Back in grad school days, one of the biggest controversies in the political science literature concerned the nature of the electorate.
Are they rational or irrational?
When one traced the debate it became obvious that the pendulum swung back and forth. Last I remember, the electorate--if not the individual voter--was considered rational.
Apparently they (we) are now considered irrational.
Showing posts with label 2301-2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2301-2. Show all posts
Friday, June 1, 2007
A Republican Crackup?
Peggy Noonan, Reagan's speechwriter, adds her voice to the chorus claiming that Bush Administration policies are tearing apart the Republican coalition.
In a two party system, parties are only competitive if they bring various factions together under their umbrella. The Democrats did it under FDR. It was called the New Deal Coalition and it dominated politics for three or four decades. The loss of key elements of that coalition to the Republicans led to the formation of the Reagan Coalition which became dominant thereafter. Groups that had become predictable Republican supporters (such as libertarians) are becoming more independent, if not outright supporters of Democrats.
Karl Rove apparently disagrees with this assessment and predicts that the future still looks bright for his party. The proliferation of internet businesses will lead those business owners into the Republican pro-business, low taxes camp. And more Americans claim to be religiously evangelical, and they tend ot vote Republican.
A recent book outlines Roves efforts to continue adding to the Republican rolls. Three specific policies were designed to peel away groups that continued to vote for Democrats. Pro-Israel policies were meant to lure Jews, anti-gay rights policies were focused on evangelical African Americans, and anti-abortion and stem cell policies were intended to attract the support of Catholics.
Critics argue that the continued expansion of government (No Child Left Behind and Medicare), corruption and bungled efforts in Iraq and in the follow up to Katrina have undermined these efforts. Evangelicals also seem suspicious that Republicans talk the talk but do not follow up with actions that back up the talk.
This is worth monitoring.
In a two party system, parties are only competitive if they bring various factions together under their umbrella. The Democrats did it under FDR. It was called the New Deal Coalition and it dominated politics for three or four decades. The loss of key elements of that coalition to the Republicans led to the formation of the Reagan Coalition which became dominant thereafter. Groups that had become predictable Republican supporters (such as libertarians) are becoming more independent, if not outright supporters of Democrats.
Karl Rove apparently disagrees with this assessment and predicts that the future still looks bright for his party. The proliferation of internet businesses will lead those business owners into the Republican pro-business, low taxes camp. And more Americans claim to be religiously evangelical, and they tend ot vote Republican.
A recent book outlines Roves efforts to continue adding to the Republican rolls. Three specific policies were designed to peel away groups that continued to vote for Democrats. Pro-Israel policies were meant to lure Jews, anti-gay rights policies were focused on evangelical African Americans, and anti-abortion and stem cell policies were intended to attract the support of Catholics.
Critics argue that the continued expansion of government (No Child Left Behind and Medicare), corruption and bungled efforts in Iraq and in the follow up to Katrina have undermined these efforts. Evangelicals also seem suspicious that Republicans talk the talk but do not follow up with actions that back up the talk.
This is worth monitoring.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Iraq, Democrats, and the Responsible Party Model
I had the pleasure of picking up a class for Elizabeth McLane and went over the power point slides for the political parties chapter in the Lowi, Ginsburg, Shepsle textbook.
A discussion picked up when we covered the responsible party model and applied it to the current efforts of the Democrats to impose a timetable on our involvement in Iraq. The Responsible Party Model, which was an effort by the American Political Science Association to ensure that parties are meaningful instruments of democratic choice, holds that "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."
Regardless of one's opinion on what the Democrats are up to, and the wisdom of imposing a time limit, would the Democrats be negligent in their duty as a responsible party if they not seek to impose a time limit? It is generally conceded that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, so the Democrats are the majority party for a reason. If they do not go forward with opposition to the war they could be undermining democracy at home. Voters opposed to the war wont really know whether they can trust the Democrats to do what they say they will do if they continue to voice opposition to the war.
One could also argue that it is important that one of the presidential candidates, John McCain, seems to be basing his campaign on support for the existing policy. Voters may have a choice, and this is what makes political parties vital instruments of democratic politics.
At least that's what the model holds. Is it wrong?
A discussion picked up when we covered the responsible party model and applied it to the current efforts of the Democrats to impose a timetable on our involvement in Iraq. The Responsible Party Model, which was an effort by the American Political Science Association to ensure that parties are meaningful instruments of democratic choice, holds that "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."
Regardless of one's opinion on what the Democrats are up to, and the wisdom of imposing a time limit, would the Democrats be negligent in their duty as a responsible party if they not seek to impose a time limit? It is generally conceded that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, so the Democrats are the majority party for a reason. If they do not go forward with opposition to the war they could be undermining democracy at home. Voters opposed to the war wont really know whether they can trust the Democrats to do what they say they will do if they continue to voice opposition to the war.
One could also argue that it is important that one of the presidential candidates, John McCain, seems to be basing his campaign on support for the existing policy. Voters may have a choice, and this is what makes political parties vital instruments of democratic politics.
At least that's what the model holds. Is it wrong?
Voter Fraud, Real and/or Imagined
The New York Times reports today on ongoing disputes concerning voter fraud.
Traditionally, Republicans have argued that voter fraud is pervasive and that voters are not intimidated when they come to the polls. Democrats argue the opposite, that fraud is not a problem, but voter intimidation is.
The current controversy concerns whether voter fraud has in fact been pervasive recently. A draft of a report commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission stated that it was not, which seems to have not been the conclusion the commission wanted. The final report stated that the evidence was inconclusive. Critics wonder whether the preliminary results were watered down purposefully.
This is ultimately an electoral dispute because more people identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party and if they all show up to vote, Democrats win. But since the Democratic coalition includes poorer and minority voters who may not have proper identification, requiring ID suppresses their ability to vote. Fewer voting Democrats, greater Republican success.
Of course we have the right to demand that only legitimate voters be able to vote and the the process be conducted fairly, so a dilemma lies at the heart of this dispute, but I believe it is fair to assume that the overriding concern is victory. As my 2301's remember, similar accusations confronted the Progressives who were accused of cleaning up politics by limiting participation by the poor.
The story points out that this issue underlies attorneygate. The fired attorneys were not aggressively pushing voter fraud cases, which in turn points out the conflict that exists between the political and bureaucratic wings of the executive. The careerists attorneys consider themselves above politics, the White House does not.
Traditionally, Republicans have argued that voter fraud is pervasive and that voters are not intimidated when they come to the polls. Democrats argue the opposite, that fraud is not a problem, but voter intimidation is.
The current controversy concerns whether voter fraud has in fact been pervasive recently. A draft of a report commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission stated that it was not, which seems to have not been the conclusion the commission wanted. The final report stated that the evidence was inconclusive. Critics wonder whether the preliminary results were watered down purposefully.
This is ultimately an electoral dispute because more people identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party and if they all show up to vote, Democrats win. But since the Democratic coalition includes poorer and minority voters who may not have proper identification, requiring ID suppresses their ability to vote. Fewer voting Democrats, greater Republican success.
Of course we have the right to demand that only legitimate voters be able to vote and the the process be conducted fairly, so a dilemma lies at the heart of this dispute, but I believe it is fair to assume that the overriding concern is victory. As my 2301's remember, similar accusations confronted the Progressives who were accused of cleaning up politics by limiting participation by the poor.
The story points out that this issue underlies attorneygate. The fired attorneys were not aggressively pushing voter fraud cases, which in turn points out the conflict that exists between the political and bureaucratic wings of the executive. The careerists attorneys consider themselves above politics, the White House does not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)