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!
G.O.P. in Trouble???
There is no doubt in my mind that in the previous years the Republican Party (GOP) has suffered some setbacks; with the most devastating blow coming with the election of Senator Barack Obama to the White House in 2008. This election can be seen as the culmination of the events of the past few years.
In November of 2006, an article was published by Adam Nagourney for the New York Times, entitled “Hispanic Is Expected to Be the Next Public Face of the G.O.P.”. In this article, Nagourney expects Sen. Mel Martinez to be elected general chairman of the Republican National Committee. He contends that the GOP had taken a hit when it comes to the votes of Hispanics, falling 15% from the election in 2004. The reason being that several congressional Republicans had been running campaigns that called for more rigorous anti-immigration policies. This position was highly unpopular among Hispanics, the fastest growing part of the electorate. Democrats took this as a signal that Republicans were worried about these setbacks.
Trying to explain the way several well-known Republicans (such as Colin Powell) have switched their party endorsement may be a bit complex. John H. Aldrich, in his book, Why Parties?, suggests career ambitions of individual politicians may also play a role in the way parties form, and maybe in the case of the GOP, reform or disintegrate. Politicians are going to associate with the party that will give them the longest, most fulfilling career. Those changing party endorsements may see more opportunity for themselves in the Democratic Party.
After reading this week’s chapters and doing a little outside research, I believe the Republican Party may be in a bit of trouble. The party is losing voters. By not appealing to one of the largest, fasting growing demographics in the country, the GOP is becoming out-dated. A “re-birth” of some sort may be in order. Losing the endorsement of well-known Republicans, may just be the “kiss of death”. Citizens see what’s going on and take note of the failings of each party. (I remember watching the episode of Meet the Press where former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, announced his vote in the 2008 election would be for Obama.) In my opinion, the Republican Party could use some serious reform in order to once again, become the united, disciplined party we once knew.
In November of 2006, an article was published by Adam Nagourney for the New York Times, entitled “Hispanic Is Expected to Be the Next Public Face of the G.O.P.”. In this article, Nagourney expects Sen. Mel Martinez to be elected general chairman of the Republican National Committee. He contends that the GOP had taken a hit when it comes to the votes of Hispanics, falling 15% from the election in 2004. The reason being that several congressional Republicans had been running campaigns that called for more rigorous anti-immigration policies. This position was highly unpopular among Hispanics, the fastest growing part of the electorate. Democrats took this as a signal that Republicans were worried about these setbacks.
Trying to explain the way several well-known Republicans (such as Colin Powell) have switched their party endorsement may be a bit complex. John H. Aldrich, in his book, Why Parties?, suggests career ambitions of individual politicians may also play a role in the way parties form, and maybe in the case of the GOP, reform or disintegrate. Politicians are going to associate with the party that will give them the longest, most fulfilling career. Those changing party endorsements may see more opportunity for themselves in the Democratic Party.
After reading this week’s chapters and doing a little outside research, I believe the Republican Party may be in a bit of trouble. The party is losing voters. By not appealing to one of the largest, fasting growing demographics in the country, the GOP is becoming out-dated. A “re-birth” of some sort may be in order. Losing the endorsement of well-known Republicans, may just be the “kiss of death”. Citizens see what’s going on and take note of the failings of each party. (I remember watching the episode of Meet the Press where former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, announced his vote in the 2008 election would be for Obama.) In my opinion, the Republican Party could use some serious reform in order to once again, become the united, disciplined party we once knew.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
President Gives a Short Lifeline to Carmakers
Given the topic this week, and talking about electoral mandates, I found this article to be quite appropriate. Americans are sick of hearing news about companies using federal bailout money to pay bonuses and give vacations to their employees. In this article Obama is giving almost an ultimatum to GM and Chrysler. Voters elected Obama to bring change to Washington D.C. and solve the economic issues being faced by our country. In my opinion, he is issuing this demand to these carmakers in response to his electoral mandate. The citizens want action!
Obama's Electoral Mandate??
It would be nice to think that all our presidents had an electoral mandate. It makes perfect sense. The leader of the country would be elected by a majority of the population, and all the voters who voted for him should strongly support his policies and character. It is hard to exactly say whether or not a particular office holder has an electoral mandate because it’s all perception, but I will do my best to work through the question if Obama had (or has) an electoral mandate.
When looking at election results from 2008 on cnn.com (Election Center 2008), several things suggest that Obama had an electoral mandate. First, he won 53% of the popular vote. The majority of citizens voted for him, his character, and his policies. Secondly, Obama also won the Electoral College. He only needed 270 votes to win, yet gained 365. I find this important because he clearly exceeded the requirement to become elected. The Electoral College itself is important to his electoral mandate because a situation similar to the 2000 election didn’t occur. In that election, the popular vote winner did not receive the majority of the electoral votes, which I would argue, decreased the Electoral College winner’s (the President Elect’s) electoral mandate. Thirdly, I would imagine many voters were fed up with the Republican Party and their handling of the White House with George W. Bush. Obama’s appeal to many citizens was his slogan, “Change We Can Believe In”. He gave large numbers of American voters hope and belief for the future. He offered up change for Washington D.C. and placed a lot of emphasis on bipartisanship. In my opinion, this is what “sealed the deal” for voters to vote for Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama, giving him an electoral mandate.
I also believe President Barack Obama still enjoys this electoral mandate into his presidency. It is a little more difficult for me to interpret his mandate now because we are still in the Honeymoon Period of his presidency (the first 100 days). His approval rating will still be relatively high during this time frame because he has just taken office and is getting into the “swing of things”, and the media tends to be a bit more favorable as well during this time. Obama does seem to be delivering on some of his promises made during the campaign, such as bipartisanship and change to Washington D.C. as mentioned above. And, I think a lot of citizens see this in his calls to Congress for bipartisanship and the passing of important legislation to help fix our economy (and help the American people).
When looking at election results from 2008 on cnn.com (Election Center 2008), several things suggest that Obama had an electoral mandate. First, he won 53% of the popular vote. The majority of citizens voted for him, his character, and his policies. Secondly, Obama also won the Electoral College. He only needed 270 votes to win, yet gained 365. I find this important because he clearly exceeded the requirement to become elected. The Electoral College itself is important to his electoral mandate because a situation similar to the 2000 election didn’t occur. In that election, the popular vote winner did not receive the majority of the electoral votes, which I would argue, decreased the Electoral College winner’s (the President Elect’s) electoral mandate. Thirdly, I would imagine many voters were fed up with the Republican Party and their handling of the White House with George W. Bush. Obama’s appeal to many citizens was his slogan, “Change We Can Believe In”. He gave large numbers of American voters hope and belief for the future. He offered up change for Washington D.C. and placed a lot of emphasis on bipartisanship. In my opinion, this is what “sealed the deal” for voters to vote for Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama, giving him an electoral mandate.
I also believe President Barack Obama still enjoys this electoral mandate into his presidency. It is a little more difficult for me to interpret his mandate now because we are still in the Honeymoon Period of his presidency (the first 100 days). His approval rating will still be relatively high during this time frame because he has just taken office and is getting into the “swing of things”, and the media tends to be a bit more favorable as well during this time. Obama does seem to be delivering on some of his promises made during the campaign, such as bipartisanship and change to Washington D.C. as mentioned above. And, I think a lot of citizens see this in his calls to Congress for bipartisanship and the passing of important legislation to help fix our economy (and help the American people).
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama’s Budget Faces Test Among Party Barons
Obama has given his budget proposals to Democratic “Barons” in congress. The proposal was given to them with instructions from the president to “fill in the blanks”. But, these Democratic Congressmen are also taking things out.
I would think that Democrats would mostly agree on the types of things in this budget, including reducing tax breaks for the top 1 or 2 percent of the population in terms of wealth. But I was wrong. Congressmen of the president’s own party are making significant changes to Obama’s budget proposal.
I would think that Democrats would mostly agree on the types of things in this budget, including reducing tax breaks for the top 1 or 2 percent of the population in terms of wealth. But I was wrong. Congressmen of the president’s own party are making significant changes to Obama’s budget proposal.
Exit Polls and the Race Gap
Supporting evidence for the existence of the race gap still exists in election results today. According to CNN exit polls for the 2008 election, Sen. John McCain won the majority (55%) of white votes in the electorate (in which whites make up 74%). Sen. Barack Obama carried every other race listed on the exit poll. This includes: African Americans (95%), Latinos (67%), Asians (62%), and Others (66%), although these groups make up a substantially smaller portion of the electorate, 13%, 9%, 2%, and 3% respectively.
Looking back on the previous presidential election in 2004, we see that the race gap was an important factor too. In Laura R. Olson and John C Green’s article, “Introduction- ‘Gapology’ and the Presidential Vote,” they create a list of the largest “gaps” in the 2004 election. And not surprisingly, the race gap is at the top of the list. Bush won 58.7% of the white vote, and Kerry won 72.4% of the non white vote.
After analyzing the data from the past two presidential elections, it is clear that the race gap is still an important factor in presidential elections. Republican presidential nominees will most likely win the majority of the white votes and Democratic presidential nominees have a good chance of winning the majority of the non white votes.
*Side note: this week I learned that when analyzing exit polls, demographics are commonly used. These are things such as age, race, income, and religion or religious commitment (how many times per week Americans attend church). When looking at the data it is important to remember that these demographics don’t always work solo. In fact, many times two or more can work together.
I had a feeling when analyzing the race gap, that something else could be causing the gap, such as income. CNN’s exit polls do a good job of combining demographics. After looking at the table “Vote by Income and Race” it is clear that a race gap still exists, regardless of income.
Looking back on the previous presidential election in 2004, we see that the race gap was an important factor too. In Laura R. Olson and John C Green’s article, “Introduction- ‘Gapology’ and the Presidential Vote,” they create a list of the largest “gaps” in the 2004 election. And not surprisingly, the race gap is at the top of the list. Bush won 58.7% of the white vote, and Kerry won 72.4% of the non white vote.
After analyzing the data from the past two presidential elections, it is clear that the race gap is still an important factor in presidential elections. Republican presidential nominees will most likely win the majority of the white votes and Democratic presidential nominees have a good chance of winning the majority of the non white votes.
*Side note: this week I learned that when analyzing exit polls, demographics are commonly used. These are things such as age, race, income, and religion or religious commitment (how many times per week Americans attend church). When looking at the data it is important to remember that these demographics don’t always work solo. In fact, many times two or more can work together.
I had a feeling when analyzing the race gap, that something else could be causing the gap, such as income. CNN’s exit polls do a good job of combining demographics. After looking at the table “Vote by Income and Race” it is clear that a race gap still exists, regardless of income.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
GOP's road to comeback begins with '09 races
Since losing the White House to the Democrats in the 2008 presidential elections, the party states that they are on the road to comeback. Their claim is backed up by the winning of a Senate election and two congressional elections. But they claim it’s only the beginning.
Minority Opportunities in Congress
The minority party in the U.S. Congress, although seemingly useless, actually plays an important role in that of a democracy. The authors of our book, Hetherington and Keefe, point to a study by Charles O. Jones. In his study Jones identifies two types of forces that work alone and in combinations to shape the minority party. He classifies these forces as internal (inside the Congress) and external (those that originate outside of Congress). Examples of an external force include: the political strength of the minority party in the electorate, degree of unity within the parties outside of the Congress, and the power of the president and his willingness to use it. Internal forces are things such as: the majority’s margin over the minority party, effectiveness of both party’s leadership, and how long the party has been in a minority status.
The book points out that strategies for the minority party aren’t determined by party members or rank-and-file members, but rather are simply determined by, “opportunities that present themselves from time to time,” (Hetherington and Keefe 175). The situations that the party has little to no control over are the things that are going to influence the minority’s behavior.
I would imagine then, that the 214 Republican members who show up to work every day are waiting for the opportunity to present itself. Yes, they can’t do much to stop the Democratic coalition (a Democrat-controlled Congress and Democratic President Obama), but they can show up to work every day and wait for an opportunity to arise. There really isn’t much else they can do.
The book points out that strategies for the minority party aren’t determined by party members or rank-and-file members, but rather are simply determined by, “opportunities that present themselves from time to time,” (Hetherington and Keefe 175). The situations that the party has little to no control over are the things that are going to influence the minority’s behavior.
I would imagine then, that the 214 Republican members who show up to work every day are waiting for the opportunity to present itself. Yes, they can’t do much to stop the Democratic coalition (a Democrat-controlled Congress and Democratic President Obama), but they can show up to work every day and wait for an opportunity to arise. There really isn’t much else they can do.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Helicopter Plan Is Excessive, Obama and McCain Agree
This article is about spending on Marine One helicopters for the White House. Original plans have increased from about 6 billion to about 11 billion dollars. McCain and Obama both agree that ideas like this (that can be good ones) have literally cost taxpayers a ton of money.
Obama admits in the article that the helicopter he has is just fine, although he really has no real basis for comparison since he’s never owned a helicopter. It’s good to see politicians from each party agree that this type of spending is unnecessary, and should be limited.
Obama admits in the article that the helicopter he has is just fine, although he really has no real basis for comparison since he’s never owned a helicopter. It’s good to see politicians from each party agree that this type of spending is unnecessary, and should be limited.
2008 Elections-Candidates or Parties?
The candidates in the 2008 presidential elections did not seem like agents of their parties. It proved difficult for the Republicans to even nominate a candidate. Every major possibility (McCain, Huckabee, and Romney) each had their own group within the party that disapproved of their candidacy. So no matter who was nominated, there would be some group not satisfied. My point here is that it seems difficult for a candidate to be an agent of the party when the entire party doesn’t even support his/her candidacy. And on the Democratic side, I turn to the issue of fundraising, especially in Obama’s case. He was very successful at raising money, in large part because of smaller donations from many individuals. Here it seems he did a lot of his own work, not the party.
Advances in technology and communication have only shifted the balance between candidate and party-centered campaigns. In this past election, things seemed to be quite candidate-centered. Thanks to the internet, each candidate has the ability to create a website where voters can visit and learn more about the campaign. These websites are candidate-centered with only some reference to the parties. (For example, on Obama’s home page, there is a link to the DNC web page, but otherwise, little mentioning of the party is done on the main page.) Everything on the website has his name all over it, Obama this and Obama that… the “Obama Store” etc.
The Obama website seems to be following the advice of the Teachout article. She mentions how a website, all in one central place, can list contact information and give directions for citizens to local events. On Obama’s home page, there is a map of the United States in the top right corner with the heading, “Get Involved Now, Find an Event Near You.” This is clearly what Teachout is talking about in her article. Getting people out to local events is a key part of a candidate’s web-site. Teachout also mentions blogs and how Howard Dean used his “Blog for America” as a tool for reaching his supporters. This blog contained everything from news stories to struggles in campaigning for the presidency. Obama also keeps a blog on his website to inform his supporters of recent developments in the Obama administration. (I’m certain while campaigning though it was all about the campaign rather than the administration.)
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
After Stimulus Battle, Liberals Press Obama
Now that Obama’s economic stimulus bill has passed the House and Senate and been signed into law, something still remains in Washington. Democrats within the legislature are hoping that as Obama moves into other areas of policy, such as health care and energy, that he will be able to firmly stand his ground with the Republicans. And not leave the vote up to a few centrist senators. While most Democrats are happy that the stimulus bill passed, they are saddened that the bill was cut back. They feel the original bill would have done a better job at firming up our economy’s foundation. They hope that in the future Obama will take a more active role in drafting legislation.
Election Reform- Primaries and Campaign Finance
The introduction of primary elections to nominate candidates to public office yielded some fairly important unintended consequences. In general, primary elections have reduced the influence of the party organizations when it comes to nominating candidates. First off, the primaries are conducted according to state law, which gives less power to the party organization. The political party has relatively little say about how things work. Secondly, the purpose of introducing the primary system was to give more power to rank-and-file members of the party, rather than party leaders. Because of this, the party cannot reward supporters by nominating them for office. And because rank-and-file members pick the nominee, it is possible that unpopular members of the party, most likely those hostile towards party leaders, will get nominated.
Campaign finance reform is another area in which partisanship can be affected. I think it’s important to note here that the Republicans seriously opposed any major changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Mainly this is because Republicans notoriously were known for surpassing the Democrats in campaign funding. But, nonetheless, these reforms have banned the parties from raising and spending soft money on behalf of the candidates. They are only allowed to use hard money, contributed by Political Action Committees and individuals. This reform alone seriously damaged a party’s capability to support a candidate.
Efforts for reforming elections, introducing primaries and regulating campaign finance, have both been used to eliminate factions from American elections. While I agree with the attempt to “equal the playing field”, especially regarding campaign finance, I’m forced to believe that all factions cannot be removed from the American election process. There will always be someone or some group that can find loopholes in the legislation and use those to benefit their own interests. That being said, if it were possible to eliminate all factions from American elections, I don’t think we would want to. It would be a lot of work and involve a ton of oversight over the parties and their candidates. I don’t think it would be possible to regulate everything in the American election system. There’s just simply too much. And on top of that, there’s no guarantee that it would all work.
Campaign finance reform is another area in which partisanship can be affected. I think it’s important to note here that the Republicans seriously opposed any major changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Mainly this is because Republicans notoriously were known for surpassing the Democrats in campaign funding. But, nonetheless, these reforms have banned the parties from raising and spending soft money on behalf of the candidates. They are only allowed to use hard money, contributed by Political Action Committees and individuals. This reform alone seriously damaged a party’s capability to support a candidate.
Efforts for reforming elections, introducing primaries and regulating campaign finance, have both been used to eliminate factions from American elections. While I agree with the attempt to “equal the playing field”, especially regarding campaign finance, I’m forced to believe that all factions cannot be removed from the American election process. There will always be someone or some group that can find loopholes in the legislation and use those to benefit their own interests. That being said, if it were possible to eliminate all factions from American elections, I don’t think we would want to. It would be a lot of work and involve a ton of oversight over the parties and their candidates. I don’t think it would be possible to regulate everything in the American election system. There’s just simply too much. And on top of that, there’s no guarantee that it would all work.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Maine Senators Break With Republican Party on Stimulus
My previous post was concerned with decentralization and how it can impede effective partisan action. The current debate in the Senate over the president’s stimulus package is no exception. In this article we see two republican senators who have broken from the Republican Party and voted yes for the bill. They may be voting against other senators in their own party, but when asked why, they reply that they are doing what the people of Maine elected them to do.
Decentralized Politics
The American political system, because of its structure, tends to decentralize political power and has a significant effect on political parties. It is Federalism, or the dividing of power between the national government and individual state governments, that makes it harder for political parties to do their jobs. Not only is there the American government, but also 50 additional state governments. And in each state then, 50 different democratic or republican parties can form. And these parties that form in each state can be and are somewhat different from one another. These differences can make it hard for those people in the party to get along and accomplish their (electoral) goals.
A logical response to American political heterogeneity would be the formation of different “branches” of the same party in various states. American’s interests are so diverse that diverse parties are needed. The decentralization of political power in part causes these different opinions because each state may have different concerns and interests. Unfortunately, decentralization does have the potential to impede effective partisan action. The party has become quite diverse and divisions have been created throughout the party. For example, The Wisconsin Democrats may see things a bit differently than the Wyoming Democrats, and may not be able to work together.
When I think of dissention within a party, the 2008 democratic primary race comes to mind. The race for delegates was close, and some democrats supported Hilary Clinton, while others favored Barack Obama. The whole primary race was one that created division within the Democratic Party. This had the potential to cost the democrats the Presidency.
Right now it’s a bit difficult for me to identify the leader of the Republican Party. What I’m hoping for though is that democrats and republicans can “get in line” behind the new president. In the news Americans hear about Obama’s push for bipartisanship. But not only does this mean democrats working with republicans and vice versa, it also means democrats working with democrats and republicans with republicans.
A logical response to American political heterogeneity would be the formation of different “branches” of the same party in various states. American’s interests are so diverse that diverse parties are needed. The decentralization of political power in part causes these different opinions because each state may have different concerns and interests. Unfortunately, decentralization does have the potential to impede effective partisan action. The party has become quite diverse and divisions have been created throughout the party. For example, The Wisconsin Democrats may see things a bit differently than the Wyoming Democrats, and may not be able to work together.
When I think of dissention within a party, the 2008 democratic primary race comes to mind. The race for delegates was close, and some democrats supported Hilary Clinton, while others favored Barack Obama. The whole primary race was one that created division within the Democratic Party. This had the potential to cost the democrats the Presidency.
Right now it’s a bit difficult for me to identify the leader of the Republican Party. What I’m hoping for though is that democrats and republicans can “get in line” behind the new president. In the news Americans hear about Obama’s push for bipartisanship. But not only does this mean democrats working with republicans and vice versa, it also means democrats working with democrats and republicans with republicans.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Obama Set to Add Republican to Cabinet
This article is about President Obama’s pick for Commerce Secretary. His nominee is Republican Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire. James Madison had mentioned in The Federalist No 10 that political parties stemmed from society’s preferences and factions. And it was these that caused the parties to resent each other. Obama (regardless of any personal opinions) is doing something for the common good by working across party lines. Something that Madison stated wasn’t likely to happen. By creating a bipartisan cabinet, he is bringing multiple view points and various areas of expertise and specialization into the discussion. Regardless of his party, many believe that Gregg is qualified for the job. However, Gregg refuses to leave the Senate if his seat will be lost to a Democrat, which would therefore disrupt the current balance of senators.
What is a Political Party???
Political parties have not always existed in the United States, but rather have developed in the arena of politics since even the early days of Congress. Political parties have developed out of different preferences of the public and their factions.
Professor Tofias, in the notes for this week, began by referencing an equation called, “the first fundamental equation of political science” (an idea of Charles Plott). Where “Preferences X Institutions = Outcomes”. I find this equation thought-stimulating because political parties can be thought of as either preferences or institutions within the political system. The way I have always thought about parties is that they are groups that originate from citizen’s wide array of preferences, or also through their sometimes dissenting opinions or factions. But political parties can also be thought of as institutions in which our preferences are converted into political outcomes, as an arena for expressing our preferences. Or perhaps can political parties be thought of as both?
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 10, discusses factions and the role they have played in shaping the roles and positions of man-kind. He argues that the factions within mankind have split them into parties. Here he sheds a dim light on mankind by saying that the dislike among these parties causes them to loathe the thought of each other instead working together for the “common good” of society. In his opinion, it is through government that these feelings of animosity can be controlled.
One more point from the readings this week. I found George Washington’s farewell address to be rather pessimistic about political parties. While Tom Delay’s farewell address to the House of Representatives takes the opposite view of political parties and somewhat embraces their existence. I’m perplexed by the transition between these two contrasting views, and hope that this course will help me understand it further.
Professor Tofias, in the notes for this week, began by referencing an equation called, “the first fundamental equation of political science” (an idea of Charles Plott). Where “Preferences X Institutions = Outcomes”. I find this equation thought-stimulating because political parties can be thought of as either preferences or institutions within the political system. The way I have always thought about parties is that they are groups that originate from citizen’s wide array of preferences, or also through their sometimes dissenting opinions or factions. But political parties can also be thought of as institutions in which our preferences are converted into political outcomes, as an arena for expressing our preferences. Or perhaps can political parties be thought of as both?
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 10, discusses factions and the role they have played in shaping the roles and positions of man-kind. He argues that the factions within mankind have split them into parties. Here he sheds a dim light on mankind by saying that the dislike among these parties causes them to loathe the thought of each other instead working together for the “common good” of society. In his opinion, it is through government that these feelings of animosity can be controlled.
One more point from the readings this week. I found George Washington’s farewell address to be rather pessimistic about political parties. While Tom Delay’s farewell address to the House of Representatives takes the opposite view of political parties and somewhat embraces their existence. I’m perplexed by the transition between these two contrasting views, and hope that this course will help me understand it further.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Introductions
Hello everyone, my name is Hannah. I'm a political science major here at UW-Milwaukee. I work as a teller at Educator's Credit Union and love my job. It's nice to be able to say that, as not many people truly love their jobs. I cannot wait to graduate, although I have no clue what type of job I'll end up in.
I live in Oak Creek with my boyfriend of three years, Shawn. He is currently attending ITT Technical Institute for Electronics Engineering. He will graduate in March with his bachelor's degree. I also have a cat, Chase who will be three years old in March. He's all grown up, but still acts like a kitten. He has so much energy and loves to play and get into trouble! (As I type he is on the kitchen counter, where he should definitely NOT be!!)
I took this class to gain a better understanding of American Politics. The classes I have taken so far in political science are more of an international or comparative nature. While I feel I know quite a bit about the American political system, there are still many things I don't understand. I'm hoping this class with shed some light on those areas.
I have taken online classes before and have done pretty well, but blogging is something completely new to me, but I'm hoping it will be fun. I enjoyed setting up the blog and picking all the colors. I think it looks pretty cool!
This semester my schedule is filled with 400-level classes, and this class is no exception. I'm excited to learn more, the work may be a challenge, but I'm up for it!
I live in Oak Creek with my boyfriend of three years, Shawn. He is currently attending ITT Technical Institute for Electronics Engineering. He will graduate in March with his bachelor's degree. I also have a cat, Chase who will be three years old in March. He's all grown up, but still acts like a kitten. He has so much energy and loves to play and get into trouble! (As I type he is on the kitchen counter, where he should definitely NOT be!!)
I took this class to gain a better understanding of American Politics. The classes I have taken so far in political science are more of an international or comparative nature. While I feel I know quite a bit about the American political system, there are still many things I don't understand. I'm hoping this class with shed some light on those areas.
I have taken online classes before and have done pretty well, but blogging is something completely new to me, but I'm hoping it will be fun. I enjoyed setting up the blog and picking all the colors. I think it looks pretty cool!
This semester my schedule is filled with 400-level classes, and this class is no exception. I'm excited to learn more, the work may be a challenge, but I'm up for it!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)