• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Politics of Polarization

Republican

New member
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Tennessee
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172518,00.html
As the son of an engineer, I have always been fascinated with the mathematical side of politics. Numbers don’t lie, and a new report just issued by the think tank ThirdWay provides some interesting statistical analysis of the electorate as well as some important suggestions about the future of the Democratic Party.

The report is entitled “The Politics of Polarization” and was prepared by William Galston of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Elaine Kamarck of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

First and foremost to understanding the current political environment is a review of voters’ self-identification by political philosophy: “In 2004, the electorate was 21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative and 45 percent moderate,” according to the report. “This is practically a carbon copy of the average of the past thirty year – 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative and 47 percent moderate – with remarkably little variation from election to election.”

In other words, for every two liberals, there are three conservatives with almost half of the electorate being in the moderate middle.

If the numbers have remained stationary for the past 30 years, why have Republicans won more elections than Democrats? According to the authors, one of the main reasons is polarization. Democrats used to get the votes of a significant number of conservatives (30 percent in the 1976 presidential election).

Today, the electorate is much more polarized with liberals voting Democratic and conservatives voting Republican. Since there are more self-described conservatives than liberals, this means that for a Democrat to win, he or she must win a larger share of the moderate vote (in excess of 60 percent according to the authors) than in the past.

Therein lies the rub. In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency with only 51 percent of the moderate vote; in 2004, John Kerry won 54 percent of the moderate vote and still lost the presidency by 3.5 points.

The authors also trace another alarming trend for Democrats -- a significant decline in support among married women. Republican support among married women went from 40 percent in 1992 to 55 percent in 2004. The authors note that concern about moral values was the most important issue for married women, topping even a concern about protection from terrorism.

So how do Democrats do better with political moderates and married women? The authors make a number of interesting recommendations.

First, “The Democratic Party must be able to articulate a coherent foreign policy that is based on a belief in American’s role in the world…Democrats must emphasize the importance of the American military as a potential force for good in the world.”

Specifically, they recommend that “Democrats must seize the opportunity to offer compelling alternatives to current Republican policies concerning homeland defense and the ultimate nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.”

On the social issues, the authors recommend that Democrats “show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues."

Specifically, they suggest that Democrats “could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial birth abortion. They could oppose court-imposed gay marriage while favoring decent legal treatment for gay couples and insisting that this is a matter for the people of the several states -- not the U.S. Constitution or the judiciary -- to resolve.”

Third, they recommend that Democrats adopt a more free trade position (“an economic policy that embraces global competition”) while at the same time providing a social safety net for people who lose their jobs in the process. That, of course, is the single most controversial of their recommendations because it goes contrary to the position of organized labor, a key part of the Democratic base.

Finally, they make a very interesting recommendation about the personal quality of candidates, particularly candidates for president. The authors note that “recent Democratic candidates have failed to establish the bond of trust with the electorate that is so essential to modern elections. Specifically, they note that Democratic candidates need to demonstrate, “strength, certainty and conviction.”

The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory.

“If Democratic candidates do not ‘speak American’ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.”

Galston and Kamarck may not have all the answers for the Democratic Party, but their report deserves serious discussion by both Democratic leaders and the rank and file.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel, and is currently a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.
 

Grendel

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
704
Reaction score
298
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The article says, basically, that Democrats should start pushing Republican policies. A Republican reporting that everyone should be Republican isn't exactly an Earth-shattering event.
 

TheHonestTruth

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
423
Reaction score
27
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Polarization is destroying this country. But understand this hyperpartisan trend is a scheme used by the politicians to get re-elected while they serve their own selfish interests and ignore the common man and the good of the nation.




I suggest reading this page which presents a thought provoking thesis on the horrors of this faux partisanship as perpetrated by the mainstream media and politicians. Bookmark it, its worth referring to in the future.


http://beyondtheillusions.blogspot.com/
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
TheHonestTruth said:
I suggest reading this page which presents a thought provoking thesis on the horrors of this faux partisanship as perpetrated by the mainstream media and politicians. Bookmark it, its worth referring to in the future.
http://beyondtheillusions.blogspot.com/
A little selfless linkage eh? lol Your right, it is an interesting read.

You might put the atom feed in your profile. Everytime you make a post, your latest blog entry title & link will show under your avatar.

USER CP> Edit Options > Blox XML feed
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If you want to stop polarization in the US, your country has to get rid of the two party system. Elimate the us or them factor and give smaller parties representation for the people that vote for them.

It also gives Americans a greater freedom of choice in who runs the country, instead of the Republican Party and "I can't believe it's not" the Republican Party or Diet Republican Party.
 

Grendel

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
704
Reaction score
298
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
GarzaUK said:
If you want to stop polarization in the US, your country has to get rid of the two party system.
The problem is that you need law for that, and the two parties are the ones who make the law. That's the last law they'll ever make.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Republican said:
"...self-identification by political philosophy... ...45 percent moderate,” according to the report."
What exactly is moderate? Is this a part-time Republican, part-time
Democrat (e.g. Reagan Democrats???), part-time Independent? It's
easiest to be a moderate (insert party here) because that way no principles
have to get in the way of taking a firm stand on an issue. Which begs the
question, what is an issue? But that's for another thread.
 

Grendel

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
704
Reaction score
298
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
XShipRider said:
It's
easiest to be a moderate (insert party here) because that way no principles
have to get in the way of taking a firm stand on an issue.
Seems just the opposite. Since both parties constantly contradict themselves, both with their alleged principles and with their policies, being a party line (insert party here) seems to generally leave people frantically trying to dig themselves out of an intellectual hole with wild and pathetic attempts to rationalize the contradictions.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree. Democratic and Republican parties both suck.

Thats all thats needed to know. END OF STORY.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
BooRadley said:
Seems just the opposite. Since both parties constantly contradict themselves, both with their alleged principles and with their policies, being a party line (insert party here) seems to generally leave people frantically trying to dig themselves out of an intellectual hole with wild and pathetic attempts to rationalize the contradictions.
I genuinely like your response.
 
Top Bottom