5/6/09 Link

Kind of relating to the blog post this week, here's a short article I found that talks about how Arlen Specter has tried to win the support of fellow Democrats since making the party switch. The article says that Specter recently withdrew his support for Minnesote Republican Norm Coleman, who is competing against Al Franken, who would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate. The article also says that Specter was stripped of his seniority, which significantly limits his political influence

5/6/09 Post

Arlen Specter’s recent switch from the Republican to Democratic Party shows the continuing ideological differences between the parties in Congress. As one of the last moderate Republicans, Specter often crossed party lines to vote with the Democrats. He was one of only three members of the GOP to vote for Obama’s stimulus package, and has butted heads with fellow Republicans over many issues throughout the years. However, I think Specter’s crossover really illustrates the candidate-centeredness of the current U.S. system. Even though Specter was one of the most moderate Republicans, he still voted with his former party most of the time. Specter only crossed the party line on specific issues, which makes sense for a moderate/centrist, but some Democrats have said that he is more talk than action. Fellow Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak, a state Representative, has said that he is “not sure Specter is a Democrat yet” and has hinted at possibly running against the incumbent candidate in the Democratic primaries. Specter himself said that after conducting polling and speaking with personal contacts in Pennsylvania, he decided to switch parties because his prospects for reelection with the Republican Party were bleak. Specter said the Republican Party has changed greatly since he joined in 1980, and after voting with the Democrats on the stimulus package, his chances for reelection with the GOP looked uncertain. Specter said, “I simply was not going to put my 29-year record before the Republican primary electorate”. Specters switch shows the candidate-centeredness of current American politics, as well as the ideological divisions between elites and the parties in Congress. There is more party unity and less crossing of party lines in Congress today than even in the 1980s, when Specter started his career with the GOP.

I think Fiorina would attribute Specter’s switch to the continuing polarization of political elites. After the switch by the Southern Democrats to the Republican Party, the parties’ ideologies were clearer than they had previously been. For the average voter, it doesn’t seem to make sense that a Democrat would regularly support Republican issues. The party should be a shortcut for the voter, but this doesn’t happen if a politician regularly strays from their stated party. As party elites have polarized, the policy differences between the parties have continued to show through Congressional voting. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support the stimulus package, and this angered the Conservative Republican elites. Pennsylvania is a closely divided state, and does not largely support either major party over the other. Philadelphia is the major city, which votes largely Democrat. The remainder and geographic majority of the state is much more rural, and usually votes Republican. There are differences in levels of support for each party between counties, but neither party dominates the state overall. This has worked well for Specter, because he has been able to enjoy support from the rural areas, but his moderate position gives him support from the major city as well. Thus, according to Fiorina’s argument, Specter’s current situation is a result of actions taken by the political elite. Specter is concerned that the Republican elites will take him out in the primary because of his support of the Democrats. Pennsylvania’s actual citizens may not feel as strongly about Specter’s crossing of party lines, but the elites are forcing the public to take sides, so Specter chose to switch parties himself before he was forced out during the next elections.

Aldrich would point to Specter’s party switch as a problem of collective action and ambition. Specter’s main goal is to be reelected, and if the GOP cannot help him achieve that goal, there’s no real reason for him to continue with the party. As a moderate/centrist, Specter has crossed party lines, overall weakening the GOP coalition. This is a collective action problem, because Specter’s actions undermine the “brand name” of the Republican Party. By straying from their ideology and positions, some would say that Specter was weakening the party. Having a “big tent” is important, but there should be limits to how far a party member can stray, otherwise there’s really no reason to continue to include them. If the party should act as a shortcut for voters, inner divisions can cause confusion over its stance on the issues, weakening the entire institution for its members. The conservative party elites have had enough of Specters moderation, and no longer saw him as beneficial to the GOP. As Specter saw his chances of reelection with the party as slim, he decided that being a member was no longer in his interest.

This is possible in 2009 precisely because elites are so polarized. There are very few moderates left, especially Republican moderates, and it seems that the GOP doesn’t see them as important or beneficial to the future of the party. Even though Obama has continually called for bipartisanship, party elites really don’t want to see this happen. Though it sounds ideal in theory, bipartisan actions weaken the ideologies of the parties, and blur their differences on issues, which is pretty much the opposite of the direction the parties have been moving as of late. With only three crossover votes for the stimulus package, the GOP has really been trying to strengthen its coalition, and Specter stood in the way of this. Specter just seems to be too moderate for the Republicans, especially since the conservative element of the party is most influential today.

Link for 4/29

The article I found was about Senator Specter of Pennsylvania's switch from the Republican to Democratic party. The article says that Pennsylvania democrats are not entirely happy about this. it will be interesting to see which way Pennsylvania votes in the next congressional elections, if Specter's party switch has a real influence on the state's citizens

In his article “Lie Down for America”, Thomas Frank says that the Republicans have created a ‘dominant political coalition” by attracting working-class white voters with “cultural wedge issues like guns and abortion. Frank basically asserts that Republicans in the Great Plains and other poor regions have been supporting the “wrong” party. Frank describes the Democrats as “the party of the workers, of the poor, of the weak and victimized” and for this reason, it seems likely that a very poor region would vote Democrat. This is not the case, as in Frank’s Great Plains example, a 75% majority voted for Bush. Frank claims that it is the self-denying voters of the country’s poor regions that allowed the Republican party to essentially control government in previous years. Whatever reason these low-income republicans have for their support of the party, Frank believes that they are denying their own interests. Perhaps the reason for Kansas’ overwhelming Republican support is the bumper sticker example in the article: “A Working Person that supports Democrats is like a chicken that supports Col. Sanders”. People in the Great Plains and other regions just may not want to identify as Democrats, even if their policies may be more beneficial. According to Frank, this form of conservatism is based more on moral principles than the Republican parties’ economic policy. Frank describes this is “The Great Backlash”- the backlash “imagines itself as a foe of the elite, the voice of the unfairly persecute, and places much more emphasis on conservative culture than economics. Black claims that the state of Kansas has been particularly ill-served by the economic policies of the Reagan and Bush regimes. Discontent has not caused people to embrace Democratic economic policies, but instead has pushed them further to the right as they choose to instead concentrate on conservative cultural values.

Bartels aggress with Frank on the fact that white voters without college degrees have been significantly less democratic, but claims that the shift to the Republican coalition was very different from Frank’s explanation. Bartels says the shift occurred almost entirely in the South, where Democratic support was artificially inflated for a long period of time. Bartels also disagrees with the statement that ‘culture outweighs economics” among Frank’s group of working-class white voters. Bartels also identifies the fact that most of Frank’s group of working-class white voters describe themselves as closer to Democrats on social issues. Bartels says there is no evidence to suggest that economic issues have diminished in electoral significance over the past 20 years. Additionally, though the political significance of social issues has increased, it has increased less among Frank’s working-class less-educated group than among whites with college degrees. These working class voters describe themselves as more Republican on economic issues, and more Democratic on social issues.

I would have to say that I agree with Frank’s argument. I can see the argument that working-class white voters often vote Republican for moral/cultural issues rather than for the party’s economic policies. This is illustrated in the Republican ideals like gun control, emphasis on religious values and anti-abortion. Though these cultural ideals are obviously not the same for every Republican, they Republicans have succeeded at capturing a support base (working class southern whites) who may benefit more under Democratic economic policies. Even though the Republican coalition has been significantly weakened after 2004, Republicans still took most of the South in the 2008 campaign. Additionally, 2008 was a rather unique year with Obama and Hillary competing against each other, but no strong elite-backed Republican candidate. Discontent over the war in Iraq and Republican economic policy grew, but for the most part the South still voted Republican, including overwhelmingly in Kansas.

Link for 4/22

This article from TIMEis about Obama's rather unclear stance on prosecuting those accused of wartime torture. He has told CIA employees that he doesn't support prosecuting them for harsh interrogatory practices, but has also left open the possibility of prosecuting those responsible for drafting the legal documents supporting these torture practices. Guess we will have to wait and see if he is actually willing to prosecute anyone.

New Party

Assuming that the Republican Party collapsed, there would obviously be a void on the conservative or right side of the political spectrum. Given that there is a large support base for this type of party, I think it would only make sense to try and capture this with my new party. However, I would try to design an even bigger “tent” party than the Republican support base, to appeal to the average or ‘median’ voter. As small parties with specific policy positions have little chance for influence in the U.S. political system, I would try to keep my party away from extreme ideologies. The political platform would focus on more general issues that greater numbers of people would want to support. I would focus on national security and emphasize responsible government spending and tax cuts. Additionally, I would emphasize more current issues, such as renewable energy and environmental protection. The party ideology would emphasize and support free markets/business, but would also focus on providing social protections and services (unemployment and welfare services, social security, etc.)
I would still emphasize a religious base, but would try not to design the party ideology around moral principles. Thus, my party would not have a strong stance on issues such as gay marriage, which can cause a lot of divisions and lost support for the party. With a more open and widespread platform than the two major parties in the U.S., I would try and compete for the swing voters, and even bring Democrats over to my new party. The idea would be to paint the Democrats as too far left, so the new party would be the choice of the “average” American. Thus, the party’s base could cover most of the southern states, but I would also target the more divided states, such as Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Montana.
Party leaders would be chosen and assigned based on their performance and loyalty to the party program. Members who stray from the party will not be granted incentives (campaign funds, leadership assignments). Incumbency would not guarantee leadership positions. The party in government would include younger members as well as minorities, something the Republicans clearly lacked in the 2008 election. This would obviously be a more moderate party with a moderate voting bloc, leaving out the extreme sides of the spectrum. I think an even broader party could have a place in the U.S. It may not be best for conditions of democracy, but these types of parties have worked in other countries, especially with proportional representation voting systems. A party smaller than either the democrats or republicans doesn’t seem that it would go very far to me, just because of the large numbers of potential supporters that they may exclude.

Link 4/8

Little bit of conspiracy theorism in this article, it's basically about the involvement of several of President Obama's appointed administration in the "Bilderberg Group". This is basically an elite group of extremely rich or powerful people from around the world, and according to the theory, Obama is simply a puppet in their goal of creating a worldwide government- the "new world order." Theories..

GOP In Trouble?

I would argue that although the Republican Party has recently been going through some turmoil, they will definitely not be reduced to a regional party “unable to compete for the presidency or congressional majorities”. The Republican Party is already firmly established throughout the nation, and although there are regional differences among party supporters, there is no clear prospect for a regional coalition. It is a mass party, and I really don’t see a new conservative/right wing party being created to completely replace the GOP. Rather, I think they need to restructure or adapt to the current political landscape. Really, there are supporters of each party in every state, as well as a sizable number of independents or leaners who could possibly be won over. I would argue that this is just a political cycle similar to what the Democrats faced in 1994 and 2002. Specifically, I think the Democratic congressional upset in 2006 was largely a reaction to the George W. Bush’s presidency and his policies on the war in Iraq, etc. A sizable number of citizens wanted a change of direction from Bush’s course, so they “threw the bums out” (in this case, voted in Democrats) the first chance they got. This feeling just continued to grow until the 2008 elections, when Obama ran on a promise of change from Bush’s presidency and the Republican party in general. I think this discontent is cyclical in nature, as the people simply switch their support to the other mass party if they don’t like the way the government is going. Although part of a political cycle, I think the Republicans failed to unify during the 2008 election. They had basically tried to remove any association with Bush to the party, and we even saw some key Republicans voice their support for the Democrats. And although the GOP seemed to prefer Fred Thompson as their candidate, he was unable to really go anywhere, and so the Republicans were left with a group of candidates who weren’t exactly ideal for holding a broad coalition that they desired. I think if McCain would have won, he would seem to be the “leader” of the Republicans. However we know that’s not the case, and the Republicans do seem to currently lack a clear leader. Michael Steele is the chairman of the National Committee, but his name is relatively new to most and I don’t think he is seen as the leader of the party by any means. Which is probably why there has been recent chattering over Rush Limbaugh possibly being the “leader” of the party, most likely to the enjoyment of Democrats. Although the economic crisis may have taken some of the spotlight off the problems of the GOP, I think the party will continue to try and improve its strength. They are not going to simply let the Republican coalition in Congress fall apart to let Obama pass whatever he wants. To do this however, I think they could use some restructuring, possibly similar to what Van Buren did for Jackson and the Republicans. With some restructuring to create a stronger leadership and stronger local parties to increase voter mobilization, the GOP could possibly see more success. Alternatively, if Obama’s policies don’t produce results, many people could decide they are sick of the Democratic government and simply continue the political cycle. Either way, it seems clear to me that the Republicans need to do some restructuring and possibly adapt to some of the more current popular issues.

4/1 Link

Here's a link from TIME regarding the beginning of the Clean Energy Act going through Congress. I hadn't read too much about the specific plans to regulate and cut down on greenhouse gases. The price tag of the project was a little surprising, and I'm sure will worry people in the current economic state.

4/1 Blog Post: Electoral Mandates

To answer the question of whether Barack Obama had and still holds an electoral mandate, there first needs to be a definition. Broadly, an electoral mandate refers to widespread support from the voting population for a candidate’s policy proposals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama’s position within the Democratic party seemed to be a bipartisan strategy. It was suggested that Obama could be successful at bridging the gap between the parties, therefore creating cooperation among the major parties. On a broader level, especially later in the campaign, Obama emphasized his position of Change from the Bush administration and the way the U.S. was run for the past 8 years. The campaign was basically suggesting that a vote for McCain would be a vote for a continuation of the Bush presidency. Once the economic situation worsened towards the end of the race, this message of change seemed to really pick up, as I think a lot of observers felt that Bush’s economic policies weren’t working that well, and voting for McCain would keep a similar approach to the economy in place. Voters were aware of Obama’s plan for a stimulus package to create jobs, so they knew what they were voting for in that sense. Now, determining whether someone has an electoral mandate to implement their agenda is not a straightforward process. However, after looking at the 2008 presidential election results I would conclude that Obama did hold an electoral mandate. I would conclude this because of the fact that he won a popular majority among voters with 53%, and also won in the electoral college by a wide margin with 365 votes compared to McCain’s 173. Although Obama’s win in the popular vote was not quite as large, some of his support could have possibly been unrepresented, since Republicans and those from a higher socioeconomic status are more likely to vote. However, he still held the popular majority, so I would conclude that Obama did hold an electoral mandate. Obama also had a lot of support from the public as he first took office. This poll by CNNsays that when Obama first took office, 76% of respondents said he was a "strong and decisive leader", the highest for any President since Reagan. This seems to be a good accomplishment, as we have seen polarization among the parties and public increase since the Reagan era. However, Obama is still very early in his Presidency, and the policies he's enacted so far (stimulus package) have not stood the test of time. I also think the economic situation has gotten worse than expected, so some of the President's other plans have possibly been placed on the backburner for now. This could be important, because I would think Obama would want to push through as much legislation as he can while he still has high approval ratings and a unified majority in Congress. When examining Obama's approval ratings since January 09, you can see that 44% of respondents strongly approved of his job performance. By April 1, 37% strongly approve. In January, 65% total approved of his performance, compared to 57% as of April 1. This suggests that while Obama has lost some support, the majority of the public still approves of his performance as President. This fact, along with his unified Congressional majority, causes me to conclude that Obama still holds an electoral mandate. However, I think he could lose this mandate if his stimulus package proves unsuccessful or if the economy just doesn't turn around quick enough. If his majority in Congress receives too much pressure from their constituents, you could see some members back away from Obama's congressional majority, which could eventually dissolve his electoral mandate.

Link for 3/11

Link I found this week was titled Coleman and Franken Still Battle and is about the ongoing legal struggle to declare a winner to the Minnesota Senate. Going on since January now, both sides have been momentarily on top. When he was in the lead immediately after the election, Coleman said if he were Franken, he would "step back" for the good of Minnesota. I guess the only thing to do is sit back and see what the Courts decide.

In the 2008 presidential election, the key gaps revealed by CNN’s exit polls are the race and age votes. Obama was more successful at capturing the younger voters, and he was overwhelmingly more successful with minority candidates than the Democrats were in 2004.

Regarding the younger vote, Kerry won 54% of the vote for ages 18-29, compared to Obama’s 66%. Obama was also more successful with the 30-64 year old groups, beating Kerry by about 4-5%. The only age group the Republicans held a majority on was the elderly 65 and older group. For first time voters, Kerry won 53% in 2004, compared to Obama winning 69% in 2008. It was said that the parties used to do a lot more ground work personally contacting and interacting with citizens, so I wanted to see if this impacted Obama’s success. However, 26% of respondents in both 2004 and 2008 reported being personally contacted by the Kerry and Obama campaigns, so he didn’t seem to have gained too much ground in that aspect.

Regarding minorities, Obama was obviously much more successful at winning votes than McCain. Obama got about 95% of the black vote, close to 66% of the Latino vote, and 64% of other races. McCain did strongest with white male voters, and females were pretty much split between the candidates. This shows greater success from 2004, when Kerry won about 88% of the black vote and 55% of Latino and other races

As people became less concerned with terrorism and grew tired of the War in Iraq, Republicans lost the “security” vote they had gained in 2004. In the 2008 exit polls, 41% of respondents strongly disapproved of the War, and 87% of those were Obama supporters. Overall, I think Obama’s ability to overwhelmingly capture the minority vote, as well as his support from the young, allowed him to push past the Republicans when compared to 2004.

A side note I found rather interesting, yet expected, is an example of partisan identification in action. The poll question, “Who is qualified to be President if necessary”? Those who answered “Only Biden” were 91% Democrats, while those who chose “Only Palin” were 96% Republican. This also reveals slightly less bipartisan support for Palin.

3/4 Link

Found an interesting article called What the GOP Really Wants: Obama's Autograph about how Republican members of Congress were crossing the aisle to get the President's autograph after his recent speech. Some think it's proof of Obama's success at "reaching across the aisle" while others say the congressmen were getting the autographs as keepsakes and gifts, etc.

Congress

We have seen the strength and role of the party in the legislature increase recently, as the cleavages between the two major parties have widened, parties have become more homogenous and unified. This can be partly explained by the disappearance of the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans, many of whom have switched parties or failed to be reelected. Moderates now vote far more in line with their parties, especially on major issues such as the stimulus bill.

As inter-party heterogeneity increases and the majority party becomes more similar, and as intra-party homogeneity increases and the parties become more different from one another, the majority leaders can pursue policies that are further from the center as they have stronger party backing in the House. The stronger the party in the legislature, the closer policy will be to their end of the interest spectrum.

With unified government under the Democrats, I think the role of the Republican (minority) party is to attempt to persuade peoples’ desires and feelings about current government so that they can attempt to win back seats from the Democrats and hopefully take a majority in Congress again. Of course the number one goal of the individuals in the party is to win reelection, so they need to continue to appeal to voters in core Republican areas to at least hold those seats.

By unifying as a party to represent and defend core Republican values, the minority party can show its force and possible power, so that if things don’t work out for the majority party, their policies aren’t effective quick enough etc., voters will know there are other choices than the current government and that there’s a possibility to go on a different course. The Republicans in Congress right now need to show up to work to show their unity and strength, to hopefully win a majority again. They have done this on the voting for the stimulus package because of the nature of the legislation; although there’s really no way to defeat the bill right now, and most probably don’t want to given the economic situation, the Republicans still showed their opposition, and some compromises were made between the parties over certain aspects of the bill.

This relates to the calls for bipartisanship that we often hear: it seems to make sense that in an ideal democracy, the interests of all citizens would attempt to be met. However, parties play an important role in the election of candidates, and those who often deviate from the party are called flip-floppers, etc. Bipartisan compromise is ideal as it potentially pleases more citizens, but the majority party is still going to have more power and is going to try and advance their own causes first.

I think the 2008 election was an interesting year for political observers, and though both parties had difficulties, the Democrats ended up unifying and creating a stronger coalition than the Republican party. At the beginning of the campaign, or during the so-called “invisible primaries”, the elites of both major parties were not very successful in unifying behind one candidate. There was intense inter-party competition between both camps, and it was not clear who the eventual nominees were going to be until fairly late in the race. Hillary seemed to be the front runner at the beginning of the campaign, and it seemed that she was endorsed by a good deal of Democrats, possibly different smaller factions, and even supported by the African American community. However, I just don’t think people had enough confidence/lost confidence in her ability to lead as the campaign went on. Obama was a better speaker with more charisma, and after he earned more confidence from the Democratic party as well as the American public, he was able to take control of the nomination. The Democrats definitely showed much more unity as a party during the 2008 election. And even though Obama was candidate-centered at the beginning of the race (he lacked a strong backing from his party), the Democrats managed to unite and rally around him, and put all of their political resources toward the campaign.

For the Republicans, 2008 seems to have been an “abnormal” election year. Although the party elites seemed to have a favorite in Fred Thompson during the invisible primary, he just wasn’t effective on the campaign trail. The rest of the Republican prospects had more candidate-centered campaigns than party centered, as they represented different factions of the party. At one point it even looked like Huckabee might have had a chance of winning the ticket, even though he did not get along with important factions in the party. Even after McCain won the Republican endorsement and chose Palin to balance out the ticket for conservatives, the Republican party was not unified in it’s support, as some prominent Republicans even endorsed Obama as their choice for President.

Technological advances have affected candidate-party relations as it’s given voters access to much more information. They are not only bombarded with ads that are approved and designed by the party or candidate, but they can also seek out more information to attempt to figure out what’s really true, and who they want to vote for. Even if the party elites have a preferred candidate, they are not guaranteed to be approved by the public. However, technology gives us instant information, and in the 2008 campaign we saw every minute detail discussed on TV and online, played over and over. Small incidents can break a campaign, so there will be some level of candidate-centeredness in every campaign. This is the same for Congressional elections, although they don’t get the same amount of attention as Presidential elections, I think technology could change their importance to many people if they are really motivated to vote and participate. This is where the party and technology can really work together, as the whole party network can branch out, and create “hubs” as the Teachout article talked about. Party members can use their individual resources to promote the favored candidate, and technology makes this quicker and easier than ever. On Obama’s website, there is a large link right at the top of the page where you can find local events in your area to get involved with. This is one of the tactics recommended by Teachout.

2/25 Link

I thought this link about Representative Eric Cantor went well with the readings for this week. It is about how Rep. Cantor of the Republican party is working to fire up the GOP, as he has already worked to get some opposition to Obama's stimulus plan. The article basically said he is willing to work with the Dems, but won't simply roll over on Republican issues.

A second link I found was more news about the stimulus, but I found it interesting that although many Americans dislike the economic decisions made so far in Obama's presidency, he still has the confidence of 76% of Americans that he will make the right decisions economically.

Link for 2/18

I found an article from Time about a Democrat-proposed "Truth Commission" to look further into the Bush administration. The idea is almost universally opposed by Republicans, and the commission would try investigate who from Bush's inner circle drove such things as the harsh interrogations of detainees and warrantless surveillance of citizens. Although Obama has not turned down the commission yet, he has said he wants to "look forward" and doesn't seem overly excited about it.

Primaries and Campaign Finance

As the U.S. political system has evolved into it’s current form, there has been a variety of procedures for the nomination of elected officials. As a nation, we have experimented with various nomination procedures in order to find a “balance” between the rights of the parties and the individual voters. The early nomination methods used, the caucus and party convention, gave the parties themselves most of the power to choose their candidates. This gives power to the politicians to choose the candidate they feel would be “best”, which may not be the same candidate that the voters truly want.

Since Wisconsin started using the direct primary to nominate officials in 1903, the procedure or at least similar variations have really caught on. The direct primary is seen to place control of the political process under the population and not the party organizations. This places control under the states, and is not ideal in the eyes of the party, as the general public may nominate candidates who are not in line with a majority of the party. When the parties themselves are allowed to choose, they are more likely to choose a neutral candidate who can work with the entire party. The different types of primaries basically differ on their ticket-splitting rules, as primaries can be used as a weapon among opposing parties. It’s possible for a voter to vote in a primary for a “weak” candidate of the opposing party, hoping to create little competition so their own party wins the election. Nonparty members can therefore influence the nomination of other parties through the different primary systems.

No matter the method of choosing candidates, running an election is expensive, especially at the national level. Parties alone do not have the resources to run huge campaigns, so as individuals and organizations have unique desires from government, they try to influence the elections to help their desired candidate win. This is easily done through campaign donations, more money=more advertising and media= more exposure in today’s political world. Enter campaign finance regulation, which is aimed at removing some of the importance of money in the political system. The idea is that a good candidate may not even attempt to run if they have little resources, and eliminate someone’s “buying of influence” by contribution to a campaign. To cut back on this, regulations have been placed on a candidate’s contribution and expenditure limits. However, there are many loopholes to these regulations. Candidates can get funding indirectly from their own parties, and can gather “soft money” and funds from 527 groups.

These efforts do seem to work at cross-purposes, and seem very unrealistic to me. Even though campaign finance has been regulated for some time, there are so many loopholes and blurry lines that companies/wealthy individuals can still put lots of money into elections. Ideally, money shouldn’t influence a democracy as it does, but to compete in today’s campaigns, large amounts of funds are necessary. There is no way all factions could be removed from politics, people need to join together for common causes, and they will gather funding to advance their cause.

2/11 Link

Here's a short article titled "What's Ron Paul Up To?" According to the story, Paul is urging his supporters to contact Congress and tell them they oppose the growth of government with the economic bailout and stimulus package. Interesting to see other parties opposed to the package while the two major parties are attempting to work together and compromise to get this thing passed.

Here is another link to an article written by Ron Paul regarding the bailout, and what he predicts will happen.

Heterogeneity and Decentralization

In my view the decentralization of political parties is a response to the heterogeneity of the American political system. “Big Tent” parties need to be large and diverse, as they are active at federal, state, and local levels. This leads to decentralization, as there is not a centralized Democratic or Republican party for the entire country. Instead, there are factions within these major parties that share similar goals, but not all are exactly the same. As stated in the lecture video, party members can be very different and have different wants from government, depending on their location, race, religious preference or any other interest they may have.

The structure of the U.S. political system is dependent on a system of two large parties, and the homogeneity of the population creates a need for the “Big Tent” parties’ philosophy to adapt to regional differences. Both parties need strong support to win positions in the federal government, but as lecture also pointed out, the goal of a politician is first to win power, second to create policy. It is in the interest of the voter that his desires from politics are met, and this can often de helped by voting for the party closest in line with his/her ideological preferences. However, since parties are not centralized and can vary among regions, a politician can use a party label to attract voters, particularly at local levels where party status isn’t as important. The fact that the major parties are adaptable and lack a strict set of rules or guidelines results in disagreements or differences among members of the same party. This can be seen very clearly when looking at the 2008 Presidential elections, or even the debate over the economic stimulus package going on right now.

In the 2008 election, we saw divisions and differences among both major parties. In the Democratic party, the main candidates going for the ticket during the primaries were Hillary and Obama, each attracting different sectors of the Democratic voting force. During the Republican primaries we saw a similar situation, as Romney, McCain and Huckabee each represented and attracted different aspects of the Republican party. Then Sarah Palin was brought in to help McCain’s campaign attract the more right-wing Republicans. With the economic stimulus package, we now see differing opinions on the bill from members of the Democratic party, Obama and House Speaker Pelosi in particular. With all of the hype around Obama recently, he seems to me to be the most “in control” of the Democratic party, although there is a visible opposition of fellow Democrats who are not quite as moderate. The Republican party on the other hand, seems to lack a controller at the moment. The party seems sort of split up on the federal level without a clear direction, and I think this could result in a loss of confidence in the party from voters.

All in all, I believe these divisions and differences among the large parties do hinder partisan action. Most politicians’ first goal is reelection, so pleasing their constituents is a must. Because of this, you cannot rely on a member of your own party to vote in line on all issues. If the large parties had a strict set of rules/platform, they may be able to more effectively vote as a bloc, but they would not be able to gain as widespread support as they can under the “big tents.” For this reason, the major parties in our system need to stay large and diverse, in order to appeal to as many different types of voters as possible.

Source: Time Politics, "Obama vs. Pelosi: Can Obama Work with the Democrats?" 2/4/09, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1876912,00.html

Links for 2/04

The first article I found that caught my attention asks, "Can the President work with the Democrats?" and shows how Obama has been butting heads with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Democrat, over several of the key issues he has already faced in office.

And I thought it was interesting to see "Joe the Plumber" still around after the election, as it seems he will doing political strategy with Republicans regarding the economic stimulus package.

What is a Political Party?

I defined a political party as a group of citizens with similar ideals or wants from their government, who organize under a single group in order to gain and hold power in their government through participating in elections. I think political parties can also be used as labels for the self-identification of one’s political views. If you call yourself a Republican, your political views are most likely close to the platform of the Republican party.


Political parties create additional checks and balances in our system by creating sort of an organized opposition, so that if you are unhappy with the way the government is being run or the decisions that are being made by elected officials, you can participate in the next election held and vote for a candidate with platform more in line with your ideals. This keeps any one party from straying too far from the desires of the public, because they can be simply voted out of office in the next election.


At the time of Washington’s farewell address, the U.S. governmental system was brand new and much smaller than it is today, so I think the fear of a faction seizing power leading was much greater. Since Washington feared tyranny, he was weary of political parties, which he felt creates divisions among society and can ultimately lead to the destruction of government. However, the United States has shown to be a fairly moderate and politically centered country, probably as a result of our stable democracy since the beginning. Our two party system has shown to be well established over time, so the fear of an extreme political group coming to power is not very great in the current day U.S. Thus, Tom Delay advocates participation in government through political parties, a view very different from Washington’s.

Hopes, Dreams and Fears

Alright here goes for the first blog post. A little about myself, my name is Bart Bettiga and I am a fourth year Poli Sci major.  I'm from Green Bay originally but this is my second year at UWM.  I just hope to gain more in depth knowledge of the party system in the U.S., particularly regarding the two-party dominance that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.  I'm particularly interested in independent parties, and the role they play in our system.  I've taken online courses through UWM before, although this is my only one this semester.  The only thing that bothers me about online courses is that you don't always know what to expect regarding tests and quizzes, or what the instructor is looking for.  I've also never had a blog before, but I look forward to the experience from this course.