Chapter 11 – Political parties

1. Party platforms – Pro-choice vs pro-life: no common ground; a difference of opinion that cannot be breeched. No wonder that young people see this as the only difference in the parties Green energy vs drill, baby, drill: alternative solutions for increasing availability of energy. One is better for the environment, the other is better for the oil industry. Long run vs short run solutions. Close corporate tax loopholes and reduce tax burden on families. These would seem to be two compatible goals – unless you believe that corporations are people. Chapter 11 – Political parties

2. Profound distrust of parties/factions. This can be seen in Madison’s Federalist #10. They tended to agree with Rousseau that parties formed to gain control would invariably polarize the population to where all considerations are made for political, ideological reasons rather than pragmatic, rational reasons. However, they also came to realize that unless they worked together, they would cede power to the opposition who was organized. Parties were a necessary evil to be tolerated for expediency rather than embraced. Towering intellectuals who wish to hold a sincere debate as to how best to benefit the country would prefer not to have political parties. Potential oligarchs, however, will combine their resources to usurp power. Early founders

3. Typically corrupt, offered quid pro quo financial benefits for party support. For lower income voters this could mean jobs, food, and housing. For political supporters of means, this meant government contracts and positions that could produce substantial income. Late 19th century Political machines

4. Chester A Arthur, 21st President had been appointed the Collector of the Port of New York in 1871. He paid the Republican Party for the privilege for which he was the best-paid government official in the country, earning more than the president one year. He was removed from this office by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878 in an attempt to reform the federal patronage system. Arthur became the running mate of James A. Garfield to appease Senator Roscoe Conkling (a Stalwart) of New York. When Garfield appointed a Blaine man (half-breed) to the post as collector of the Port, the Stalwarts broke with Garfield. Republicans were fighting Republicans over who would get the spoils of the spoils system. July 2, 1881, Garfield was shot by a Stalwart supporter who had not been given a government job. “I am a Stalwart! Arthur is president!” This marked the beginning of the end of the spoils system. Chester A Arthur

5. Walter Dean Burnham (1982) identified correlations between religious preferences and partisan direction in survey data from Hendricks County, Indiana in the late 19th century. Pietistic (Protestant) observers predominantly identified with the Republican Party (23.8% D, 72.3% R). Liturgical (Catholic and Jewish) observers predominantly identified with the Democratic Party (79.7% D, 14.4% R). Those who professed no religious denomination were evenly split in party preference (48.4% D, 47.1% R). Burnham believed that a dearth of entertainment and social interaction left a void filled with both religious and political rally attendance. Those with whom you attended church were also those who attended the political rally of your choice. My Master’s thesis showed a correlation between religiosity and strength of partisan preference. My hypothesis was that an adherence to a specific religious doctrine would be mirrored in an adherence to a specific political doctrine. In other words, people who believe what they are told as opposed to questioning and thinking for themselves. Religious component

6. The demographics of immigration shifted significantly in the early part of the 20th century. From Northern and Western Europe to Southern and Eastern Europe. The new wave of immigration shifted from Protestant populations to an influx of Jewish and Catholic peoples. The resurgence of the KKK in this period was particularly hostile toward these two religious groups. The Immigration Act of 1924 was written to seriously curtail further immigration of Catholics, Jews, and Slavs. This was the period in which Henry Ford paid for the printing of the pamphlet “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. Immigration slowed dramatically in the 1920s

7. In the election of 1928, Democrats ran a Catholic, Alfred E. Smith. A product of the Tammany Hall system but said to be untouched by corruption, Smith was a Progressive reformer who arrived on the scene about four years too early. In 1928, the KKK and their anti-Catholic sentiments were particularly potent. The boom of the 1920s had also not yet busted by 1928, although economists were already recognizing that there were serious problems with the economy as the real estate market was already in steep decline and foreclosures and bank failures were on the rise. In the 1928 race, Hoover played on issues of race in a “Southern strategy”. Hoover vs Smith

8. The book focuses primarily on the presidential race. We have discussed how a unified government can make substantial reforms. The elections of the 1930s were a repudiation of laissez-faire economic policies. Critical elections of the early 1930s Republican Party facing extinction, stop advocating for laissez-faire policies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8

9. Parties move to make the primary process more democratic Interest groups and lobbyists step into the void. Social issues: split between parties Economic issues: Labor vs corporations Life in suburbia With population growth, representatives move further and further from the people With a growth in income disparity politicians set up a schedule to make sure they shake the hands of those with the most to contribute Its not about greed and corruption, its about adaptation and survival in the existing environment. Parties weakened since 1960s

10. 1980s and 1990s: while racial issues may explain a shift of the South to the GOP, it fails to explain the shift of Middle America from pro-labor to pro-business sentiments. The reframing of the oil supply shock to the “failure of the New Deal” and the implementation of the plan outlined in the Powell Memo goes a long way to explaining this shift. “The invisible hand of the market” appeals to religious sensibilities. “What’s the Matter With Kansas” suggests that rural America was turned against urbanites as elitist. During the Reagan Administration, blue collar workers were convinced that they were being taxed to allow lazy people to mooch off the state. TANF: $16.5 billion federal spending $15 billion state spending = $31.5 billion Profits of top ten corporations $322.1 billion – 10% tax break $32.2 billion Paul Ryan budget plan would shift their corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/03/12/right-and-left-slams-paul-ryans-path-to-prosperity-budget Party realignments

11. Democrats: labor unions, environmental groups, progressive groups, teachers, African American and women’s groups. Also, hispanic groups. Democrats have historically enjoyed support from Catholics, but this support has been eroding since Roe v. Wade and as Catholics have shifted from blue collar to white collar employment. Republicans: Businesses, the US Chamber of Commerce (which receives a good deal of foreign money for lobbying), fundamentalist Christian organizations, and some anti-abortion groups. Add to this the NRA. Black voters used to vote more heavily for Republicans until Hoover’s Southern strategy (he won by a landslide) played on racial hatred in Southern states. Black voters began shifting to the Democratic Party. This tendency was increased following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was also when segregationists completed a shift from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Interest group support

12. In 1968 the Democratic Party changed its rules to nominate a candidate by popular voting rather than by party insiders by implementing recommendations of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. McGovern won the nomination in 1972 on his anti-Vietnam stance dividing the party and losing the election to Nixon. Carter was nominated under the same conditions, but in 1980, the Democratic Party was split again and Republicans took control of the White House for the next 12 years. Democratic Party leaders introduced the superdelegates to regain some level of control over the nominating process. “…the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.” Madison, Federalist #10 Every POTUS since Carter had no legislative history in Washington DC. No record of how they would govern on a national scale. Pig in a poke. superdelegates

13. Superdelegates include Congressmen who will have to vote for or against the president’s proposed policies. They have greater knowledge than the general electorate regarding issues of unintended consequences and political feasibility. Formally or informally, the president becomes the leader of the party and these individuals will be forced to voice an opinion regarding these policies. They would much rather have a candidate whose policies they can support, thank you very much. Other superdelegates are those in state and local organizations who are needed to get out the vote. These individuals would like to have someone whom they believe in as the best possible candidate available, not the lesser of two evils. superdelegates

14. When it comes to selecting a candidate who best represents the Democratic Party (or GOP) and its values, should the party give greater consideration to members who have shown a long-term commitment to the party, or people who may have remained uninterested in politics (or independent) for years and will soon return to their state of disinterest? superdelegates Republican nomination process is similar but more party-oriented. More delegates are given to states and districts that have voted Republican in the last elections.

15. For uninformed voters, this is often the only distinction they have between the two parties. As discussed in the first slide “close corporate tax loopholes and reduce tax burden on families” would appear to be compatible goals. This would suggest that the two parties are very close on economic issues and voters might then make their decision based on social issues like abortion or gun control. 11-18-11 –Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa) announced a deficit reduction plan that would reduce or eliminate tax deductions for “mortgage interest, charitable donations, and state and local taxes” raising the taxes paid by the middle class. This would be combined with across the board tax cuts and would drop the top rate from 35% to 28%. The bottom rate would be reduced from 10% to 8%. What effect might there be if state and local taxes are no longer deductible? Would the removal of tax deductions on mortgage interest have a negative impact on an already struggling real estate market? How would charitable organizations be impacted? This is quite similar to the Romney plan. Broaden the base and lower the top rates means to lower the taxes of the wealthy and increase the taxes of everybody else. National party platform

16. Americans typically do not know how their Congressmen voted on specific bills or why. Often a vote for an individual is a vote for the overall party platform that the voter believes to be supported by their preferred party. A hard-core Democrat may vote for a blue-dog Democrat that they hate because they do not want their party to lose the majority in the legislature. This is particularly true for state legislature races. In the 2012 election, Democrats won majorities in Olympia and Albany (NY). In both cases, a couple Democrats were convinced to caucus with the Republicans, giving the majority over to the other party. Considering that many Americans cast their votes with an eye toward which party would be in the majority, isn’t this a contradiction of the democratic decision? “Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” Madison, Federalist #10 Voting the ticket

17. The majority party will pursue their agenda in whichever House they succeed in winning a majority of seats. Which of the planks of their platforms are their priority can be demonstrated by the legislation they propose and pass when they hold a majority. Jobs or abortion? Congressional majority

18. Previous Courts have been careful to at least appear nonpartisan and impartial by not moving beyond stare decisis, giving deference to the legislature, and by not going beyond the case in front of them to make law. The idea is that a Supreme Court Justice has great respect for the law. In order to retain the legitimacy of the court system, the Court cannot be seen as a source of arbitrary power. The respect for the Court has been in decline over recent years as 5-4 votes have become predictable based on the political ideologies of the justices. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have attended annual conservative strategy meetings put on by the Koch Brothers and attended by conservative lawyers who would be arguing cases in front of them. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/06/opinion/la-oe-turley-clarence-thomas-20110306 Parties in the judiciary

20. It is easier to corrupt a state government than the federal government. As indicated in the textbook, governors can hold a significant amount of power in the state. Patronage positions, line-item vetoes, and the appointment of committee chairs all add up to significant leverage over the legislature. Power that is, for good reason, denied the president. Power in state government

21. Read through the demographic group affiliations. What group is most likely to be a Democrat, least likely to be a Democrat? Independent? Republican? 70-75% of Hispanics voted for Obama in 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J41Uo_jZUI Group affiliations by demographic factors

22. Plurality system: “US has a single-member, plurality electoral system, often referred to as a winner-take-all-system.” This is why we have a duopoly system. The electoral college and financing elections makes the viability of a third party much more difficult to achieve. third parties Third party candidates are more likely to take away votes from the party closer to them on the ideological spectrum than they are to actually achieve an electoral goal.

23. 1856 – Whig Party splits into the “know nothings” and the Republicans. Vote is split and Democrat James Buchanan becomes 15th President 1860 – Northern Democrats nominate Stephen Douglas, Southern Democrats nominate incumbent VP John Breckinridge both campaign. Result: Republican Abraham Lincoln becomes the 16th President 1912 - Bull Moose Party – Former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt ran against incumbent Republican President William H Taft. Result: Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson elected 28th President 1968 - Segregationist and former Democrat George Wallace runs on American Independent ticket. Republican Richard Nixon defeats Democrat Hubert Humphrey in this three way race. 1992 – Multi-millionaire Ross Perot runs in a three way race as an Independent. It is still debated whether Perot cost George HW Bush the race. 2000 & 2004 – Democrats claim that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader siphoned off votes from Democratic candidates Gore and Kerry. Again, this claim is debated. In the 2004 race, Nader received campaign contributions from Bush supporters. Third party candidates

24. It is assumed that rational individuals sharing a similar goal and set of priorities, armed with the same information, will come to the same conclusions of a way forward. If we share the goals of full employment, low inflation, high living standards, honorable government institutions, low levels of poverty, and high education standards it should be easy to look at history and determine how these were best achieved. From the early 30s to the late 70s the United States was easily the greatest country in the world by these standards. During this period, the two parties were as close to consensus as they have been in our history regarding the amount of government intervention in the economy which is appropriate. “but it also contained within its presuppositions the case for free elections, on a one-man-one-vote basis; for destroying or controlling monopolies; for social legislation which would set considerations of human welfare off against profit incentives; and, above all, for the progressive income tax.” (WW Rostow) The top tax rate at that time was 91% (at about $3.25 million in today’s dollars), basically capping income at an upper level. polarization

25. Today’s arguments are not about whether we should have a failing state run by an oligarchy or a strong democratic state, but how we achieve a strong democratic state. The combination of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and free trade have never provided a strong democratic state and have generated weakening oligarchic and corrupt states. Polarization comes from one group following the economic theories which have been repeatedly disproven (the French Revolution, decline of the Britis Empire, the Great Depression, and the boom and bust of the last decade) By linking this political/economic philosophy to religious issues this ideology is defended by its adherents as strenuously as a religious faith. polarization

26. Independents are not necessarily the middle of the road. There is some argument as to whether Independents who lean toward one party or another are actually more partisan than those who identify themselves as weak partisans. Seven point scale. Independents: low of 19% in 1958 to a peak of 40% in 2000. How does this look when we consider consensus government as described by Anthony Downs vs today’s polarized government. My own examination of the data indicates that independent leaners tend to be the least religious while strong partisans tend to be the most religious. independents

27. Politics and religion: The data suggests that those who adhere more strongly to a religious doctrine will also adhere more strongly to a political doctrine. It is relative. It should be clearly noted that this relationship is bidirectional. Both strong Republicans and strong Democrats are often strong in their religious beliefs.