire at her. In addition, a polarizing candidate such as Hillary would have provided the Republicans with additional motivation to rally around McCain more completely in an effort to keep her out of the White House.
On the Republican side, there were a group of possible nominees who differed significantly in style and ideology. Eventually, McCain survived the scrum and the party, somewhat begrudgingly, mobilized around him. Obviously, McCain has developed a reputation in the Senate for being a moderate, and he has certainly alienated many elements of the Republican Party. However, in the general election, McCain began to sound more and more like a typical Republican, parroting the Bush administration on the economy and Iraq, and became someone the right would approve of. In the end, I believe he was more an agent of his party than his Democratic counterpart.
In regard to advances in technology, I feel that this has caused the balance between party-centered campaigns and those that focus on the candidate to be more elusive and difficult to achieve. The Internet and other modern forms of communication seem to have produced more campaigns revolving around the candidate. As detailed in Teachout, parties have yet to take full advantage of the organizing potential of the Internet and haven't harnessed its complete power, instead using it mainly as a fundraising mechanism. Obama explored this to great effect in his campaign, as he generated much enthusiasm and raised a staggering amount of money through online means.
On the Democratic side, the primaries became a two candidate race after John Edwards was forced to remove himself from consideration. In the invisible primary, discussed at some length in the Cohen piece, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive party favorite who had garnered the majority of the major party endorsements, although it certainly wasn't a consensus and there was some trepidation within the party ranks. However, after the initial primaries, Obama quickly emerged and it became clear to most that he was a polished campaigner and had put together an impressive organization. I feel in the end that the Democratic Party must have realized that Obama represented their best chance of taking back the White House, even though he wasn't a creature of the party and the party establishment may have been somewhat hesitant to support him.
On a quick note, I recall supporting Obama initially because I believed he would fare better than Hillary in the general election, as there was more ammunition for the Republicans to fire at her. In addition, a polarizing candidate such as Hillary would have provided the Republicans with additional motivation to rally around McCain more completely in an effort to keep her out of the White House.
On the Republican side, there were a group of possible nominees who differed significantly in style and ideology. Eventually, McCain survived the scrum and the party, somewhat begrudgingly, mobilized around him. Obviously, McCain has developed a reputation in the Senate for being a moderate, and he has certainly alienated many elements of the Republican Party. However, in the general election, McCain began to sound more and more like a typical Republican, parroting the Bush administration on the economy and Iraq, and became someone the right would approve of. In the end, I believe he was more an agent of his party than his Democratic counterpart.
In regard to advances in technology, I feel that this has caused the balance between party-centered campaigns and those that focus on the candidate to be more elusive and difficult to achieve. The Internet and other modern forms of communication seem to have produced more campaigns revolving around the candidate. As detailed in Teachout, parties have yet to take full advantage of the organizing potential of the Internet and haven't harnessed its complete power, instead using it mainly as a fundraising mechanism. Obama explored this to great effect in his campaign, as he generated much enthusiasm and raised a staggering amount of money through online means.
McCain and the Internets
This article is from June 2008, during the general election but before the conventions. It pertains to our subject matter here, as it involves the use of the internet in presidential campaigning. It discusses the wide gap which existed between Obama and McCain in regard to the advantages technology can provide.http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/mccain-and-the-internets/?pagemode=printlink
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
3 Lawmakers Will Return Money Tied to Lobbyist
Well, in the spirit of special interests and inappropriate campaign contributions, we have this article. It appears it is a group of democrats who have overindulged this time.link
Primaries, Nominations and Campaign Finance Reform, oh my
As explained in the text, the presidential nominee for each major party is determined during the primary season. This was not always the case, as in the past this anointing would usually occur at the respective party conventions. Candidates are now accumulating the required number of delegates necessary to ensure their parties nomination seemingly earlier and earlier each year, thereby reducing the party conventions to meaningless, media generated spectacles. There is certainly some party business to attend to, most notably the potentially intriguing vice presidential selections, but in reality the convention is more or less a formality.
The modern primary process has been altered by a phenomenon known as front loading. This unfolds when states, in an effort to have a significant impact on the election of a president, reschedule their primaries for an earlier date. This continuing trend has caused more primaries to take place in February and March, in turn causing more candidates to deplete their resources and drop out of the race as well as enabling more candidates to secure the nomination earlier in the process.
Over the years, there have been various attempts at reforming the campaign finance system. Of course, the most recent legislation would be the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. On a side note, it is rather comical that it was Bush who was pressured into signing this bill into law, or any Republican for that matter, as they enjoyed distinct advantages using the previous fundraising mechanism. While this reform effort was genuine and completely necessary, as well as an encouraging example of bipartisan cooperation in government, it has proven to be not so infallible.
It is rather difficult to control and regulate campaign expenditures in our current environment. There appears to be more of a gray area in regard to the monitoring of individual and especially PAC contributions to a campaign, as opposed to the parties themselves. There is still access to soft money in the form of so-called 527 groups, who can use unlimited funds provided they maintain the illusion of impartiality and independence from a particular campaign. As the text suggests, this notion is absurd, as some of these groups are directly influencing the outcome of elections.
The modern primary process has been altered by a phenomenon known as front loading. This unfolds when states, in an effort to have a significant impact on the election of a president, reschedule their primaries for an earlier date. This continuing trend has caused more primaries to take place in February and March, in turn causing more candidates to deplete their resources and drop out of the race as well as enabling more candidates to secure the nomination earlier in the process.
Over the years, there have been various attempts at reforming the campaign finance system. Of course, the most recent legislation would be the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. On a side note, it is rather comical that it was Bush who was pressured into signing this bill into law, or any Republican for that matter, as they enjoyed distinct advantages using the previous fundraising mechanism. While this reform effort was genuine and completely necessary, as well as an encouraging example of bipartisan cooperation in government, it has proven to be not so infallible.
It is rather difficult to control and regulate campaign expenditures in our current environment. There appears to be more of a gray area in regard to the monitoring of individual and especially PAC contributions to a campaign, as opposed to the parties themselves. There is still access to soft money in the form of so-called 527 groups, who can use unlimited funds provided they maintain the illusion of impartiality and independence from a particular campaign. As the text suggests, this notion is absurd, as some of these groups are directly influencing the outcome of elections.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Deal Reached on $789 Billion Stimulus
Here is an interesting article that provided an example of actual compromise in the house and senate. It would appear that the Democrats made most of the concessions to get this done. link
Decentralization and Heterogeneity
The motives of the founding fathers in regard to two provisions placed in the Constitution are explicitly clear. Federalism and the separation of powers were both created to prevent one faction or entity from acquiring an unbalanced amount of power within the system.
The rise to prominence of two major political parties in America was likely a development the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned. They certainly wouldn't be able to fathom how the system has evolved over the years, particularly considering the influence that special interests and other elements of society have brought to bear on the two major parties. However, the original intent of the founding fathers is still relevant today.
Because of decentralization, there are a myriad of entities within a political party acting in concert at times, but for the most part acting independently at the local, state and national levels. Heterogeneity explains the broad diversity found amongst the populace, and the pulse of the people dictates the agendas of the major parties, specifically during the election cycle.
One observation I would like to make in regard to the two major parties is this. If we accept the premise that the main objective of the major parties is to win elections, then logic suggests that they would do or say anything to achieve this goal. They will engage in relentless pandering towards a wide variety of demographics, then conveniently forget whatever promises or concessions were made after the election concludes.
As far as the state of both parties after the recent election, the Democrats seem to be much healthier than the Republicans for obvious reasons. The McCain campaign was an unmitigated disaster, and their rhetoric rings hollow and is rather outdated. I suppose they were doomed anyway because of the economy and the completely justified link between Bush and McCain. Whatever the reasons, there is a massive power vacuum in the Republican Party that needs to be filled and will therefore determine the future direction of the party. I , for one, am amused by their current struggles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)