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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)