Posted on 08/19/2018 9:08:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
There once was a time in American history – in fact perhaps for the bulk of it– when cross-party voting was nothing special but rather the norm. Electoral results would vary wildly as voters deviated wildly from their partisan loyalties and even the power of party on our elected representatives was far weaker.
Nowadays the mere thought of cross-party voting baffles the minds of most on either side of the aisle, as if it were an unspeakable heresy or like a Yankees fan hoping one game that the Red Sox win it.
Part of the reason for this is that the impact of party-line voting has changed as the parties have become more ideologically homogenous. In past decades you could very well vote for a truly pro-Second Amendment and pro-life Democrat or a pro-regulation and pro-welfare-state Republican. In 2018 our parties hold their cards and Overton windows much tighter, for example as we see with regular sieges and fierce purges against remaining pro-life Democrats.
Indeed, the increasing ideological lockstep of our political parties is also a reflection of how our parties have gone from big-tent coalitions, less a representation of beliefs but more of location and culture, to truly seemingly ideas-based organizations.
For example, for much of the Democratic Party’s 20thcentury history, it was based on an urban machine network that essentially supported the communities it was based in through patronage, mutual aid, and protection, particularly for the waves of immigrants that came to our shores during America’s industrial growth years.
In contrast, the Republican Party retained a high-brow core that also united with farmers, businessmen, and the intellectual elites, with its ever-shifting bases also including prohibitionists, isolationists, civil rights advocates, pro-immigration champions, and others.
All of this seems incredible to us today when we think that once upon a time it was the Democrats who were the party of those who wanted to promote, for example, God in our public life, immigration restriction, and an aggressive American foreign policy and it was Republicans who fought for secularism and trust-busting.
As for how this is all relevant to our current debates? It is a historical reminder that our two-party system is constantly evolving and changing, as the natural ‘market’ reaction of the political big tents to the underlying passions and beliefs of the electorate turn and morph.
On one hand, the ideological unity of our political parties makes them much more coherent organizing vehicles for certain worldviews and policy goals. However, I believe the negative effects are far more, due specifically to the way human nature works.
As we’ve seen in other countries, where often parties are less big-tent but more ideological, the organizations experience extraordinary instability in terms of their ability to keep power and relevance in the public square as the issues of today may become irrelevant tomorrow, leading to extensive renaming, rebranding, and reorganizing.
Furthermore, groupthink is powerful and real. When a party adopts a certain ideological stand clearly, it inherently causes the people within it to be pushed to conform to a series of tenets that in the end, few may fully agree with but with whom voicing disagreement is difficult.
This effect stifles debate and disconnects our discourse and policymaking process from actually looking rationally at the most effective laws, regulations, and norms to promote and implement, as well as reflecting what the population actually wants to see done.
We end up with a disconcerted and distorted discourse, with the worst potential results being like in the Soviet Union where the elites would battle endlessly over the tiniest, and fundamentally most irrelevant, ideological line in the treatises of their ‘great leaders and thinkers.
In the Soviet Union, this process became so twisted that entire completely imagined paradigms arose out of it, such as the pseudoscience of Lysenkoism, as the power of groupthink and towing the line took its course.
Ideology has meaning and it seems our current political climate is giving it more power. However, in the end, the world is extraordinarily complex and always changing, making a combination of fundamental values and pragmatic analysis and implementation the best in my opinion – and indeed historically what our country and its people have embraced.
The idea of Conservative Democrats or Progressive Republicans seem like oxymorons to us in our current political climate but there still may be a day when those terms go from the dustbin of history to reality once again. In the meantime, our newly empowered parties who have seemingly won their own internal battles now participate in what is fundamentally a flawed and losing for the country, war against each other.
After all, President Donald Trump smashed ideological orthodoxy to pieces when he ran and won the GOP nomination. Even the most seemingly set-in-stone things can be surprisingly brittle and hollow.
1991 Louisiana governor’s race.
Edwin Edwards (D) versus David Duke (R)
Yeah, I would have voted for the crooked Democrat as the lesser of two wicked evils.
NO!
NAY!
NEVER!
Democrats are the party of LIEberal LIARS who are actively engaged in destroying our FRee American Republic!
AFAIAC, voting Democrat is voting for EVIL!
It would have to one of my children or grandchildren and I’d have 2nd thoughts even then.
Whenever I see a Dim on the ballot running unopposed, I write myself in.
Yes, those three are Evil incarnate!
Without doubt, these are three noxious, venomous harridans!
Here are Merriam Webster’s definitions:
noxious = “physically harmful or destructive to living beings;”
venomous = “expressing very strong hatred or anger” and
harridan = “an angry and unpleasant woman: shrew.”
A bit redundant, perhaps, but certainly appropriate in Nancy’s, Maxine’s and of course, Hitlery’s character and conduct.
“Noxious, venomous harridan,” now that I give it more thought, applies to most EVERY LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist/Communist Democrat woman we poor suffering “Normal” Americans have doing unto us before we can do unto them!
If someone would post a picture of Chuckie Schumer, I’ll provide you an equally colorful definition of the male LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist/Communist Democrats that infest/infect America!
I’d have sat that one out!
Who is the ‘RAT?
And why will you vote for him?
The ‘Rat matters not. What matters is ending the political career of yet another Bush while it can be done without too much damage.
“Don’t equate party to political stance. Just like the GOP, it depends upon the democrat. Just because he/she may be a democrat, doesn’t mean he/she is a liberal with socialist ideas. Need to be realistic here. I don’t vote for a party. I vote for an ideology. If there are democrats in congress that are conservative, they get my support. We have liberals in the GOP that are not going to get my support. And I will argue with them if they want it. It’s a two way street.”
I agree. Lots of Rhinos out there and a few - emphasis on the few - conservative Dems in places like W. Virginia. I look at how a politician views the Constitution and then I look to see how they bear fruit cause a lot of politicians are liars.
FWIW, I stopped voting for the Democrat Party years ago (the Clinton creeps cemented the deal) and vote independently. I was a walk-away before #walkaway became cool.
After I registered as a Republican for the primaries, I came to suspect that the Bushes, McCain and Romney were NWO sell-outs, but kept quiet around my conservative friends. The lesser of 2 evils is a hard pill to swallow. I admit I swallowed too many times and it ticks me off. Time has proven my instincts correct about the Bush Family and McCain. As for Romney, he’s acting like a Never-Trumper jerk and I don’t trust him.
A lot has transpired since then.
President Trump is my POTUS even though I wasn’t sure of him 2 years ago. I am sure of him now. He is awesome and I love how he refuses to give an inch to his enemies. MAGA!
I registered as a Republican the first time I voted (Ronald Reagan first term) and have stayed with the GOP since...
How much do I loathe HRC?
I changed my affiliation to Democrat just to vote against her in the primaries - of course, I vote differently in the general election.
I have supported DJT since the day he announced his candidacy
The only Democrat that I respect. I wouldn’t allow a democrat to tie my shoes and definitely not for any elected office.
I’d vote for Caligula’s horse before these democratic want-to-he’s.
Zell Miller was the type of Democrat that I would gladly support. Seriously, if the party nominated a pro-life candidate who is strong on border security, I’d consider it in spite of advocacy for big government.
I would have voted Dem in SC to get rid of Linda if I could at least stomach it. Same with AZ.
I would never hesitate to vote for a Democrat - TO BE PUBLICLY HANGED!
Registration means nothing but dishonesty any more. A lot of libs in Washington state register conservative so they can try to eliminate the better candidate in primaries. Those people can’t even be honest with their own representation. They even lie about themselves to be dishonest. It amazes me of their lack of integrity and self esteem. They liver in fear and strike from the corners. They don’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand in the open and defend their ideas because it has no stance. It just has limited bile. And it even leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
“I’d rather be damned by my honesty, than caged by my lies.” – Omega Maverick
Definitely not a liberal.
rwood
Marco is also very fond of all-male communal bubble baths.
I would be tempted to vote for James Trafficant, but I probably wouldn’t.
Seeing that he’s dead, that’s probably a good choice :-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.