Party Polarization Continues
Senator Richard Lugar's loss in his Republican primary in Indiana this week continues a trend which has been evident for at least the past two decades in American politics -- the matchup of our political divide with our ideological divide. What this means for the future is really anyone's guess, other than that "R" or "D" after a politician's name is a lot easier to "read" these days.
The partisan divide -- Republicans and Democrats -- has been in place in American politics since the Civil War. For the past century and a half, there have been two main parties in this country. Third parties have popped up from time to time and had measured success, but at the end of the cycle, they usually get absorbed by one of the major parties -- or the third party just fades away into the woodwork.
The ideological divide is a tougher one to trace throughout history, because "conservative" versus "liberal" doesn't fully encompass the different sides of issues these two groups have, at times, taken. In fact, even the use of the word "liberal" is on the wane (mostly being replaced with the re-tread "progressive"), even though the ideals haven't changed all that much. But branding issues aside, this is the true division of our country's politics. What is odd about our current situation is how closely the parties align along this fracture.
"Conservative Democrat" and "Liberal Republican" didn't used to be oxymorons, to put it another way. The parties themselves had "wings" of conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Sometimes these divisions were geographical, sometimes more ideological. Even at the beginning of our history, the parties had "Northern" and "Southern" wings -- which held true right up to the Civil War itself. Since the end of the Reconstruction era, the two parties still had differing factions within them. Republicans and Democrats today simply can't just assume that their parties' stances today were the same throughout the past century.
Democrats, after all, were the ones to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. Democratic senator Robert Byrd was a former member of the KKK. Martin Luther King wasn't sure which party he should approach to back civil rights legislation, because there were both Democrats and Republicans open to the idea -- and there were also Democrats and Republicans who were violently against the concept.
What has changed now, though, is this party/ideological alignment. Since roughly the time of Newt Gingrich's ascension in the House, the parties have been getting more and more like-minded. Some might trace it back even further, perhaps even to the Civil Rights Act itself. But it is undeniable that the two parties have become "purer" ideologically, and Lugar's loss is just one step along this path.
Liberal and moderate Republicans are a dying breed. There just aren't that many left, at least on the national level. Conservative or moderate Democrats are more prevalent, but are also on the wane. The "Blue Dogs" of the Democratic Party were decimated in the 2010 elections, moving the party (in the midst of its electoral "shellacking") further to the left. Republicans now have the Tea Party to enforce purity, and as a result the moderates are disappearing, one by one.
I draw no conclusions, personally. I don't know, to put it another way, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for American politics, and for America. Party-line votes have become the norm, and not the exception. The parties themselves have almost perfectly lined up along the same old ideological divide which has always been there. Republicans, in particular, seem almost frightened now of the word "compromise" -- one of the key factors in Lugar's loss.
This is a very odd period in American politics, but the difference isn't that we're "more polarized" it's simply that the parties themselves are "perfectly polarized." The polarization has always been around, but now it's just a lot easier to see which side someone is on. Soon, for any national politician, all you'll have to do is look at the "D" or the "R." We're almost there now, in fact.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It isn't the polarization per se that should be of concern, but the idea that compromise is anathema. Our government was designed around the idea of conflict. Its what "checks and balances" are all about.
But inherent in that is the belief in compromise. Without it the wheels come off. Our system of government simply cannot and will not function without it.
@CW,
interesting point - we're not necessarily more divided ideologically as a country, but we're probably as partisan on the national level as we've been since a hundred years ago. i wonder how that bears on your view that we're not really more divided now than in the past. thoughts?
In the past week or so, there's been a couple dozen online news stories on Ron Paul. He and his supporters have been putting huge amounts of time into taking as much control as they can of the Republican party. Here's one example -- http://www.tnr.com/article/the-permanent-campaign/103116/ron-paul-libertarian-election-2012-supporters-delegates
One result of this extraordinary effort is that lots of delegates to the Republican convention are in fact Paul supporters, not Romney supporters. Many will be compelled to vote for Romney on the first ballot, and it's fantasy land to think that Romney won't get the nomination on that ballot. But after that, and on procedural and platform issues before and after, Paul will control a lot of voting power at the convention. Another result is that in several states, Paul supporters are no longer outsiders. They are, or are on their way to becoming, the Republican powers-that-be.
For what purpose?
A) Paul could run for President as a write in. Quixotic. He's really ready to retire, so he'd so that to benefit "the movement" and/or his son, not him.
B) Paul could endorse Gary Johnson, who is likely to be on the ballot in all states as the Libertarian Party candidate.
C) Paul could insist on exercising real power at the Republican convention, probably not realistically demanding that he or his son win the VP sweepstakes, but demanding X and Y be put into the platform. I don't see Romney et al tolerating option (C), unless they can buy him off with merely a prime-time speaking slot.
The Republican party used to be able to count on a nationally unifying figure, who would attract snall government libertarians, social/religious conservatives, national security hawks, corporate self interest, and well-off voters. In power, they'd do the bidding of The One Percent, aided by Democrats also quite willing to do the bidding of The One Percent.
I don't think the Republican party can continue in its present form, because the divergence in interests of those three blocks can no longer be Wall-Street-papered over.
In 2012, Paul's option (A) or option (B) has a realistic chance of doing better than Ralph Nader's 3% in 1990 -- which arguably tipped the election from Gore to Bush. With a ground swell of enthusiasm, they could beat Ross Perot's 19% in 1992.
Either way, Paul leaves behind a third party very much in play for 2014 and 2016.
G.Gene.Garrison -
First, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation automatically, but you should be able to comment here now and see them instantly.
I'm still waiting to see if Paul either goes Libertarian, tries to take over the Americans Elect ballot, or possibly does something with the army of delegates he seems to be lining up. I think we're going to have gigantic fights (possibly behind the scenes) in the "rules committee" and the "platform committee" in the Republican convention this year. But guessing what Ron Paul will do is something that I'm taking a wait and see attitude on now.
-CW
nypoet22 -
I was given a fascinating book called (I think) "Mr. Speaker!" last year. I highly recommend it. It talks about the House in about 1870-1900, and how it was frozen solid by gridlock (lots of parliamentary mischief-making).
We've been through these periods before.
-CW
nypoet22 -
OK, I just looked it up. James Grant is the author and it is called "Mr. Speaker!"
-CW
@CW,
thank you for the recommendation, i'll definitely look it up. interesting that reed's time was economically somewhat similar to our own, a giant wealth gap and a government that protected it. so, where's our teddy roosevelt? i wonder if roosevelt had come during our time, would he have survived the onslaught he certainly would receive from commercial television?
~joshua
I'm disappointed. Even-handed syndrome is epidemic among the MSM, but I didn't think you would catch it.
The Republicans are ideologically pure: there are no liberal or progressive Republicans either in office or in the pipeline, and few moderates.
By the premise of EHS, it follows that the Democrats must also be ideologically pure. True, there was a shift of ultra-"conservative" Southern Democrats to Dixiecrats in 1948 and to committed Republicans at the moment they read the morning paper on July 3, 1964. That did leave the Democrats more ideologically unified than the FDR coalition was.
But that's only one strain of the right. Religious conservatives are welcome in the Democratic party, and if they're black or Latino, that's the party they probably favor. Plutocratic conservatives have almost as much of a hold on the Democratic party as they do on the Republican Party. Gun enthusiasts are welcome, too: the list of states and localities where the gun lobby is unopposed is far longer than the list of truly one-party Republican polities, which implies that Democrats in the rest are pro-gun. An aggressively pro-gun Democrat would be at a disadvantage in presidential primaries, but that's the extent of the party's ideological purity on the issue.
It's also true that conservative Democrats don't tend to represent safe districts where the Democratic primary (if any) is the real election, so almost none are left in Congress after the Democrats lost basically every swing district in 2010. But in basically every swing district in the country, there's a conservative Democrat preparing their candidacy for this November.