The Democrat party is just as fragmented as the Republican party, but as of late, those factions are slightly less at odds with each other - although tensions are very much there.
1. New Deal Democrats. These are the "classic" welfare state Democrats who trace the party's goals and politics back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. They advocate for government-supported social programs to ensure a certain standard of health and living. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC and food stamps form a cornerstone for social justice and equality. They feel that ultimately, the measure of a nation is how that nation cares for its least fortunate, its infirm and its elderly. Labor (particularly organized labor) also factors in heavily.
2. Diversity factions. The United States is a melting pot of persons of every race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, ethnicity and culture. The government must work to eradicate prejudice against all other persons, regardless of race, sex, orientation, etc., and must enact and enforce legislation to ensure that minorities are not unfairly discriminated against. If this means quotas must be in place, the benefits of the perceived short-term inequality far outweigh the long-term social benefits.
3. Environmentalists. We have one planet, and we all have to live on it. Once natural resources are gone, they're gone forever. Once a species of animal or plant is extinct, it's gone forever. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the future survival of not only the human race, but all species on the planet. If the air becomes unbreathable and the water undrinkable, there is no fall-back plan.
4. Civil Libertarians. The rights of the individual are sacrosanct. Your rights end where mine begin. The government has no right to tell me how to raise my children, what to do with my body, how to believe or what to believe. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it." The poster child for this faction is the ACLU. (It is worth noting that many civil libertarians will also vote Republican, depending on the perceived level of governmental freedom. In the aftermath of 9/11, however, legislation in the name of national security has firmly pushed the civil libertarians to this side of the fence.)
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A Party Divided
One of the things that always amuses and irks me is the way people make general, sweeping statements about the political parties: all Democrats are "liberal", all Republicans are "conservative", that sort of thing. In reality, one of the biggest failings of the two-party system is that people have to shoehorn their political ideologies into trying to match one of the two parties.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are also misnomers, derogatory labels one can slap on someone of a competing ideology. "Liberal" has become a euphamism for "morally relativistic neo-socialist" (which is why the preferred term is now "progressive"), while "conservative" means "closed-minded rich Christian caucasian who confuses the Bible with the Constitution." Interestingly, many "conservatives" wear this badge with pride.
If you look at the actual breakdown of those who tend to vote Republican, however, you'll see several factions, some of whom tend to be at odds with each other. Many people actually belong to multiple factions, where the factions do not overlap.
1. Free-market libertarians. More than anything else, free-market libertarians believe that the market should speak for itself and everything else will fall into place. Government regulation is bad: the marketplace can decide matters for itself. The economy wants to be self-regulating, and economic instability is the result of government intervention.
2. Market protectionists. They share a lot in common with free-market libertarians, except that they feel the government has the obligation to protect national corporate interests. If American corporations are doing well, Americans are doing well. The biggest differences are that market protectionists support corporate welfare and regulation of imports by means of tariffs.
3. Moral authoritarians. More often than not, these are practicing Christians, who feel that it is the role of government to encourage moral behavior among its citizens. While separation of church and state is a vital cornerstone to the American form of government, they feel the nation's Christian heritage cannot be denied. They do welcome all faiths - as long as you believe in a God. This group also tends to be strongly in favor of a strong criminal justice system and the use of the death penalty, where appropriate.
4. Nationalists. In a nutshell, this group is the flag-waving pro-military faction who believe that a citizen's first duty is to his country. Internal dissent as to the nature of how the country should be run is fine, but you do not criticize this country, her soldiers or her leadership. America: love it or leave it.
5. Pro-life/anti-abortion advocates. I'm distinguishing this group from the moral authoritarians for two reasons, although there is a great deal of crossover. First, many members of this group are single-issue voters: there is no way any pro-choice candidate (or, for many, even a "soft" anti-abortion candidate) gets a vote from this group. This is probably the single largest single-issue faction out there. The second is that not all pro-lifers are religious moral authoritarians. There are many anti-abortion atheists out there. There are also many in this group who oppose capital punishment.
As you can see, core Republican voters actually hold a great variety of views and a great variety of points of emphasis, and some of these aspects are at odds with other factions.
The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are also misnomers, derogatory labels one can slap on someone of a competing ideology. "Liberal" has become a euphamism for "morally relativistic neo-socialist" (which is why the preferred term is now "progressive"), while "conservative" means "closed-minded rich Christian caucasian who confuses the Bible with the Constitution." Interestingly, many "conservatives" wear this badge with pride.
If you look at the actual breakdown of those who tend to vote Republican, however, you'll see several factions, some of whom tend to be at odds with each other. Many people actually belong to multiple factions, where the factions do not overlap.
1. Free-market libertarians. More than anything else, free-market libertarians believe that the market should speak for itself and everything else will fall into place. Government regulation is bad: the marketplace can decide matters for itself. The economy wants to be self-regulating, and economic instability is the result of government intervention.
2. Market protectionists. They share a lot in common with free-market libertarians, except that they feel the government has the obligation to protect national corporate interests. If American corporations are doing well, Americans are doing well. The biggest differences are that market protectionists support corporate welfare and regulation of imports by means of tariffs.
3. Moral authoritarians. More often than not, these are practicing Christians, who feel that it is the role of government to encourage moral behavior among its citizens. While separation of church and state is a vital cornerstone to the American form of government, they feel the nation's Christian heritage cannot be denied. They do welcome all faiths - as long as you believe in a God. This group also tends to be strongly in favor of a strong criminal justice system and the use of the death penalty, where appropriate.
4. Nationalists. In a nutshell, this group is the flag-waving pro-military faction who believe that a citizen's first duty is to his country. Internal dissent as to the nature of how the country should be run is fine, but you do not criticize this country, her soldiers or her leadership. America: love it or leave it.
5. Pro-life/anti-abortion advocates. I'm distinguishing this group from the moral authoritarians for two reasons, although there is a great deal of crossover. First, many members of this group are single-issue voters: there is no way any pro-choice candidate (or, for many, even a "soft" anti-abortion candidate) gets a vote from this group. This is probably the single largest single-issue faction out there. The second is that not all pro-lifers are religious moral authoritarians. There are many anti-abortion atheists out there. There are also many in this group who oppose capital punishment.
As you can see, core Republican voters actually hold a great variety of views and a great variety of points of emphasis, and some of these aspects are at odds with other factions.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Tommy Gunning
According to an LA Times/Bloomberg poll, Fred Thompson (who has yet to declare) has leapfrogged to second place in the race for the Republican nomination. The poll has Giuliani at 27%, Thompson at 21% and McCain at 12%. When Bloomberg made it a 4-way race, Giuliani and Thompson were statistically tied (32% to 28% with a 5% margin of error.)
I fully expect this will become a two-horse race by November or December.
I fully expect this will become a two-horse race by November or December.
Monday, June 11, 2007
What will the 2008 election be about?
We all know that every candidate has his or her pet issues and ideas that he or she bases his or her campaign on. Sure, there's the laundry list of who stands where on which issue, but most elections are decided on one or two basic ideas, and the winner is the one who represents the right side of the right issue best.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ultimately campaigned on restoring a sense of direction and a sense of pride to the U.S. He was re-elected in 1984 on the strength of his first-term success.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush campaigned on "staying the course" of the still very popular Reagan.
In 1992, Bill Clinton overcame Bush's (short-lived) 92% approval rating with the simple argument, "it's the economy, stupid!" During Bush's tenure, the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Operation Desert Storm took place. But that couldn't overcome a soft economy.
In 1996, Clinton was re-elected on the basis of a strong economy against a lame-duck Bob Dole, who campaigned on a vague return to Reagan glory.
In 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore fought to essentially a dead heat. Bush ultimately campaigned on restoring dignity and morality to the White House (following the Lewinsky affair), while Gore ultimately campaigned on staying the Clinton course.
In 2004, Bush campaigned on national security and beat John Kerry's stance of "I'm not George Bush." The war was unpopular enough that the "I'm not George Bush" gambit almost worked.
So what does this mean for 2008? For starters, Bush has not designated an heir apparent, so "stay the course" is essentially not an option. Now, many candidates share many of Bush's views, but they have to repackage them and re-sell them in order to make it work.
Different candidates are starting to carve out different niches. Themes being raised so far include national security, the war in Iraq, national health care, gas prices and the economy at large. It's too soon to say which is going to win out, but I'm willing to bet that the winner will be focusing either on the economy or on health care than on the Iraq situation.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ultimately campaigned on restoring a sense of direction and a sense of pride to the U.S. He was re-elected in 1984 on the strength of his first-term success.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush campaigned on "staying the course" of the still very popular Reagan.
In 1992, Bill Clinton overcame Bush's (short-lived) 92% approval rating with the simple argument, "it's the economy, stupid!" During Bush's tenure, the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Operation Desert Storm took place. But that couldn't overcome a soft economy.
In 1996, Clinton was re-elected on the basis of a strong economy against a lame-duck Bob Dole, who campaigned on a vague return to Reagan glory.
In 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore fought to essentially a dead heat. Bush ultimately campaigned on restoring dignity and morality to the White House (following the Lewinsky affair), while Gore ultimately campaigned on staying the Clinton course.
In 2004, Bush campaigned on national security and beat John Kerry's stance of "I'm not George Bush." The war was unpopular enough that the "I'm not George Bush" gambit almost worked.
So what does this mean for 2008? For starters, Bush has not designated an heir apparent, so "stay the course" is essentially not an option. Now, many candidates share many of Bush's views, but they have to repackage them and re-sell them in order to make it work.
Different candidates are starting to carve out different niches. Themes being raised so far include national security, the war in Iraq, national health care, gas prices and the economy at large. It's too soon to say which is going to win out, but I'm willing to bet that the winner will be focusing either on the economy or on health care than on the Iraq situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)