David Gergen Finally said something I agree with

[Concordia 33]

I rarely agree with his positions, but he said something recently that I agree with.......

President Franklin Roosevelt helped to fire up the dream during his second term in office. Coming off a massive landslide in 1936, he believed that it would be far better for governing if the Democrats became the liberal party and Republicans the conservative one. In the 1938 congressional elections, he barnstormed across the South trying to purge the Democratic Party of several incumbent conservatives. His efforts backfired -- the incumbents won and were sore at FDR -- but the dream became a staple of politics.

In 1950, for example, in one of the landmark studies in political science -- one still read today by undergraduate majors -- some of the best minds of the day argued strongly that the nation would benefit from more ideologically "coherent" parties: that things would be better if Democrats stood firmly for a liberal ideology and Republicans for a conservative one.

That way, people would have clear choices, they would know what they were voting for, and they could count on their party delivering if it were in power. "Shoo out those racially suspect Sunbelt conservatives from Democratic ranks and those lily-livered Northeastern liberals from the GOP. And maybe some of those moderates, too." So the thinking went.

Well, in recent years, we have seen the dream come true. And guess what? It is producing a mess. As each of the parties has moved toward ideological purity, our politics have become ever more polarized, our governing ever more paralyzed. Extremists increasingly run the show.

[Norman Bernstein]

I agree, as well. Political parties shouldn't be 'straightjackets of the conscience'... and that is precisely what the polarizing influences in politics these days actually want. I could point out groups like the Tea Party, the evangelist conservatives, etc... and would point out the same thing on the left, except that I can't think of any, on the left.

[leikec]

I agree, as well. Political parties shouldn't be 'straightjackets of the conscience'... and that is precisely what the polarizing influences in politics these days actually want. I could point out groups like the Tea Party, the evangelist conservatives, etc... and would point out the same thing on the left, except that I can't think of any, on the left.

Really?


How would you categorize MoveOn.org, or DemocracyforAmerica.com?

Jeff C

[Norman Bernstein]

Really?


How would you categorize MoveOn.org, or DemocracyforAmerica.com?

Jeff C

I can't speak for the second one. MoveOn.org is a lot more of a muckraker in the mid-20th century tradition, than a polarizer.

[Uncle Duke]

Really?


How would you categorize MoveOn.org, or DemocracyforAmerica.com?

Jeff C

I think it would be hard to categorize them either as "political parties" or as "sub-sets of parties" - neither of them are actively working to get their membership elected to office. More like agenda-driven PR firms.

Tea party, on the other hand, actively (and successfully) promotes candidates from inside their membership.

[Osborne Russell]

I rarely agree with his positions, but he said something recently that I agree with.......

Coming off a massive landslide in 1936, he believed that it would be far better for governing if the Democrats became the liberal party and Republicans the conservative one.

1. What evidence is there of this?
2. In what way was it not already the case?

[wardd]

the democratic party has not moved further to the left in recent years so the combined shift has been to the right

i wish the dems would move more to the left

[Ian McColgin]

We certainly have had people who thought, think now, that the parties should be more clearly ideological. In a parlimentary system where all parties can get at least someone into parliment and where then trans-ideological compromises are made by coalition building, that makes sense. In the US, the parties evolved as more local vote getting organizations that build local coalitions into state into national within themselves, thus tending towards big tent or broad spectrum parties. Which drives people who say "not a dime's worth of difference between the two" completely nuts.

Liberalism as a modern phenomenon of civil rights and equal opportunity does owe a lot to the not very ideological FDR. The OP cite seems to think there was some ideologizing value to the landslide of '36 but in fact it led to almost no new New Deal legislation and with the '38 losses, the Democrats settled back towards liberal pragmatism. And if you look at the Republicans, that's pretty much where they were at as well, having learned along with the rest of the nation that Hoover's economic salvation through incantation did not work. Eisenhower continued with massive public works that built the economy, like the highway system.

So sure, you can find both right and left political thinkers dreaming of ideologically rational parties, but their dreams are not even remotely applicable to a two party system where the coalition building has to be built in to each such that the doctrinaire left-right splits are represented within each party as well as (to a far lesser extent and in different ways) between the parties.

[ccmanuals]

Really?


How would you categorize MoveOn.org, or DemocracyforAmerica.com?

Jeff C

websites?

[Concordia 33]

I think it would be hard to categorize them either as "political parties" or as "sub-sets of parties" - neither of them are actively working to get their membership elected to office. More like agenda-driven PR firms.

Tea party, on the other hand, actively (and successfully) promotes candidates from inside their membership.

Actually, most of the candidates they have supported are not Tea Party member's, but have fiscal views compatible with the Tea Party. FYI the Tea party opposes Republican Candidates too - they look at the candidate's fiscal policy. They don't actually have a party affiliation - though I think the GOP wishes they could control them.

When the Tea Party Express last week endorsed Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick — the only Democrat to receive the backing of the conservative grassroots group — one of his Republican challengers said he was simply baffled to learn the news, considering Minnick’s past votes that line up with Democrats on the estate tax and Guantanamo Bay.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is sending national money and resources to help state Sen. Mike Oliverio — a tea party-endorsedconservative — get elected to Congress as a Democrat in West Virginia’s 1st district. Oliverio (D) defeated incumbent Rep. Allan Mollohan (D) in the May 11 primary, a race that saw the DCCC take him on and Mollohan question his Democratic credentials in part because he proposed a one-percent across the board cut to the federal budget.

Regardless of his party affiliation, Curtis may find many tea party followers supporting his campaign. Although the Florida Tea Party does not currently plan to make candidate endorsements in the midterms, it is preparing voter guides for its members to communicate candidates' positions on the issues.

Read more on Newsmax.com: First Tea Party Democrat to Run for Congress

[Norman Bernstein]

Actually, most of the candidates they have supported are not Tea Party member's, but have fiscal views compatible with the Tea Party.

It's a very fine distinction... 'membership' in the Tea Party, and support of Tea Party platform ideology, is indistinguishable, to me. There's no 'conservative evangelical party', either, but it's a clearly identifiable movement, with unambiguous goals.

As for the 'outliers, i.e., conservative Democrats endorsed by conservative monvements, or moderate or even liberal Republicans supported by Democrats, it's an existing, but not terribly significant, factor... with the possible exception of the senate, where two moderate Republican senators did serve to skew political calculations a few times, in a closely matched chamber.

[Concordia 33]

It's a very fine distinction... 'membership' in the Tea Party, and support of Tea Party platform ideology, is indistinguishable, to me. There's no 'conservative evangelical party', either, but it's a clearly identifiable movement, with unambiguous goals.

As for the 'outliers, i.e., conservative Democrats endorsed by conservative monvements, or moderate or even liberal Republicans supported by Democrats, it's an existing, but not terribly significant, factor... with the possible exception of the senate, where two moderate Republican senators did serve to skew political calculations a few times, in a closely matched chamber.

You have to admit that the Tea Party is not an arm of the GOP - they cause them as much angst as they do joy. They are fiscal conservatives (less taxes, less government) and the reality is they don't care which party you belong to.

My original point was that I agreed with Gergen that there have been starker and more rigid differences between the two major parties, which has nothing to do with the political action groups that try to influence them, so unless you are saying that the Tea Party is a party of the GOP, you point is irrelevant.

The thing that is important is that as these divisions widen, and and become more rigid, we get better "product identity" but less meaningful political/governmental progress.

[Norman Bernstein]

You have to admit that the Tea Party is not an arm of the GOP - they cause them as much angst as they do joy. They are fiscal conservatives (less taxes, less government) and the reality is they don't care which party you belong to.

Certainly true... but since they won't be drawing much water from the left, it's only natural that the GOP would be having fits.

My original point was that I agreed with Gergen that there have been starker and more rigid differences between the two major parties, which has nothing to do with the political action groups that try to influence them, so unless you are saying that the Tea Party is a party of the GOP, you point is irrelevant.

..and I think MY point is that we're entering a phase of American politics where the 'official' parties have far less influence and control over the interest groups that may indeed dominate them. Boehner and the other party leaders may not view the Tea Party, or evangelical conservatives, as intrinsic to the GOP itself.... but they certainly can't help the fact that those groups ARE very pwerful, and operate under the mantle of Republican conservatism, because that is where they draw their support... and, as a consequence, the power of the party leaders is diminished.

The thing that is important is that as these divisions widen, and and become more rigid, we get better "product identity" but less meaningful political/governmental progress.

Amen to that... although I'd still argue that the Democratic party is STILL the party with a vastly wider tent, than the Republicans.

[ccmanuals]

For me, when someone says tea party congressman three people come to mind. Allan West, Michael Bachman and Joe Walsh. I consider these three probably the worst representatives I have known in my life time.

I'm sure there are some tea party congress critters that have integrity but none of them come to mind.

[Concordia 33]

Amen to that... although I'd still argue that the Democratic party is STILL the party with a vastly wider tent, than the Republicans.

Fair enough, We are talking opinion here so your opinion is every bit as plausible as mine. I feel they are both morally corrupt parties that stopped representing the people who put them in office years ago. They are our ruling class.

Satisfaction with our government is at a 15 year low. Certainly the economy/underemployment are partially to blame, but their is a growing sentiment (regardless of party affiliation) that the dominant political parties are out of touch with the people that put them in power.

Nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say they are dissatisfied with the size and power of the federal government and with nation's moral and ethical climate, says the Gallup Poll.
Also, for the first time since Gallup started asking the question a decade ago, a majority of Americans say they are dissatisfied with our system of government and how well it works.
Back in January 2001, 68 percent of Americans told Gallup they weresatisfied with our system of government and how well it works, while 30 percent said they were dissatisfied. This January, only 42 percent said they were satisfied with our system of government and how it works, while 56 percent said they were dissatisfied.

[ccmanuals]

Fair enough, We are talking opinion here so your opinion is every bit as plausible as mine. I feel they are both morally corrupt parties that stopped representing the people who put them in office years ago. They are our ruling class.

Satisfaction with our government is at a 15 year low. Certainly the economy/underemployment are partially to blame, but their is a growing sentiment (regardless of party affiliation) that the dominant political parties are out of touch with the people that put them in power.

I would agree. I believe that people are dissatisfied with government because they believe it no longer works for them. They believe that government and more specifically the Congress (I say Congress due to their abysmal rating) serve only special interest, corporations and the wealthy. This would account for the high approval rating for the buffett tax and the Occupy movements.

[Keith Wilson]

As each of the parties has moved toward ideological purity, our politics have become ever more polarized, our governing ever more paralyzed. Extremists increasingly run the show.

Whoooop!! Whoooop!! False equivalence alarm!!

He's half right. Because of historical accidents, both major parties in the US contained a variety of ideological positions from the late 19th century for about 100 years. No longer; for a variety of reasons we now have a liberal party and a conservative party. Conservative southerners who used to be Democrats are now Republicans, and all the liberals and moderates are gone from the Republican party, or are in hiding. One way or another, we're not going back. But he's 100% dead wrong on the second point. The Democrats haven't moved ideologically in the past 25 years. Obama is, if anything, a little to the right of Bill Clinton, and probably even to the right of Richard Nixon. The Republicans, OTOH, have over the past 20 years moved right at an ever-accelerating rate. This is not opinion, it's a demonstrable fact if you look at the positions they've taken on a variety of issues. Extremists are currently running the show only on the right.

[David G]

Fair enough, We are talking opinion here so your opinion is every bit as plausible as mine. I feel they are both morally corrupt parties that stopped representing the people who put them in office years ago. They are our ruling class.

Satisfaction with our government is at a 15 year low. Certainly the economy/underemployment are partially to blame, but their is a growing sentiment (regardless of party affiliation) that the dominant political parties are out of touch with the people that put them in power.

I would very much agree with this. The electorate is clearly onto the fact that their interests are no longer primary, and haven't been for a good while. I see it as another symptom of the decades-long swing toward the laissez-faire end of the economic spectum that I outlined back in Feb. '08 in good old post #75:

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...on#post1772742

Democrats and Republicans alike have been involved in this perverse shift. But... at this point... Republican are clearly the most vocal and adamant about continuing the pendulum swing in the wrong direction. As for the T Party... they're correct to be angry, but they have been coopted by the libertarian right's propaganda machine to the point where they are incorrectly identifying the remedies required.