Monday, May 4, 2009
Specter: Switch should be 'wake-up call' to GOP
It’s been a pretty exciting week in party politics. Republican Senator Arlen Specter has switched parties. He is now a member of the Democratic Party. In this article, he claims the Republicans have changed quite a bit since his election in 1980. He hopes his switch is seen as a “wake up call” for the Republican Party, which has become increasingly conservative as time goes on.
Arlen Specter
The recent party switch by Senator Arlen Specter can say many things about the state of the party system in the United States, but among those, it most importantly says that the party system may actually be more flexible instead of consisting of solid, party bases.
Fiorina would point to this event and say that this shift may be due to sorting. Fiorina explains sorting as “those who affiliate with a party today are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically “correct” party than they were in earlier periods,” (61).This is what may actually be causing the partisan polarization he tries to manage in his book. In Fiorina’s diagram on sorting (immediately following p78), before the switch Arlen Specter would be diagramed as a blue marble with an R in the center (a liberal Republican). But after the switch, he would now be “properly sorted”, and become a blue marble with a D in the center. He is now affiliated with the ideologically “correct” party.
Aldrich might see the same event and take a more dismal view on it. In his discussion of the collapse of the Whigs, he stated that members left the party because it was no longer in their interests to remain. Aldrich would contend that Arlen Specter has left the Republican Party because it no longer suits his best interests. In the article for my link post this week, Specter even said the party has changed a lot since he was elected in 1980. The increasingly more conservative ideology of the GOP is no longer attractive to Specter and his re-election hopes. Parties after all are a group of people trying to win elective office and Specter doesn’t see that happening for him in the Republican camp.
It may be difficult, especially with Fiorina’s convincing argument for the increased polarization of elites, to imagine Specter’s switch is actually possible. The GOP is no longer serving Specter’s interests. His hope for re-election was not viable as a Republican. Ignoring re-election hopes, Specter’s ideological beliefs are now more “in tune” with the Democrats because the Republicans are becoming increasing conservative. Yes, there may be increased polarization among elites, but things are necessarily “set in stone” as some think.
Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America
John H. Aldrich Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America
Fiorina would point to this event and say that this shift may be due to sorting. Fiorina explains sorting as “those who affiliate with a party today are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically “correct” party than they were in earlier periods,” (61).This is what may actually be causing the partisan polarization he tries to manage in his book. In Fiorina’s diagram on sorting (immediately following p78), before the switch Arlen Specter would be diagramed as a blue marble with an R in the center (a liberal Republican). But after the switch, he would now be “properly sorted”, and become a blue marble with a D in the center. He is now affiliated with the ideologically “correct” party.
Aldrich might see the same event and take a more dismal view on it. In his discussion of the collapse of the Whigs, he stated that members left the party because it was no longer in their interests to remain. Aldrich would contend that Arlen Specter has left the Republican Party because it no longer suits his best interests. In the article for my link post this week, Specter even said the party has changed a lot since he was elected in 1980. The increasingly more conservative ideology of the GOP is no longer attractive to Specter and his re-election hopes. Parties after all are a group of people trying to win elective office and Specter doesn’t see that happening for him in the Republican camp.
It may be difficult, especially with Fiorina’s convincing argument for the increased polarization of elites, to imagine Specter’s switch is actually possible. The GOP is no longer serving Specter’s interests. His hope for re-election was not viable as a Republican. Ignoring re-election hopes, Specter’s ideological beliefs are now more “in tune” with the Democrats because the Republicans are becoming increasing conservative. Yes, there may be increased polarization among elites, but things are necessarily “set in stone” as some think.
Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America
John H. Aldrich Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America
Monday, April 27, 2009
Parties spar on global warming
One of the important topics for which Obama has been calling for bipartisanship in Congress is the environment. The effects of human activity on our environment are well known. Former Vice-President Al Gore, also known for his work on climate change, spoke to Congress about a Democratic bill to help deal with the effects of global warming. He too called for bipartisan efforts to reduce the destruction of our planet. The environment should not be a partisan issue, or even an American issue. It should be an issue all of humanity should be concerned about.
Frank vs. Bartels
After reading the on-going debate between Thomas Frank and Larry Bartels about the argument presented in Frank’s book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, I find Thomas Frank’s assertion more persuasive for one key reason.
Frank, (in “Class Dismissed”) points to Bartels’ methodological approach to illuminate his research errors. The one I find most convincing is his discussion of defining “working class”. Bartels suggests that should be defined as “people with family incomes in the b
ottom third of the income distribution”. But on top of that, Frank points out that Bartels “brushes off” other ways to determine working-class including (subjective) self-identification; mainly because he claims people cannot be trusted to accurately classify their own class. But also doesn’t present the data for self-identification because if he did, it would negate his argument. By omitting the results he leaves out an important finding. Those who self-identified with the working class voted for Bush over Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
If Bartels wants to eliminate the usage of subjective measures, then he should do so throughout his research, but he doesn’t. He later uses self-identification measures to establish religious-ness and liberal/conservativeness. Frank argues especially with religion that people commonly lie. Bartels should either consistently omit self-identification measures or consistently include them. The key word here is consistency.
The 2008 election does not affect my view on this debate. The reason for this debate in the first place is the ongoing control of government (the presidency) by Republicans. Since Barack Obama won the contest, I do not find the arguments in this debate to be relevant. Possibly, the “working class” voted Republican in the past election, but since Obama was elected, I find this debate to have little importance. If John McCain had won, perhaps the election would further support Frank’s argument.
Frank, (in “Class Dismissed”) points to Bartels’ methodological approach to illuminate his research errors. The one I find most convincing is his discussion of defining “working class”. Bartels suggests that should be defined as “people with family incomes in the b
ottom third of the income distribution”. But on top of that, Frank points out that Bartels “brushes off” other ways to determine working-class including (subjective) self-identification; mainly because he claims people cannot be trusted to accurately classify their own class. But also doesn’t present the data for self-identification because if he did, it would negate his argument. By omitting the results he leaves out an important finding. Those who self-identified with the working class voted for Bush over Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.If Bartels wants to eliminate the usage of subjective measures, then he should do so throughout his research, but he doesn’t. He later uses self-identification measures to establish religious-ness and liberal/conservativeness. Frank argues especially with religion that people commonly lie. Bartels should either consistently omit self-identification measures or consistently include them. The key word here is consistency.
The 2008 election does not affect my view on this debate. The reason for this debate in the first place is the ongoing control of government (the presidency) by Republicans. Since Barack Obama won the contest, I do not find the arguments in this debate to be relevant. Possibly, the “working class” voted Republican in the past election, but since Obama was elected, I find this debate to have little importance. If John McCain had won, perhaps the election would further support Frank’s argument.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama Advisers Challenge G.O.P. to Offer Alternatives
Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel has given the Republicans in Congress a sort of ultimatum. He wants the party members to be constructive. Simply saying no or opposing Obama’s proposals are not constructive behavior. What Obama’s advisors want them to do is offer alternatives instead of only criticizing. And of course, Republicans argue that they have offered alternatives to Obama’s economic recovery plan. They also claim that they have already begun to work on a plan to make healthcare affordable to more Americans. We’ll have to wait and see.
My New Political Party
The Republicans may be in for a tough road ahead and their Grand Old Party might possibly collapse. The political party that would rise out of its ashes would most certainly learn from the GOP’s mistakes.
It all starts with formation. Parties represent a type of collective action. John H. Aldrich explains that problems can arise with collective action. “The problem of collective action… arises when there are shared interests-ends that all value within some collectivity- but when it is not in people’s individual interests to contribute to that end, “(100). A political party formed by shared interests can only achieve the desired ends when it is in individual’s interests to contribute. It is only after these problems are overcome that a political party can form and be functional in American Politics.
Besides the collective action problem I just discussed, the formation of this party might not be as difficult as I first thought. As we saw with the Whigs, members left when the party had nothing to offer them. In our scenario, members of the Republican Party find that it no longer serves their best interests. They will therefore leave looking for a new party that will now suit them better.
The ideological position of the new party is of great importance. Aldrich contends that the increased numbers of political party activists are pulling candidates away from moderate policy positions in the center towards more ideologically distinct positions at the left or right. As we saw with the Republican Party, the activists would pull the candidates towards the right, but in an attempt to learn from the past, this new party would establish itself closer to (if not) dead center.
Parties are always going to have activists or purists as Aldrich likes to call them. Placing this new party near the center of the spectrum would counteract the activists’ efforts. This way, the activists in the party would try to pull candidates closer towards the center (the ideological base of the party). Also being in the middle of the spectrum would most likely attract the greatest amount of voters. (Candidates often times try to moderate their positions before a general election in order to gain the greatest number of votes.) My party would simply eliminate the need to do so.
The party’s role in Congress or possibly even the White House would only be a matter of time. The moderated ideological stance is important here. This party will appeal to the biggest number of people. In spatial politics, each voter will vote for the policy (or candidate) closest to his or her own preferred ideological stance. Being in the center, this party would attract those from the right and left. Those on either side only stand a good chance to attract those in the center. My party, being in the center, has an increased chance of attracting members from either side.
John H. Aldrich Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Policital Parties in America 1995
It all starts with formation. Parties represent a type of collective action. John H. Aldrich explains that problems can arise with collective action. “The problem of collective action… arises when there are shared interests-ends that all value within some collectivity- but when it is not in people’s individual interests to contribute to that end, “(100). A political party formed by shared interests can only achieve the desired ends when it is in individual’s interests to contribute. It is only after these problems are overcome that a political party can form and be functional in American Politics.
Besides the collective action problem I just discussed, the formation of this party might not be as difficult as I first thought. As we saw with the Whigs, members left when the party had nothing to offer them. In our scenario, members of the Republican Party find that it no longer serves their best interests. They will therefore leave looking for a new party that will now suit them better.
The ideological position of the new party is of great importance. Aldrich contends that the increased numbers of political party activists are pulling candidates away from moderate policy positions in the center towards more ideologically distinct positions at the left or right. As we saw with the Republican Party, the activists would pull the candidates towards the right, but in an attempt to learn from the past, this new party would establish itself closer to (if not) dead center.
Parties are always going to have activists or purists as Aldrich likes to call them. Placing this new party near the center of the spectrum would counteract the activists’ efforts. This way, the activists in the party would try to pull candidates closer towards the center (the ideological base of the party). Also being in the middle of the spectrum would most likely attract the greatest amount of voters. (Candidates often times try to moderate their positions before a general election in order to gain the greatest number of votes.) My party would simply eliminate the need to do so.
The party’s role in Congress or possibly even the White House would only be a matter of time. The moderated ideological stance is important here. This party will appeal to the biggest number of people. In spatial politics, each voter will vote for the policy (or candidate) closest to his or her own preferred ideological stance. Being in the center, this party would attract those from the right and left. Those on either side only stand a good chance to attract those in the center. My party, being in the center, has an increased chance of attracting members from either side.
John H. Aldrich Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Policital Parties in America 1995
Monday, April 6, 2009
Poll Finds New Optimism on Economy Since Inauguration
Does Obama have the support of the public? This article from the New York Times claims, yes he does, regardless of the attacks by Republicans and a few missteps by the White House. Relating to this weeks topic, this article contends that citizens have an all-time low rating of the Republican Party. Only 31% of the respondents claimed a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest rating in the 25 years the question has been asked!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)