So a certain paper has been rattling around in my brain for a while now. The paper, "Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics" presents a fairly convincing case for rethinking the concept of the modern American politic parties. The basic argument is that the two parties are not fundamentally the same; Republicans are individuals built on principle while Democrats are a coalition built on action. It attempts to explain some Republican action since the George W. Bush administration. It's limited government vs. specific policy proposals. Weirdly enough, a majority of the country supports both concepts. In the words of the authors:
"Liberal
positions are more popular than conservative positions,
and sometimes substantially so, on nearly all domestic
policy issues, even those—such as crime or welfare—
sometimes thought to be “owned” by the Republican
Party. Yet conservative responses predominate on items
measuring ideological self-identification or attitudes regarding
the general size and power of government.
Depending on the scope of the questions asked, this
summary of American public opinion reveals both
a center-right and a center-left nation."
A Democrat will often talk about class, working mothers, the working class, the poor, women, etc according to the authors while Republicans will often say that they believe in a smaller government, stronger military, or individuals to be responsible for their own lives.
The person who brought this to my attention, Tanner Greer (check out his blog) says that the Republicans are transforming from a party of ideals into an interest group party like the Democrats. Trump, the center of the plague on the Republican party has appealed to only one group: white working class Americans. There is fairly good statistical data supporting the fact this has not been the case, and Trump certainly is going in that direction. I don't really mean to challenge this concept or idea in any sense.
I think this is a good explanation of my own way of looking at the world as well as Hillary Clinton when it comes to Democrats and that the Democratic Party is going through the opposite of the Republican Party with Bernie Sanders. I've had a number of times where I've read articles (like this one just today) that bugged the hell out of me. There is a large trend in liberal politics seen through Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter that push more rhetoric than substantive policy. In both cases I've understood the reason for anger, but could never see a common policy or game plan for either movement. Awareness isn't going to solve these issues in the media environment we live where one moment big banks and racism are problems and the next we're all upset with a Minnesotan dentist who shot a lion. Systems don't move fast enough to react to simple anger. I've had a number of discussions on Black Lives Matter where I ask what it is they want to accomplish. There are a number of things I agree with (body cams, federal prosecution for police murder, etc.) and there are some I can't get behind (giving reparations).
But what separates Democrats from Republicans is how they try to get these things done. Republicans can shut down government, but Democrats make compromises and fight little by little to get what they want. When Black Lives Matter shuts down a highway, shuts down a mall on Christmas, or shuts down an airport on Christmas I see more Republican tactics than Democratic ones. All of my policy minded friends out there should know that supporting a socialist will not lead to compromise or progress, but will simply gum up the system. Republicans can do that, as they win if nothing happens or the system gets gummed up, but Democrats are supposed to make the system run. What will happen when both parties are against action?
No comments:
Post a Comment