An Autopsy of Liberal Republicans

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/liberal.republicans/

I felt like this article would be particularly appropriate for this weeks topic of discussion. Silverleib discusses some of the same issues we focused on and provides an analysis of the GOP in America.

Arlen Specter's Pure Politics

The recent party switch of Senator Arlen Specter, though exciting, is not very indicative of the current state of America’s political party system. It is simply an exception to the rule. The argument put forward by Morris P. Fiorina in his book, Culture War?, I feel, states the true case very well. Contrary to popular belief, especially amongst Republicans, America is not at its base a culturally divided nation. The average American voter or party identifier is essentially a rational person who chooses their party identification based on personal beliefs regarding major political and social issues. Our current political landscape is made up of mostly those who vote honestly and determine party ties by issue positions, not the other way around.

Fiorina argues that the true cultural divide is amongst political elites, not the average voter. Thus, it is difficult to imagine that a long-time Republican elite such as Specter could simply switch parties at this point in his career. However, in a purely political sense, Specter’s decision is perfectly logical. We must remember that every politician’s overarching goal is to win his/her next election. When Arlen Specter conducted a poll amongst his Republican constituency last week, he was basically told that his legislative behavior no longer satisfied them. Thus, his top priority of getting re-elected faced a tremendous obstacle. After finding out that his primary and re-election constituencies no longer supported him due to his moderate behavior on the Hill, Specter was left with little other recourse. Hence, from a political standpoint, his decision made sense insofar as it improved his chances of winning re-election.

However, as I mentioned, Specter’s switch is an exception, not the rule. Party elites are indeed the most ideologically divided components of our political system, rendering party switches in the Senate chamber few and far between. Thus, I feel that Fiorina’s conception of America’s electorate is not fundamentally flawed, but simply quasi-flexible. I highly doubt that Specter’s switch has caused Fiorina to reconsider his argument.

Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/politics/29specter.html?_r=1

I'm sure I won't be the only one posting this story, but just in case...

What does this switch mean for the Dems? What about the GOP? Are they pretty much in store for a war of futility over the next couple years? I would say that might be possible.

Sci vs. Sci

In the recent and highly visible debate between the Thomas Frank and Larry Bartels camps, I feel that the latter presents a more accurate and compelling argument. In his writings, Frank posits that America’s working class has been misled by Republican promises to reinvigorate the nation’s moral scruples. He argues that the historically left-leaning working class is, in effect, voting against their own economic well-being, choosing instead to focus on social and moral issues in selecting political candidates. Frank feels that conservatives have been able to exploit the generally moralistic nature of the lower classes of society as a means to securing control over government. Bartels, and I alike, disagree.

I feel that Bartels presents more than enough evidence to prove his claim that the lowest socio-economic classes are becoming, in fact, more liberal. In his essay, “What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas,” Bartels presents statistics that show the members of the lower-third of our nation’s income distribution becoming more economically-driven and less moralistically-driven. He effectively debunks Frank’s claim that the working-class is becoming less liberal. By demonstrating that white, working-class citizens without college degrees (the demographic studied by Frank) regard social issues as less salient than economic issues, Bartels begins to systematically deconstruct Frank’s argument. Bartels also shows that had Frank chose to include non-white workers, he could have easily concluded that Democratic party-identification has showed a slight increase among that group over the past fifty years.

Bartels’ central, and most effective, argument is to show that any de-Democratization or shift to moral-over-economic salience in the middle-class is actually occurring among those who make more money. The real shift, Bartels demonstrates, is not among the lower-working-class, but among the upper-middle-class. Instead, Bartels shows that lower-working-class citizens chose candidates based more on economic positions than on moral ones, and that only in the upper-middle-class is the case reversed. This, in effect, defeats Frank’s claims.

I will say, however, that Frank’s writing may have had more credence in the year it was written. Attempting to explain the Republicans’ strangle hold on Congress and the Executive branch, Frank posits a plausible argument for our nation’s general shift towards conservatism. Though his writing is well-composed and well-stylized, I feel he limited his views on the general condition of America’s working-class by limiting (and sometimes skewing) the portions of the group he chose to focus on. While his explanation of Republican control from the mid-nineties to the mid-‘00s may have been believable four years ago, it certainly can no longer be considered so. Given the current state of our nation’s economic system, it is ludicrous to believe that working-class citizens are focusing on moral and social issues rather than economic ones in their voting behaviors. Though Frank’s theories may have had a good run, their time has surely passed.

Stakes High as Congress Returns

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53I0WN20090420

Congress is back in session, which can mean only one thing: some good old fashioned partisanship. God, I love it! This article talks about what might be in store for the Legislators from the two parties. How ambitious do you think the Democrats will get?

Lock Up Your Daughters, Lock Up Your Wives...

The Republicans are gone. Ravaged by intra-party heterogeneity, poor leadership from King Limbaugh, and a general geriatrification, the GOP lost its support in the electorate, found a hole in the wall, crawled in, and died.

So what now? Who will assume the position of the second dominate party in our nation’s two-party political system? Well I’ll tell you who. The Seclusionists.

Rising partly from the ashes of the GOP’s furthest-right wingers, and partly from the depths of hot, nasty hell, the Seclusionists are exactly what you think. They espouse ideals that would make Carter and Clinton turn in their eventual graves, and they don’t take shit from anyone, even themselves (?). The party name derives from their unrelenting desire to remove America from the world stage, aiming only to bolster our personal success and wealth. Defense is a major priority. Cooperation is not. Imports? Who needs them? Exports? Now why would we do that? These guys are the ultraest of the ultra-nationalists and the isolationest of the isolationists. The name also comes from the party’s practice of avoiding contact with non-party members at all costs. Every member resides together in a cozy (but badass) townhouse on the outskirts of Washington, trekking into the city only for role call votes and Chick-Fil-A, because there isn’t one near the townhouse. While on Capitol Hill, the members converse only amongst themselves, in true Seclusionist form. They signal their votes by a simple wag of one middle finger for yes, and both middle fingers crossed to make an “X” for no.

Most of their policy positions are determined by those of the Democrats. Basically, if the Dems. think it wise, the Secs. think it unbearably abhorrent to even consider. Their extremely conservative stances result mostly from the GOP’s failure to present the electorate with a “standing decision” between parties prior to their collapse. The Secs. feel that an increase of homogeneity between the two parties resulted in the death of the GOP, as their base was generally more extreme than that of the Democrats. Because this extreme base became fed up with the degree of similarity between the parties, it eventually ceased all political participation. Most members of the party-in-the-electorate turned their focus to buying assault weapons before the Obama administration reimplemented the ban.

But now, it is the goal of the Seclusionists to drum up the support of these zealots and reinvigorate the gun-toting, capital-hungry, everybody-hating portion of the electorate our nation once held so dear. By enlisting the resources of these nut-jobs, the Secs. hope to win back the support of a majority of the electorate, most likely by force. Regardless of their methods however, the Secs. will soon be able to compete for control of Congress, ushering in an era of tremendous profits, unimaginable national security, and complete deregulation of everything except marijuana. Once in the majority, leadership within the party will be determined by performance in a series of strength/masculinity tests. The member who demonstrates the greatest ability to throw a spear, lift a large rock, wrestle a medium-sized brown bear, and impregnate the most women will receive the position of Speaker. The other leadership positions will then be awarded accordingly.

Dems air ad calling on Coleman to quit

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43029787.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvckD_V_jEyhD:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Honestly, I have no idea why I've posted so many articles related to this fiasco. I think most people were under the impression the real contoversy ended several months ago. So I guess I'm here to remind you all that IT'S STILL GOING ON!! Coleman needs to wake up and smell the 10,000 lakes (that wasn't funny). MOVE ON, BUDDY!

National GOP Chief Calls for Action

http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/987773.html

Michael Steele visited the battleground state of Florida this week to try to mobilize a "get out the vote" campaign there. I think it's a smart move for the GOP to try to increase voter registration in crucial states such as Florida. It's even more important that the party do so since the Democrats have claimed ownership over that aspect of electoral politics over the past several years.

Party Switch

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090331/OPINION12/903310302/1002/OPINION

I thought this was interesting. Apparently one of the chief funders/supporters of California's anti-gay "Prop 8" is leaving the GOP and joining, you guessed it, the Democratic party! Weird, I know. Thing is, he actually seems like an ok guy...now.

A Man-date for Obama (and not with Joe Biden)

The issue of whether or not a politician can ever receive an electoral mandate is, and always will be, convoluted. Some look for electoral mandates in election results, others in exit polls, and still others in the electorate’s attitudes regarding the state of a nation’s political system. Clearly, it can be reasonably argued that by capturing nearly 53 percent of the vote to Sen. McCain’s 45 percent, President Obama demonstrated some sort of electoral mandate. A difference of nearly eight percentage points in a Presidential election is certainly nothing to scoff at. Based on the election results alone, it can arguably be determined that the electorate bestowed upon the new President a great deal of confidence and political capital.

The argument for an Obama electoral mandate becomes even more convincing when one considers the attitudes of the electorate in 2008 (and currently). The theme of Obama’s campaign, and in a disguised fashion that of Sen. McCain’s, was change. Voters had become fed up with the nation’s political atmosphere and its policies regarding issues like foreign affairs and the economy. Reform was first on our list. Because so many felt that effective reform could only be achieved under an Obama administration, he was elected overwhelmingly. But I argue that even if the results had been a miniscule difference of only, say, half a percentage point between the two candidates, as long as Obama managed to squeak it out, it could be said that he was given an electoral mandate. I say this because his widespread support echoed an overarching and palpable desire for a new American system. Voters longing for reform, including those in all corners of each of the major political parties, finally put their foot down. Obama inspired a confidence and reinvigoration that has not been seen since JFK. Because of this intangible inspirational quality behind his campaign and election, I feel that he did receive an electoral mandate.

It is difficult to tell how long that mandate will last, however. In fact, it can be said that it is already beginning to deteriorate. With the strict partisanship that now embodies Congress, people are beginning to question Obama’s campaign promise of bipartisanship. If the electorate begins to feel betrayed or neglected by the new administration, it will not be long before the electoral mandate is “revoked”.

End Near? Franken to rest in Minn. Senate case

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD96S2OD00

I figured I'd post this article just to remind everyone that this thing still isn't over. I know, you probably started ignoring this story sometime in mid-January, but it is pretty important considering its legislative implications. If Franken wins, which looks likely at this point, the Democrats will have a 59-41 majority, bringing them one step closer to that magic number of sixty.

Hey Nation, Your Gaps are Growing

CNN exit polls of the 2008 Presidential election indicate that a certain voting “gap” was in fact larger than in the 2004 Presidential race: the generation gap. According to the Gapology article we read this week, the generation gap did not play a critical role in the 2004 election between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, resulting in a difference of only 2.2% more voters younger than forty casting their ballots for the Democrat. To me, and many others I’m sure, this gap is strikingly small. Most view the Republican Party as that of the old and the rich. With only 2.2% more of the younger vote going to the Democrat however, it can be seen that perhaps the GOP, at least in 2004, had something to offer young voters.

In the 2008 race, however, the story was drastically different. According to the CNN exit poll, of voters between the ages of 18 and 24, 68% voted for Barack Obama, while only 30% voted for John McCain. That’s a difference of nearly 40%! In terms of voters between ages 25 and 29, some 69% voted for Obama, while only 29% voted for McCain. Again we see a 40% difference between the two candidates. The figures are closer amongst voters aged 30-44, with 52% voting for the Democrat and 46% for the Republican, but the difference is still significant. In fact, the only age group that voted in favor of Sen. McCain was those voters aged 65+.

Another interesting facet of the 2008 race was that high income voters (those who claim to make $100,000+ per year) voted in favor of Sen. Obama by a margin of 52% to 47%. This statistic is striking because it calls into question the old stereotype of the “fat-cat” Republican, and presents a possible shift in America’s political landscape. These exit polls help to elucidate the evolution of America’s political attitudes in the short period between 2004 and 2008. More young voters are becoming involved and electing Democratic candidates, a clear sign that they have grown tired of the policies of the Bush regime and those associated with it. The same is occurring amongst the wealthy, which is perhaps an even greater indication of the Nation’s unrest, because let’s face it, it takes a lot of injustice for wealthy Republicans to become disillusioned with their party.

Democrats use Web to Mock Rush Limbaugh, Prominent Republicans

http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2009/03/04/2009-03-04_democrats_use_web_to_mock_rush_limbaugh_.html

This article ties back to two previous Party Politics blogging topics: who controls our parties, and how is technology influencing our nation's political culture. It discusses some guy who's first name is actually Rush, and the Democrats' attempt to deride him with a web-based property.

Sitting, Waiting, Wishing

As a great man once said, democracy is about making losers. That great man, in case you’re wondering, was Dr. Michael Tofias, who I now expect will grade this entry preferentially. The idea of “making losers” is one inherent in the principles of democracy, and more particularly, American democracy. In a winner-take-all electoral system, there is bound to be equally as many winners as losers. Following each election cycle, this principle manifests itself in our nation’s legislative body, resulting in majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress.

One then begins to wonder, what is the role of the minority party in these situations? The answer to that lies within the primary objective of each party, and that is to control the legislature. When a party is in the minority, the most it can really do is maneuver and wait. Because each party’s chief desire is to have elected the most possible representatives from their camp, a minority party often spends its time in the minority to try to change their situation come the next election cycle. This focus was strikingly apparent in the two years between the election of Democrat Bill Clinton to the office of President in 1992, and the Republicans’ takeover of Congress in 1994. During that period, House Minority Whip, Newt Gingrich, engineered a complex plan of attack for gaining control of the body. By recruiting viable candidates and instructing the professional behaviors of House and Senate Republicans, as well as initiating the Republican “Contract with America,” Gingrich was able to garner the party unprecedented success in the 1994 Congressional elections.

This sort of strategizing is common, if not necessary, amongst the legislature’s minority party. Because it is extremely difficult to pass legislation originated by the minority party, it is only logical for the minority to construct a plan for becoming the majority. This is the chief concern of all minority parties. Optimal conditions for successfully carrying out these strategies exist when the majority party is perceived as ineffective by the electorate. This was the case in the Democrats’ success in the 2006 Congressional elections. Because the majority party, the Republicans, were so closely identified with the Republican President, his failings were often associated with the ineffectiveness of the controlling party. This led to an overwhelming string of electoral successes for Congressional Democrats. It can also be said, however, that Democratic strategizing by Representatives such as Rahm Emanuel played a crucial role in this “coup.”

Ultimately, the role of a minority party is to work toward a situation in which they are no longer the minority. Though it may seem pointless for Congressional Republicans to even report to work in an arena controlled solely by the Democratic legislative machine, it is in fact absolutely essential that they do so. By presenting themselves as a strong oppositional force to the Democratic agenda, regardless of how factually accurate that image may be, the minority party sets themselves up for the time when Americans grow tired and desire a change. Republicans must appear to be doing all they can to hinder the influence of Congressional Democrats. Only once they have demonstrated this to the ever-fickle electorate will they be able to mount a legitimate attempt at regaining control of Congress.

Republicans' Day of Reckoning

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022501756.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Well Bill Kristol insists on talking again, so I guess we'll try to listen. Is he right on this? Is it essentially do or die time for Republicans wishing to affect policy outcome and remain relevant in national political discourse? What can Conservatives do to counterbalance the political force that is Barack Obama?

Candidate-Centered System, Meet Technology.

As this week’s readings have previously made clear, America’s electoral culture is rapidly transforming. In the decades just prior to the New Millennium, fear of internet-overexposure was absent from the worryings of America’s politicians. Now, with the advent of YouTube and other similar websites, this fear sits atop the list of many candidates’ concerns. This consequence of the Technological Era, however, is only one contributing factor to our current candidate-centered political culture.

This relatively new development in America’s political scene was nowhere more evident than in the 2008 Presidential election. Due in large part to influences we have discussed in previous weeks (e.g. the institution of direct primaries), citizens are focusing more on the aptitudes and faults of individual politicians rather than political parties when deciding which box to check. In response to this shift, the 2008 Presidential election featured a wide array of characters, all vying for their respective party’s nomination. On the Republican side, these actors included a Christian fundamentalist (Mike Huckabee), a Social progressive (Rudi Giuliani), a Maverick (John McCain), and the party’s preferred candidate (Fred Thompson). The most outstanding proof to the candidate-centered nature of our political system is that each of these men, though extremely ideologically diverse, was able to establish a great deal of national party support prior to and during the primary season. This demonstrates that none of the candidates were acting as an “agent” of the party so to speak, but that each man appealed to a certain portion of the Big-Tent organization that is the GOP. The fact that Fred Thompson’s (arguably the party elite’s preferred candidate) campaign disintegrated steadily from the beginning of the primary further demonstrates the affects of the candidate-centered system.

The same dynamic was evident in the Democratic race as well, though perhaps not to such a great degree. Early on in the competition, Hillary Clinton emerged as the candidate most likely to receive the party’s nomination. With more name recognition and a larger national base, Clinton seemed a logical choice for the Dems. However, as the primary season rolled on, the young and exuberant Barack Obama began to make a push. Winning the Iowa caucuses, and finishing second in the New Hampshire primary, Obama garnered a great deal of media attention in the early months of the race. With this increased exposure, as well as the electorate’s use of sites such as YouTube to view various campaign-trail moments, Obama’s popularity exploded. Many accredit this dramatic increase in support to the populace’s gradual acknowledgement of Obama’s speaking abilities and his optimistic outlook. Again, the candidate-centered aspect of America’s political culture is brought to the forefront. Barack Obama went on to receive the party’s nomination, and was ultimately elected as the forty-fourth President.

Throughout the primary season, both Obama and Sen. McCain (the GOP’s eventual candidate) managed to fare pretty well in the internet realm. Neither candidate was seriously damaged by any web-displayed campaign faux pa, and both had well-established internet support networks. The importance of a successful web-based campaign speaks loudly to the candidate-centeredness of our political system. Much of the electorate gets most of their political news from internet sources, so a strong net presence is now a requirement for any serious candidate. This is true not only at the Presidential level, but also at the Congressional and Senatorial level. In order to maintain a line of direct communication with constituents, all candidates must utilize technologies such as the internet. In turn, our candidate-centered culture is, for better or for worse, further perpetuated in a sort of cyclical nature; candidates use the internet to reach voters, voters know this, and thus expect it. Furthermore, candidates are constantly at risk of derailing their own ambitions by having leaked a simple misstatement or a piece of a private conversation on sites such as YouTube. While some characterize the increasing use of web resources as a potential death knell for political parties, others see it as a necessary evolutionary step for increasing political accountability. You decide.


*Note: I was not able to locate the Teachout article on E-Reserve, and thus could not complete the last segment of the assignment. There were links to several other articles, but the Teachout piece was not there.

Under Fire, Burris Refuses to Resign

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021802475.html

So apparently everything Rod Blagojevich touches turns to shit. He's like Midas, but far less lucrative. Now, is it just me, or is Roland Burris getting the short end of the stick here? I mean, to expect a guy who has to deal directly with Rod Blagojevich to remain squeeky clean seems impractical. Chances are that every person associated with the Chicago political machine has been forced to confront morally sticky issues at some point. Merely considering raising money for the former Governor does not, in my opinion, expell Burris' legitimacy. What else could he have done?

Reform and Faction

In the past thirty years or so, our country’s political process has evolved considerably, producing a wide range of consequences. One of the most evident transformations is seen in the nomination process of potential candidates for various offices, particularly the Presidency. For much of our nation’s history, candidates were chosen by political elites through an institution known as caucuses. In this system, a small group of party officials and strategists nominated the candidate they viewed as the most viable to promote the party platform and ultimately get elected. This form of nomination, however, eventually came to be regarded as elitist and exclusionary by the voting populace. Because of this, our nation gradually shifted from the caucus model to that of primaries. Intended to transfer the power of choosing a party’s candidate into the hands of the people, the primary system has provided some unanticipated results.

By allowing the electorate to choose between potential candidates several months before the general election, the primary system places a great deal of emphasis on momentum. If a candidate can manage to campaign properly in early primary states and win that state’s election, much of the nation follows suit in their own voting tendencies. Thus, candidates use an inordinate amount of resources on these few early primaries as means of trying to influence voters throughout the nation. This is viewed by many as providing an undue amount of influence to states whose populations are small and non-representative of the nation as a whole.

This also leads us to address the issue of “front-loading.” Many of the most populous states (e.g. California, New York, Ohio) have bumped their primary elections to earlier dates so as to exert more influence on the Presidential nomination process. Thus, candidates are forced to campaign vigorously in these states, often neglecting issues and voters found elsewhere. This often results in rendering many later state primaries inconsequential and unimportant.

In further attempts to reform the electoral process, the federal government has instituted several regulations on campaign finance. Beginning in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which was further amended in 1974, government attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be contributed to a candidate’s campaign. This law limited the amount that could be contributed by individuals, political action committees (PACs), and corporate entities. However, though the act attempted to restrict the amount of money that could be spent by individuals and groups independent of the campaign, the Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional. As a result, though citizens were limited in their contributions to candidates directly, they were unfettered in the amount they could spend privately in favor or a specific candidate. Also, an amendment to the law allowed parties to spend an unlimited amount on party activities which translated to direct assistance to specific candidates. Thus, while citizens and PACs were somewhat limited in their freedom to contribute to candidate’s campaigns, they could donate huge amounts to the parties.

This system created a multitude of loopholes. As a result, candidates were still largely reliant on the “soft money” provided by their parties, and remained indebted to special interests. Though the McCain – Feingold legislation, passed in 2002, attempted to eliminate some of these loopholes by further restricting the maximum contributions of citizens and PACs, it opened the door to non-profit and tax-exempt groups to donate unlimited amounts to parties. These entities, known as “527 groups,” have essentially picked up the slack left by PACs and large corporations. As a result, special interests still dominate in the realm of fundraising, though candidates do depend on individual contributors more than they have in the past.

The very issue we have discussed here was addressed by the Founding Fathers during our nation’s first years: the influence of faction. While nomination process reform and campaign finance reform is intended to alleviate the influence of factious entities, it has, in some ways, strengthened them. By depending on special interest groups for a large chunk of their campaign finances, politicians are often inclined to treat these groups preferentially. In effect, special interests are able to purchase representation. This serves as the very basis for the idea of factions. While these groups represent a relatively small portion of the populace, legislation often tends to favor their causes. By relying on these sources for funding instead of a candidate’s party, as was the custom prior to 1971, the power of national parties has also decreased. An increase in private donations to particular candidates also serves to weaken party influence on candidates. In other words, campaign finance reform has dramatically changed our nation’s political structure. The legislation has increased the influence of special interest groups (factions) and decreased the influence of parties, resulting in a shift from citizen-oriented public policy to interest-oriented public policy. Needless to say, this development has rendered many citizens skeptical of the importance of their role in the political process, and surely has left the Founding Fathers kicking and screaming in their graves.

Tennessee House Member Wins Top Job, but Loses Party

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/us/11tennesee.html?ref=us

Tennessee lawmaker, Kent Williams, betrayed the Republican party last week by helping to get himself elected as the state's Speaker of House by a one vote majority. While Republicans, who controlled the body as of Monday, were backing Rep. Jason Mumpower to serve as Speaker, Williams, along with forty-nine Democrats, agreed to elect him instead. This is a really crazy story. I hadn't heard anything about the situation in Tennessee's Legislature prior to finding this article, so I think it's pretty exciting. Read it and let me know what you think. Is this further evidence of the decentralization of America's major political parties?

Decentralized, Not Disorganized

As discussed in this week's readings and lecture, the decentralization of America's political parties has had, at times, a crippling effect on the abilities of these organizations to act in concert on various issues. At the same time, however, this decentralization appears to be an essential evolutionary course for parties attempting to reconcile the many opinions and preferences of an ever-growing populace.

One can no longer argue that the major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) represent single segments of the population as they may have in the past. For example, Republicans, though generally regarded as the party of the rural and well-off, have, in recent years, gained a large contingent of the Latino vote. Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, the Latino vote was often taken for granted by Democrats, as the party has historically represented the interests of minority and urban voters. Likewise, the Democratic party has, in the past decade, extended its base to encompass a larger number of rural (more specifically, agriculturally-minded) voters in need of Federal assistance for struggling farms. These two minor examples help to illustrate the diverse needs and preferences parties are forced to address in their attempts to maintain a loyal voting base. As this is the case, decentralizing parties along local, state, and national lines is absolutely necessary if the organizations wish to satisfy voters at all levels, and thus, accomplish their ultimate goal of winning elections.

This decentralization, however, does have negative effects on the abilities of parties to act cooperatively in achieving preferred public policy. It is impossible to argue that the issues most pertinent to Republican voters in the backwoods of Louisiana are entirely compatible with Republicans on Capitol Hill. These discrepancies then pose a substantial obstacle to the recruitment of universally acceptable candidates, as well as to the overall image of the party and its platform.

For evidence of this, one must look no further than to the 2008 Presidential election. Many Republicans were outraged when Sen. John McCain received the party's nomination due to the legislators moderate voting record. Many strategists (e.g. Carl Rove, Bill Kristol, etc.) felt that McCain did not appeal enough to the party's "Christian-Conservative base," a segment of the party that was instrumental in securing victory for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Others, however, argued that McCain's moderate stances legitimized him as a candidate for the large sector of the voting public who would characterize their own political opinions as moderate. However, McCain lost the election, and some have attributed his trouncing to losing the support of Christian-Conservatives, as well as other, more socially-conservative segments of the party.

Thus, decentralization may have proved itself the death-knell for Republicans in 2008. However, it is still difficult to imagine a successful party who caters to only one or two key groups within the organization. Such preferential treatment would surely alienate the neglected portion of the party, causing more harm than good.

As our major parties stand now, the issue of leadership is somewhat clouded. The Democrats have sensibly united behind a single, dominant leader, President Barack Obama. This is nothing new, as the administration's party invariably looks to the President as the party head. The Democratic National Committee's Chairman, Tim Kaine, is also viewed as a party leader, though his duties consist of more day-to-day party activities than actual public policy. Leadership in the Republican party, however, is not so well-defined. Following the party's loss in the 2008 Presidential election, the Republican National Committee appointed a new Chairman, Michael Steele. The party's first African-American Chair, Steele is now viewed by many as the nation's top Republican. By title, this is absolutely true. In practice, however, Steele does not yield nearly as much direct influence on voters as political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. As this is the case, many Republicans at the state and national levels are looking to these talking heads as a means of gauging the current political attitudes of the electorate. This has been increasingly apparent in recent weeks, exemplified especially by the exchange between Limbaugh and Congressman Phil Gingrey on Limbaugh's daily radio show last week http://punditfight.blogspot.com/2009/01/chris-matthews-discusses-rush-limbaughs.html . Whatever the case, Republicans will have to find stronger, more viable leadership in the coming months if they hold any hope of regaining control of the Legislative and Executive branches.

Political Party: A "Definition"

As the professor explains in this week’s reading notes, the question of defining the term “political party” seems simple. We have been exposed to the idea of political parties for as long as we can remember, and most of us have no orientation towards any other political system. However, when asked to explicate a definition of the term, things get a little sticky. As mentioned in the reading notes, it is difficult to discern what exactly constitutes a political party. Entities such as special interest groups are universally recognized as influential in Washington, but they are not considered actual political parties. Distinctions such as this are what make it difficult to label political parties. However, based on my knowledge and opinions, I have formulated what I feel is a suitable definition of the term. To me, a political party is a body of socially and economically like-minded individuals, united on common ground, to advance their societal goals and preferences through direct political means. In other words, a political party is a group of people who share many of the same views and attempt to assert those views through “inside” political action (i.e. getting elected to office). As mentioned in the notes, it is important to realize that parties are constituted by more than just elected officials. Voters and supporters play just as crucial a role, though all share the same ultimate goal of having elected members of their own party, and thus, all are included in my proposed definition.

Michael Steele Gives First Interview as RNC Chairman

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,486585,00.html

Michael Steele is oficially the new head of the Republican Party. The significance of this is pretty self-apparent. What are some of you opinions regarding the GOP's selection of its first African American Chairman? It obviously comes at a time of racial and social progress in America, but will it actually work to reform the image of the GOP as an "ol' boys" club? By the way, I apologize for the source. It won't happen again.

Expectations for "Party Politics in America"

As with most classes we political junkies take throughout our college careers, “Party Politics in America” appears poised to present us with some unique and interesting challenges. Surely, any class that starts its first week with the Federalist Papers and a (quite lengthy) George Washington address can only be setting us up for an inevitable death-blow. However, courses such as these (ones with rigorous reading schedules and high expectations) are invariably the ones from which we take the most. As this is the case, we often approach these classes with a specific set of expectations or goals for ourselves, as well as the class.
In regards to “Party Politics,” I have developed a few expectations/goals of my own. The first is that the course material be at least comprehensible to me. This should not be a problem, as this isn’t my first political rodeo. However, this is my first party politics class, so some terms are sure to be new. My second goal is to gain a fair amount of knowledge in regards to political party development and party dynamics. We Americans live our entire lives aware of the party system, but very few ever truly come to understand how or why we got here. My third and final goal is to become more familiar with the modern learning techniques practiced in this class. I have used D2L in the past, but never to this extent. Also, blogging is essentially foreign to me, and learning it seems a very valuable skill in today’s interconnected world. I trust that the professor and TA will help immensely in realizing these goals, and I look forward to giving it all a try.