On the surface, the recent party switch of Arlen Specter seems to support the media claim that America has become polarized (It also throws a little fuel on the fire of our recent debate concerning the resiliency of the Republican party). On the surface, one could easily assume that Americans have become so consumed with social issues that the members of the odd party out are beginning to jump ship. However, from the perspective of both Morris Fiorina and John Aldrich, this is not the case. Based on their arguments, the state of the party system in America is quite stable.
So what would they say about Arlen Specter?
Fiorina would say that Specter's switch is part of a natural process among political elites but doesn't represent the political electorate as a whole. He would contend that Specter's decision to switch parties is representative of the "sorting" process. Specter is well known to be one of the moderate Republicans and more than likely switched because the Democratic party now more closely reflects Specter's political ideology or that specter's ideology changed altogether and is now better reflected in the ideological stance of the Democrats. However as shown below, neither of these is the case. It is here that Aldrich's argument concerning the career politician is dead on.
Based on a portion of Aldrich's argument proposed in Why Parties, Specter's party switch had little to do with the perceived "culture war" and more to do with career ambition. In all, Aldrich argues that politicians choose the party that gives them the best chance at a long political career:
"...politicians turn form their political party- that is, [they] use its powers, resources and institutional forms- when they believe doing so increases their prospects for winning desired outcomes, and they turn from it if it does not (Aldrich Pg. 24)."
Specter apparently came to the understanding that remaining a Republican would seriously hamper his chances for re-election (Read this article) and thus decided a switch to the Democratic party was the best career move to make.
In all, the recent shift of Specter indicates on the surface that the Republican party (at least in the way it represents the ideologies of political elites) is transforming. However, it may not amount to much. Not long ago, Joe Leiberman switched from the Democratic to the Republican party. Also consider that at the time he did so, media pundits were claiming that the Democratic party was in need of a major overhaul. This exemplifies Fiorina's argument in that the media at large are mostly responsible for the illusion of a polarized America. Since conflict seems to be the only aspect of politics the media deems newsworthy, only issues such as the switch of Specter are reported in any volume thus depicting the raging "culture war". In reality however, there is no such thing as a "culture war", just a continual fluctuation of media attention on specific issues that are bounced around among the elites. And as irony would have it, the media pundits are elites.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
What's the Matter with Thomas Franks?
After reading Lie Down for America by Thomas Frank, I had to seriously question my own voting behavior and motives. Had I been duped into voting against my own economic interest by cleverly packaged "social issues"? In a way I have to admit yes. I am a Christian. Abortion and gender issues are important to what I think the America I live in represents. But in analyzing rhetoric of this magnitude, its important to maintain an objective stance. So I digress... In all, Frank presents a convincing argument filled with enough anecdotes of those poor stupid Americans I nearly wanted to cry... Seriously! Without question, he is indeed an eloquent writer painting a stark picture of what he perceives to be the crumbling democratic base of the Great Plains. But what's most important in factual analysis is, well.... facts! In this regard Larry Bartels, in his essay titled What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas, presents a much clearer picture of the voting trends of the stupid poor Americans. Backed by solid empirical statistical analysis, he clearly demonstrates that Frank's argument is more or less "engaged storytelling (Bartels Pg. 225)."
Lets first begin with Frank's assessment of what he terms "the Great Backlash". He describes the movements basic thrust as a social movement opposed to the greater economic interests of traditionally Blue-America: "...culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern (Frank Pg. 34)." In all, what's really important to America's blue-collar voters according to Frank is not the ever present economic issues, but rather the social issues such as abortion, gender issues, gun-control, etc. A main staple of his argument is based on the demographics of certain voting regions of Kansas- his microcosm of America- where he argues that America's poorest county ironically voted Republican. The question that has to asked at this point, seeing as so much of Frank's argument rests on this notion, is this really an accurate microcosm of America's lower income voting trends? The answer is no.
Before I go any further with this argument, I must first debase my own notions of bias towards empirical statistical analysis. If you go back and read my post titled The Rocket Science of Empirical Statistical Analysis, you'll see that my argument mirrors Frank's quite eerily, minus Kansas of course. Part of that was based on my lack of comprehension of the material being studied. Statistics take time to understand and are tedious to compile. In all, I'm stained by the torture I endured when was required by the University to take a statistics class and I still maintain that anybody that thinks its fun is simply and purely sadistic! But in reality, numbers don't lie. In this, facts can be drawn and yes, Frank's anecdotes can be debased for what they are- anomalies.
Thomas uses NES statistics to paint an altogether different picture than that of Frank. According to his analysis, "Democratic vote shares from the lower [third] of the white electorate... [are] 51% (Bartels Pg. 208)." This data essentially debunks Frank's assessment as a whole. If the poorest third of the country as a whole still votes Democrat, then what of Frank's "Great Backlash"? Is that poor rural Kansas county a flash in the pan or a true microcosm of America as a whole? In this lies the main weakness of Franks argument. One in which Bartels clearly explains. There was indeed a shift in voting patterns, but if anything the shift didn't take place in Kansas, but rather in the South. In the last 14 elections, Bartels shows through NES data that the "Democratic presidential vote share... declined by almost 20 percentage points among southern whites... (Bartels Pg. 210)." Bartels also goes on to state "[This trend casts] considerable doubt on the plausibility of accounts positing broad national shifts in working-class political behavior (211)."
The problem then with Frank's argument is not in its accuracy regarding that poor Kansas county, but on his assumption that that county represents the voting interests of America as a whole. Bartels has clearly shown that is just not the case and the recent landslide election and rise of the Democratic party to majority control of congress further proves the validity of his data. If social issues such as the ones briefly mentioned above are the driving force behind the "Great Backlash", well then what of that backlash? If Frank was right in his assessment of the shifting voting patterns wouldn't the recent election have reflected that sentiment? But it didn't. What were left with then is the fact that as a whole, consistent with Bartels argument, the working class still and always has voted Democrat.
Lets first begin with Frank's assessment of what he terms "the Great Backlash". He describes the movements basic thrust as a social movement opposed to the greater economic interests of traditionally Blue-America: "...culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern (Frank Pg. 34)." In all, what's really important to America's blue-collar voters according to Frank is not the ever present economic issues, but rather the social issues such as abortion, gender issues, gun-control, etc. A main staple of his argument is based on the demographics of certain voting regions of Kansas- his microcosm of America- where he argues that America's poorest county ironically voted Republican. The question that has to asked at this point, seeing as so much of Frank's argument rests on this notion, is this really an accurate microcosm of America's lower income voting trends? The answer is no.
Before I go any further with this argument, I must first debase my own notions of bias towards empirical statistical analysis. If you go back and read my post titled The Rocket Science of Empirical Statistical Analysis, you'll see that my argument mirrors Frank's quite eerily, minus Kansas of course. Part of that was based on my lack of comprehension of the material being studied. Statistics take time to understand and are tedious to compile. In all, I'm stained by the torture I endured when was required by the University to take a statistics class and I still maintain that anybody that thinks its fun is simply and purely sadistic! But in reality, numbers don't lie. In this, facts can be drawn and yes, Frank's anecdotes can be debased for what they are- anomalies.
Thomas uses NES statistics to paint an altogether different picture than that of Frank. According to his analysis, "Democratic vote shares from the lower [third] of the white electorate... [are] 51% (Bartels Pg. 208)." This data essentially debunks Frank's assessment as a whole. If the poorest third of the country as a whole still votes Democrat, then what of Frank's "Great Backlash"? Is that poor rural Kansas county a flash in the pan or a true microcosm of America as a whole? In this lies the main weakness of Franks argument. One in which Bartels clearly explains. There was indeed a shift in voting patterns, but if anything the shift didn't take place in Kansas, but rather in the South. In the last 14 elections, Bartels shows through NES data that the "Democratic presidential vote share... declined by almost 20 percentage points among southern whites... (Bartels Pg. 210)." Bartels also goes on to state "[This trend casts] considerable doubt on the plausibility of accounts positing broad national shifts in working-class political behavior (211)."
The problem then with Frank's argument is not in its accuracy regarding that poor Kansas county, but on his assumption that that county represents the voting interests of America as a whole. Bartels has clearly shown that is just not the case and the recent landslide election and rise of the Democratic party to majority control of congress further proves the validity of his data. If social issues such as the ones briefly mentioned above are the driving force behind the "Great Backlash", well then what of that backlash? If Frank was right in his assessment of the shifting voting patterns wouldn't the recent election have reflected that sentiment? But it didn't. What were left with then is the fact that as a whole, consistent with Bartels argument, the working class still and always has voted Democrat.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The People's Party
In the event that one of the major parties collapsed, a political vacuum of sorts would follow shortly thereafter. As seen in the 1850's, once the Whig party became irrelevant, several smaller fringe parties stepped to the front. With the exception of the "Know-Nothing" (American) party, these smaller fringe parties didn't have much success because of their extreme platforms. But out of the ashes of once extreme Abolitionists, former Whigs and Know-nothings rose the Republican party we know today- a sort of hodge-podge of the former smaller parties. Fast forward to a hypothetical collapse of the Republican party: If history is consistent with what happened in the 1850's and smaller parties such as the Socialist party, the Green party or the libertarian party were to coalesce with former Republicans, a party altogether different from that of the Republican party would surely emerge.
With that said, a potential "new party" that consists as a coalition between the above listed parties could look something like this:
Platform:
1. Against big business and big government.
2. Heavy emphasis on the protection of individual liberties.
3. A renewed focus on the United States as a world leader in areas including, but not limited to: Environmental protection, reduction of greed and rampant global capitalism through greater citizen involvement in government and big business, elimination of partisan politics through the establishment of one universal party- "the people's party".
For this party to advance it would need to be successful at a grass-roots level. Those that are disenfranchised by the economic downturn including the working class and lower level "white-collar" political activists would make up its primary electoral base. The Midwest would most likely become its political strong hold as well as what was the former Republican South. Much of the growth would initially start in regions experiencing the worst of the current political and economic changes. As far as leadership, Brian Moore or Ron Paul would be logical choices for President.
With that said, a potential "new party" that consists as a coalition between the above listed parties could look something like this:
Platform:
1. Against big business and big government.
2. Heavy emphasis on the protection of individual liberties.
3. A renewed focus on the United States as a world leader in areas including, but not limited to: Environmental protection, reduction of greed and rampant global capitalism through greater citizen involvement in government and big business, elimination of partisan politics through the establishment of one universal party- "the people's party".
For this party to advance it would need to be successful at a grass-roots level. Those that are disenfranchised by the economic downturn including the working class and lower level "white-collar" political activists would make up its primary electoral base. The Midwest would most likely become its political strong hold as well as what was the former Republican South. Much of the growth would initially start in regions experiencing the worst of the current political and economic changes. As far as leadership, Brian Moore or Ron Paul would be logical choices for President.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Vitality of the Republican Party.
In our text reading for this week, the author mentioned several reasons for the demise of the Whig party in and around 1852. Briefly mentioned among these was the party's failed attempt at courting the immigrant and Catholic vote that had been predominantly Democrat. For the most part the Whigs seemed desperate, and as Aldrich points out in his ambitious politician theory, the party crumbled because it could no longer provide a vehicle for the success of up-and-coming politicians. In essence, the Whigs were no longer relevant or able to meet the demands of shifting demographics and coalitions. The compromise of 1850 was the last great success of the party and after those success were essentially destroyed by the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Whigs all but ceased to exist. The question posed then is: are the republicans making the same mistakes? Have they ceased to be relevant and as a result losing there coalitions represented in various demographics? To an extent they may be, but not to the overall detriment and longevity of the party itself.
Several shifts have recently taken place that have changed the face of current issues the two parties have to contend with: The war in Iraq has soured many to the position of the Republicans and their support for George W. Bush and the economy receded considerably. Regarding the former, the president as was mentioned in one of my previous blogs. His approval ratings reached historic lows. He was certainly one of the most controversial presidents in recent history. To make matters worse, he was in the White House during a cataclysmic housing melt-down that soured Republican prospects even further. These two issues of course are obvious and perhaps the most well known which is why I included them as examples for this argument.
But are the Republicans breathing their dying breath? See this article. Certainly not! As was suggested in the blog assignment under module 9 notes, this is a similar situation to 1994 and 2002. Much of the irrelevancy has stemmed from a rebellion to the previous eight years of Republican dominance and carelessness. Rewind to 2002. The republicans got a boost form current events as the war on terror was in full swing. People had grown unsure of our place in the world and wanted a party in charge that proved they had the where with all to do what was necessary apart from diplomacy. Americans were pissed. As a side-effect, the Republican party became a direct benefactor of the changing mood in America. Fast forward to 2008. The economy is in shambles. Hard working people lost considerable amounts of money in the market. The Republicans took the blame and perhaps rightly so.
In the late '60's and '70's as the civil rights movement changed the political landscape of the Democrat strong-hold south, there were probably pundits claiming the same. "The Democratic party is irrelevant!" But as we have learned in this class, coalitions change. The world of party politics is ever evolving. As the parties lose certain coalitions they gain others.
With this said, is the Republican party in a period of flux similar to that the Democrats faced in the '70's? Yes. The point I'm making is that the two parties have proven their resiliency over more than 140 years. The political landscape will continue to change requiring the continual evolution of the parties themselves. The Democrats would love to proclaim the irrelevancy of the Republican party and usher in their own period of "good feelings". However, as time has testified, they may have to wait quite a while.
Several shifts have recently taken place that have changed the face of current issues the two parties have to contend with: The war in Iraq has soured many to the position of the Republicans and their support for George W. Bush and the economy receded considerably. Regarding the former, the president as was mentioned in one of my previous blogs. His approval ratings reached historic lows. He was certainly one of the most controversial presidents in recent history. To make matters worse, he was in the White House during a cataclysmic housing melt-down that soured Republican prospects even further. These two issues of course are obvious and perhaps the most well known which is why I included them as examples for this argument.
But are the Republicans breathing their dying breath? See this article. Certainly not! As was suggested in the blog assignment under module 9 notes, this is a similar situation to 1994 and 2002. Much of the irrelevancy has stemmed from a rebellion to the previous eight years of Republican dominance and carelessness. Rewind to 2002. The republicans got a boost form current events as the war on terror was in full swing. People had grown unsure of our place in the world and wanted a party in charge that proved they had the where with all to do what was necessary apart from diplomacy. Americans were pissed. As a side-effect, the Republican party became a direct benefactor of the changing mood in America. Fast forward to 2008. The economy is in shambles. Hard working people lost considerable amounts of money in the market. The Republicans took the blame and perhaps rightly so.
In the late '60's and '70's as the civil rights movement changed the political landscape of the Democrat strong-hold south, there were probably pundits claiming the same. "The Democratic party is irrelevant!" But as we have learned in this class, coalitions change. The world of party politics is ever evolving. As the parties lose certain coalitions they gain others.
With this said, is the Republican party in a period of flux similar to that the Democrats faced in the '70's? Yes. The point I'm making is that the two parties have proven their resiliency over more than 140 years. The political landscape will continue to change requiring the continual evolution of the parties themselves. The Democrats would love to proclaim the irrelevancy of the Republican party and usher in their own period of "good feelings". However, as time has testified, they may have to wait quite a while.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Electoral Mandate
An electoral mandate can be considered one of those political gray areas. The case can be made towards either end of the spectrum. Just the ability to get elected could be considered an electoral mandate or on the other end only when there's a landslide victory could we consider it the true sign of an electoral mandate. Did Barak Obama have an electoral mandate and if so does he still? I don't think there's a clear-cut answer to this question because of the nature of the definition posed. But if we look at the numbers and margin of victory for the newly elected president we can resonably conclude that the electorate clearly chose a diferent direction for the leadership of our country and for the sake of this blog we will consider that choice a mandate.
Any given election won't really stray far from center as far as percentages goes. For the most part, solid party identifiers vote accordingly thus resulting in a range from 40-55% of the total vote. For example, check out this blog: Obama won the popular vote with a 53% majority compared to John McCain's 46%- roughly 7.5 million more people voted for Obama than McCain. However the critical difference, as in any presidential election, is the amount of electoral votes. In this regard Obama won by a landslide- (364-163).
In this instance, Obama's election clearly meets my broad criteria defining an electoral mandate. First, he was elected and second, he was elected by a landslide. The question remains then whether or not that mandate still exists.
Once the president is elected, and in this case enjoys untied executive and legislative branches under the same party, any mandate has essentially become null and void. The Democrats are now in control of two-thirds of the government and as a majority can grant goods as they see fit. The only constrain on their behavior is the electorate and the reality of future elections. In this regard, the promised "change" will have to be observed. In two years time, we will know whether or not he lost his mandate.
Any given election won't really stray far from center as far as percentages goes. For the most part, solid party identifiers vote accordingly thus resulting in a range from 40-55% of the total vote. For example, check out this blog: Obama won the popular vote with a 53% majority compared to John McCain's 46%- roughly 7.5 million more people voted for Obama than McCain. However the critical difference, as in any presidential election, is the amount of electoral votes. In this regard Obama won by a landslide- (364-163).
In this instance, Obama's election clearly meets my broad criteria defining an electoral mandate. First, he was elected and second, he was elected by a landslide. The question remains then whether or not that mandate still exists.
Once the president is elected, and in this case enjoys untied executive and legislative branches under the same party, any mandate has essentially become null and void. The Democrats are now in control of two-thirds of the government and as a majority can grant goods as they see fit. The only constrain on their behavior is the electorate and the reality of future elections. In this regard, the promised "change" will have to be observed. In two years time, we will know whether or not he lost his mandate.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Rocket Science of Statistical Political Analysis
Disclaimer: I must admit, this is a very difficult topic for me to write on convincingly for the simply fact that I'm not quite convinced I know what I'm talking about. This is my first political science class ever and for the most part I'm trying my best to gain at least something from the onslaught of incredibly complex information. To understand statistics is one thing. To make a convincing argument based on a subject I know so little about is another. I have done all the readings and have studied the material, yet I feel like I am studying rocket science and now I need to explain the probability as to why or why not the rocket will fly.
In our textbook titled Parties, Politics, and Public Policy, the authors make the broad statement that, as a general rule, the choices and direction of the major party we lean or affirm with, directs our opinion regarding the issues at hand. I believe this statement is misleading at best. A closer look at the impact of ideological issues clearly demonstrates that party allegiance began to polarize since 1973 (as a side note, it is interesting to me that this year coincides with the Roe v. Wade decision). According to Larry Bartels, "regional alignment in the south and the influence of ideological extremists in both parties... have combined to produce a marked polarization of the national parties... (Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 44)." Many political scientists point to the shift of the ideological underpinnings of the Democratic party- most notably civil rights and abortion- as the primary culprits for this "realignment". If this is the case then there must certainly be social issues at work, aside from party identification, to initiate the shifts we see today.
Fast forward to the 2008 presidential and congressional elections (Please see this exit pole). There is a clear pattern of "strong identifiers" voting according to party which is to be expected, but what's more interesting to note is the moderate/other voting patterns. I understand this voting strata to be unidentified with a major party or at best a weak-identifier. In the category titled as "Voting by Party ID", the moderate vote clearly shifted in favor of Democrat, but not by a striking number. Look two more sections down under the heading titled "Voting by Ideology". When comparing these two categories, the shift in voting pattern among the moderate/other is the most striking statistic in that it is almost a two to one ratio in favor of Democrat. Why such an extreme shift? Once again, we have to look at the potential social issues which are swaying the rank and file voters. When polled, most voters agreed that they disapproved of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. See this article. Since the beginning of the war, his approval rating dropped 40 points. Its no surprise that the following election marked a clear shift away from the incumbent party. This is indicative of a public that has a moral agenda and votes accordingly.
The point I'm making here is that, aside from the party hard-liners, political views are ideologically based. The hard line party followers will always vote according to party, but the rest of the public (independents, moderates, weak leaners) vote according to their moral compass. In light of this, I believe the argument of Heatherington and Keefe is shaky at best. Our values are instilled by our perceptions of the world and our concept of right and wrong and thus reflected in our political actions- not the other way around. These values are established through a vast array of psychological, religious and social experiences accrued throughout a lifetime and are not easily explained through empirical statistical analysis. Statistics may be a good gauge for comparing patterns of voting over time, but do not altogether explain the motives that initiate the shifts. They are simply too complicated... Kinda like rocket science.
Alas, the rocket has taken off. Perhaps its the fluctuation in the fin ratio used to dampen wind friction. No, no, no... Its the composition and density of the alloy used in the cone. No, no, no... the fuel dispersion/weight compilations are just wrong... No, No, no... Ah Phooey!
In our textbook titled Parties, Politics, and Public Policy, the authors make the broad statement that, as a general rule, the choices and direction of the major party we lean or affirm with, directs our opinion regarding the issues at hand. I believe this statement is misleading at best. A closer look at the impact of ideological issues clearly demonstrates that party allegiance began to polarize since 1973 (as a side note, it is interesting to me that this year coincides with the Roe v. Wade decision). According to Larry Bartels, "regional alignment in the south and the influence of ideological extremists in both parties... have combined to produce a marked polarization of the national parties... (Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 44)." Many political scientists point to the shift of the ideological underpinnings of the Democratic party- most notably civil rights and abortion- as the primary culprits for this "realignment". If this is the case then there must certainly be social issues at work, aside from party identification, to initiate the shifts we see today.
Fast forward to the 2008 presidential and congressional elections (Please see this exit pole). There is a clear pattern of "strong identifiers" voting according to party which is to be expected, but what's more interesting to note is the moderate/other voting patterns. I understand this voting strata to be unidentified with a major party or at best a weak-identifier. In the category titled as "Voting by Party ID", the moderate vote clearly shifted in favor of Democrat, but not by a striking number. Look two more sections down under the heading titled "Voting by Ideology". When comparing these two categories, the shift in voting pattern among the moderate/other is the most striking statistic in that it is almost a two to one ratio in favor of Democrat. Why such an extreme shift? Once again, we have to look at the potential social issues which are swaying the rank and file voters. When polled, most voters agreed that they disapproved of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. See this article. Since the beginning of the war, his approval rating dropped 40 points. Its no surprise that the following election marked a clear shift away from the incumbent party. This is indicative of a public that has a moral agenda and votes accordingly.
The point I'm making here is that, aside from the party hard-liners, political views are ideologically based. The hard line party followers will always vote according to party, but the rest of the public (independents, moderates, weak leaners) vote according to their moral compass. In light of this, I believe the argument of Heatherington and Keefe is shaky at best. Our values are instilled by our perceptions of the world and our concept of right and wrong and thus reflected in our political actions- not the other way around. These values are established through a vast array of psychological, religious and social experiences accrued throughout a lifetime and are not easily explained through empirical statistical analysis. Statistics may be a good gauge for comparing patterns of voting over time, but do not altogether explain the motives that initiate the shifts. They are simply too complicated... Kinda like rocket science.
Alas, the rocket has taken off. Perhaps its the fluctuation in the fin ratio used to dampen wind friction. No, no, no... Its the composition and density of the alloy used in the cone. No, no, no... the fuel dispersion/weight compilations are just wrong... No, No, no... Ah Phooey!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Its all about positioning isn't it?
When considering exactly what role the minority party has in our democracy you have to first look at their motives. As we have already learned, the primary goal of either party is to maintain or regain power. In this regard, the minority party, although not in power, has the ability to move in a different direction than the majority. They can stand against the issues the majority party favors as a means to strategically define their position in order to regain the majority in the future (the epitome of bipartisian politics). Examples of this could be seen in opposition to bail-outs or economic policies favored by the current majority party- the Democrats.
If the bail-outs prove to hyper-inflate the dollar and essentially make a bad situation worse, the Republicans, by opposing the ever increasing cash handouts, could strategically reinforce their position as the party that had it right all the while. What I'm getting at here is opposition voting. Its true that the Republicans can do little to stop the Democratic "juggernaut", but if the tide turns as they think it will, they will have strategically placed themselves in a position to regain power. After all, this is basically the exact strategy the Democrats used during the Bush years. They opposed many of his policies, most notably the Iraq war, and as a result, when public opinion turned, they regained power.
Please check out this article. It is older (pre-Obama) but I think it exemplifies my point clearly. Notice how Nancy Pelosi makes it quite clear that this is actually the brain child of the Bush administration. Yet most of the Republicans opposed it. Strange. Of course the fallout from the massive bailouts has yet to make its full economic impact, I suspect that in the future, congressional elections will again favor the Republicans and I don't think it will take 40 years this time.
If the bail-outs prove to hyper-inflate the dollar and essentially make a bad situation worse, the Republicans, by opposing the ever increasing cash handouts, could strategically reinforce their position as the party that had it right all the while. What I'm getting at here is opposition voting. Its true that the Republicans can do little to stop the Democratic "juggernaut", but if the tide turns as they think it will, they will have strategically placed themselves in a position to regain power. After all, this is basically the exact strategy the Democrats used during the Bush years. They opposed many of his policies, most notably the Iraq war, and as a result, when public opinion turned, they regained power.
Please check out this article. It is older (pre-Obama) but I think it exemplifies my point clearly. Notice how Nancy Pelosi makes it quite clear that this is actually the brain child of the Bush administration. Yet most of the Republicans opposed it. Strange. Of course the fallout from the massive bailouts has yet to make its full economic impact, I suspect that in the future, congressional elections will again favor the Republicans and I don't think it will take 40 years this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)