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.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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?
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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!
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!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
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.
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”.
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”.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)