Are the political party tents splitting at their seams?
|
|
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Gallup has been asking that question to Americans since 2003, testing how satisfied the nation is with the two major political parties. Last week, the firm released its latest results for the question, and the number of respondents who said a third party was needed hit an all-time high: 62%.
That doesn’t mean a competitive third party is necessarily on the horizon: there are significant obstacles standing in the way. But the poll does underline how dissatisfied so many Democrats and Republicans are with their own parties at the moment. After four years in which the two parties were mostly aligned either in support or opposition to Donald Trump, Democrats and Republicans now find themselves engaged in bitter fights over their party identities. Who wins those internal clashes will determine who wields power in the Biden era.
On the Democratic side, Joe Biden was mostly able to tamp down divisions within the party as he united progressives and moderates alike under his campaign’s “big tent.” According to Bloomberg , progressive leaders have been pleasantly surprised so far both by Biden’s policies and nominees. But, the New York Times reported this weekend, that ideological truce may be coming to an end, as liberal lawmakers and activist launch new efforts to push Biden leftward .
There are two issues to watch that are fueling the burgeoning split within the party: student loans and the minimum wage. The first broke out into the public eye last week, when a Wisconsin voter told Biden at a CNN town hall that “we need student loan forgiveness beyond the potential $10,000 your administration has proposed.”
“I will not make that happen,” Biden responded bluntly, shutting down progressive calls for him to cancel up to $50,000 in student debt per borrower by executive order. The response was immediate: “It’s time to act,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in a statement with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), urging Biden to take the more aggressive stance. “We will keep fighting.”
The minimum wage fight is a smaller skirmish in the larger war over the $1.9 trillion stimulus package Biden has proposed. The legislation currently includes a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour by 2025, a considerable olive branch to progressives. But Biden appears to be backing away from the policy: according to Politico , he told a group of governors and mayors last week that the increase was unlikely to be part of the final package, due to the Senate rules governing the reconciliation process.
The Senate parliamentarian could decide as soon as this week whether or not the minimum wage hike can be included in the package. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has launched a full-court press to persuade the parliamentarian to keep the increase in the package; some progressives have urged Democratic leaders to challenge the parliamentarian’s ruling and move forward with the wage hike either way. If the provision is stripped away from the bill, it will be a very public loss for Sanders and his allies. 
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Rep. Ilhan Omar at a press conference on student loans. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The Republican identity crisis is even more overt and less focused on policy than personality. Namely, one personality: Donald Trump. The GOP’s leaders and voters are split over how much influence Trump should retain over the party after his bruising re-election loss (which he continues to deny ).
Among the party’s boldface names, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-WY) have emerged as Trump’s leading antagonists, with the former now engaged in an all-out feud with his onetime ally.
On the other side stands House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), who have both made the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago in recent weeks to huddle with the former president and court his support.
But while Republican leaders spar over the party’s future, Trump seems to have already won the fight among the rank-and-file. In fact, a Suffolk University/USA Today poll released on Sunday found that a plurality of Republicans — 47% — would abandon the GOP if Trump created a new party. Mitch McConnell might have abandoned Trump, but the ex-president’s grip on the Republican voter base is as firm as ever.
On the state and local level , Trump’s dominance is even more clear, as party organizations censure lawmakers who broke with Trump during the impeachment and GOP candidates compete for the “Trump lane” in 2022 primaries. (“The ‘Trump lane’ is the entire highway,” former Republican operative Tim Miller wrote in The Bulwark on Saturday.)
Trump will roar back into the limelight this weekend, with an address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Trump’s running mate turned punching bag, former Vice President Mike Pence, declined an invitation to speak at the annual confab, a telling sign of how he’d likely be received by the party grassroots after crossing Trump to certify Biden’s election victory last month.
Tags
Who is online
467 visitors
I will be bringing you Gabe's rundowns. He is very insightful.
From my perspective not even close. Seems that most care more about representing themselves than the people who elected them and the longer they homestead in office the worse they get, no matter what their political affiliation may be.
That may be Ed, but I do think that within each of the parties, there is extremism that does not represent the bulk of Americans.
I think there should be a local lottery every two years where people of eligible age draw a number and if that number is chosen, that person is selected as a candidate of one party and another is selected for another party. But you need a hat for both parties and all the national offices for that local district. Funding is provided by that little box you mark on your tax returns.
This way nobody gets out of their civic duty (did I mention that the lottery is mandatory?). And since none of the good people want to run for office, we make them run.
There are worse systems than my idea
I decline any and all nominations and refuse to serve if elected .
You can't. It's mandatory. Just do a shitty job of campaigning and maybe you won't get elected.
On the other hand...your opponent may be shittier at campaigning.
Since they keep getting re-elected their must be some people that think they are best suited to do the job. Gomert only got primaried once he lost his committee assignments.
I think a majority of people have demonstrated they have no clue how government works, let alone the common sense to craft laws and policies.
Kind of like your idea, Trout. It is true that the best people are the people who don't want to run, and the ones who want to run, are either power hungry or too much of the political system to make any real change.
And I totally agree about funding. Funding is the people's worst enemy. It makes you beholden to those that have given to you.
That may be true, EG, and for that reason, I propose that "Civics" be a mandatory 4-semester course, and that American History at least 4 semesters starting in middle school/ jr. high.
and isnt that part of the current problem ? people looking at the candidates and voting against one rather than for another?
mandatory? there are ways around that too.
i mandatorily have to pay federal income taxes ,
but its not mandatory for me to have an income ( by their definition ) to be taxed, nor is it mandatory for me to have any specific minimum limit of income so they can tax me. and i can also have a crapton of money sitting in a vault to live on that they taxed when earned that does not earn any income/ interest that they can tax .
there is always a work around that is legal to get around "mandatory " things.
and if forced to serve i will live on a diet of baked beans , chili and raw beef and cashews , and make sure my seat is right next to a heater vent.....
I should have known better than to engage with one of the smartest people here....
That opens a whole new area of issues. It isn't so much the amount of time taken in school (more time may help but these classes generally put people to sleep, not inspire them to engage). It's more the amount of importance our society places on these things. It sounds cynical, but the average person knows more about a fictional tv character than any of the US Presidents. Does anyone outside a high school (history buffs like me excluded of course) named after him who William McKinley was, who shot him and why?
I'm sure you know what the Seneca Falls Convention was, but I was never taught that in HS. It's a very important event in US history.
Nah , im not even close to being one of the "smartest" , now not caring or vindictive or set in my ways , thats another story.
My POD class was fun. We debated issues and actually learned stuff.
My History teacher was an old guy in a monotone voice droning on and on and on and ...zzzzzzz. Multiple choice test at the end of the week. Good luck. Our Civics teacher was the JV basketball coach and his idea of teaching was assigning you to read the chapter yourself and multiple choice test at the end of the week. Good luck. Sadly his coaching was worse than he teaching.
My POD teacher was the school Athletic Director. I should remember his name but can't. He liked getting us stirred up in class.
I think that everybody needs to slow down and do things in an organized and clear fashion. Well, at least, that is what they should have been doing from the start. Then again, I feel that we have done this entirely wrong since the beginning. But that topic is for another time.
I think we should abandon all parties and I have thought so for quite a long while. The two political parties have a stranglehold on entrance to the candidates, and the result is the polarized atmosphere of today (IMO). So I am glad that people are realizing that there need to be more opinions represented in the government.
Well, being an indie, obviously I come with my own biases about parties. But my feeling is more viable parties, more choice. Right now, it's meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The question is.... with more parties, would we need to move to a coalition style government?
Like the British Parliament has to do at times?
That's my question Trout.....
I think that would depend on how many parties there are. Most parliamentary governments have way more than 4 parties, so they have to make coalitions. It happens only rarely in England.
It's happening right now in Canada - Trudeau's Liberal Party runs a minority government and has to rely on the New Democratic Party's support to ward off votes of no-confidence.
OOOOO!!! Let's incorporate your no party system with my mandatory system and that way we save on the cost of a hat.
I'm totally serious here. I don't joke about my politics
I think the party system was designed to divide; therefore, causing extremism of the parties. It's sad. I'm not sure what it is in human nature to be at odds, but I'm not a fan.
I would agree, but our past has shown us that parties did change (also names changed, too). I think we will get to a point where we will have to evolve out of our 2 parties in one way or another.
And I have to agree I am not a fan of division or extremism.
Changed, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the party system is creating and has always been the cause of the duality, divide, and therefore, the extremism.
If I properly interpret our founding fathers..... they were worried about parties and the results of party loyalty. Exactly what we are seeing today. They were looking for people of knowledge, and conscience to make decisions to make up our congress.. Wouldn't that be refreshing today!
Yes, it would be nice.
Living within a Parliamentary system I would like to see fewer parties ... the weddings tend to lead to rapid divorces and half of the things that 'need' to get done only get half done. On a rare occasion this is a good thing but it generally leads to deeper radicalizations and woe will befall any party occupying the middle ground.
Libertarian Monarchism is the only way out.
Libertarianism...... Please leave me out! A form of government where there is no answer nor protection from human greed! Face it, laws and regulations are what moderate the bad aspects of capitalism, while trying to leverage the good aspects of invention.
Libertarianism is why we have the EPA and OSHA today.
As soon as our numbers double (so far there are two of us) you will be assimilated.
I'm with fly and trout. But this was funny:
Kind of like the Independent Party, which is an oxymoron.
I wouldnt put money on that bet.....
Once upon an ego ago a benevolent monarch bedded a benevolent dictator and I was hatched with nary a wise man in sight, fortunately there was a wise woman and being second born I inherited an education.
They used to make the second son enter the Church
They used to make the last daughter take care of the parents.
That is capital L. Libertarians. In the purest form of the word, libertarians are for individual liberties, with the realization that liberties come with responsibilities, and that these responsibilities have a social aspect to them. As such, liberties and responsibilities cannot exist outside the framework of laws.
But what your are saying is in contradiction to what self serving people like the Koch Brothers and the like minded were/are promoting. Again, there is no check for human greed.
The Koch Brothers do not want libertarian principles,. They want to protect their wealth.
I would love to see a party that represented the middle of the country. It would require both a party and a people who would be willing to accept that they might not agree on every damned thing, but they could agree on enough common sense policies to move forward together.
I assume someone will take that to mean they should grab a pitchfork and break down the doors of the White House.
Middle of the country, or moderation? I mean I am all for common sense policies.
Didn't we just go through that? Lordy no more. But I am glad that Biden is saying no more than people thought he would.
I think Tacos! is referring to the middle-class. I could be wrong, but it seems as though us in the middle are rarely represented. It's always "do for the poor" which screws the middle-class wage earners or hidden agendas that cause the rich to get richer... still causing stress on the middle-class wage earners. We're like the 5th kid born out of 10.
Middle of the country, or moderation?
I mean the middle politically. “Moderate” if you like.
I think most of America is capable of living somewhat right or left of center, while also having an open mind to alternatives. We should be able to tolerate some things we might not have chosen on our own, if it means we get some other things we prefer.
So, a moderate conservative might resist a new thing, but once exposed to it, come to realize it’s not as bad as they initially feared. Our history is filled with growth like that.
On the other hand, a moderate liberal might be demanding a new thing, but then be willing to temper that desire after considering negative consequences or seeing anew the positive aspects of the status quo.
As it stands now, we’re being goaded or cornered into extreme political camps. Many people, for example, voted for Trump even though they they think he’s kind of an awful person or an incompetent politician because they supported a handful of policy ideas he had and the alternative seemed intolerable.
Similarly, I think people voted for someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren even though the idea of turning America into a socialist paradise is not something they would support.
The Democratic Party leadership saw the wisdom in this, I think, when they maneuvered so hard to nominate Biden over Sanders. They knew a nominee closer to the middle could win, and maybe unite much of the country, which had previously been divided. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the party still doesn’t get it.
So, referencing the student loan issue mentioned in the seed, I think most of America is compassionate and willing to give some people a bit of a break on bad student loans that they maybe got suckered into a little bit. But most of America also realizes that forgiving $50K worth of loans to thousands and thousands of people is not economically viable.
What alternative seemed intolerable? This is all nonsense. Hillary Clinton was and is a moderate Democrat. The idea that Hillary Clinton would usher in "socialism" was right wing lies.
We have half a country that has been brainwashed by right wing media for decades. We have half the country that is more upset because some college faculty is "woke" than they are that the president of the United States was a known pathological liar , crook, bigot, moron, and cheat. The damage that has occurred to this country from the effect of dishonest and conspiracy oriented right wing media for years and years is beyond reckoning.
As I indicated, there are some who still don’t get it. You fall into that category.
I dont think you've ever said anything I don't get. Some of it just isn't worth responding to.
First of all , Elizabeth Warren is not a socialist. She proposes no socialism, and does not claim to be a socialist. I'm pretty sure she says she is a capitalist. Bernie Sanders has said he admires European style governments that provide more encompassing aid and benefits to their citizens , and those governments are usually referred to as social democracies.
Is Scandinavia socialist?
Actually, to start with, what do we mean by socialism?
That’s pretty much what Marx and Engels came up with in the 19 th century. If you’re looking for a country that matches this definition, your search won’t take you to northern Europe. The simple fact is that Scandinavian countries are not, by any reasonable definition, socialist.
In 2015, in fact, the Prime Minister of Denmark, in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, addressed the issue directly.
Yet the idea persists. So, what exactly do people mean when talking of Scandinavian socialism?
Social democracy explained
Scandinavia and the Nordic countries can be best described as social democracies . Effectively, they’re democratic countries in which its citizens are well cared for
Some refer to this as democratic socialism, though this is far from correct. Some economists refer to it as cuddly capitalism , contrasting with what is seen as cut-throat capitalism in other Western countries.
While the Scandinavian countries are in many ways very different, they share a lot of common history. The styles of government aren’t identical either, but they do share some common features. The ways in which they’re similar are enough that we can talk about them collectively – scholars call this the Nordic Model .
Yeah, well, that sounds like something someone who doesn’t get it would say.