To really get a glimpse at the state of today's politics and the decentralization of the parties, all one really has to do is look at the primary results from 2008: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/10/delegate.map/. The Democratic primary was divided between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both had similar ideologies, but when it came right down to it there were many things that separated them within the same party. There are many things that separate people within the same parties: like geographic location, income, race, religion, age, gender, and whether or not someone leans more to the left or the right even within their party. There are clear divisions within the primary maps of the Republicans and the Democrats that show that certain geographic areas especially have different ideas about who should take control, who should be nominated, and what goals should be followed.
For presidential elections, and in elections at the state and county level, having a decentralization of parties is very effective at having a parties that are representations of the various differences. In many instances, the nominees for the presidential parties end up being fairly moderate within their parties and are able to please the majority of their party at least at a core conforming level. Both Barack Obama and John McCain were rather moderate compared to some of the candidates running against them in the primaries. At the state and county levels, the different elected officials may not be as moderate but because they represent a smaller group within the party. They will more accurately reflect the differences that geography may effect within a political party and they will then carry those differences along and be able to continue the heterogeneity of the parties,while more accurately reflecting the heterogeneity of the country.
Especially with today's technologies like television and most recently the Internet, it is easier to bring together the different groups within each party and have them realize their differences but also realize and support the common ideologies and goals of the party in which they most identify with. I do not think that this decentralization will be a hindrance to partisan action as long as it is brought up which individuals were elected to power and the reasons they were elected. The individuals elected within the parties were elected for a reason, and were elected over other individuals within the party. They won, and because of that get more say, power, or support to apply their ideas, goals, and eventually policy once they have been elected. Election and uniting a diverse party is the most important part to finding someone to lead, and the policy that comes after that comes secondary with the approval of who was elected to office.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely disagree. Elections are about winning and losing. Unity is just marketing.
ReplyDeleteI like that you point out the benefits of political decentralization on a more local level. I agree that the smaller the representation, the more to one side of the scale the candidate will be, and will result (sometimes) in better representation than on a national scale.
ReplyDeleteThe mayor of a city, or a county executive, will be much more polarizing in nature.
One thing that was mentioned was how national political candidates end up being rather moderate. Something I always enjoy is during the primary battle, you see candidates veer to the left or the right to appease the base of the party, and show that they are the "strongest" Democrat or Republican. Then after a candidate is chosen, they suddenly drift toward the center. Barack Obama was not very moderate prior to being the Democratic nominee. He had a very liberal voting record in the Senate, and fought hard against the war in Iraq. Once he achieved the nomination, he drifted, and even stated he supported a decision to keep wiretaps of Americans in place (something the very much upset the base).
However, I feel that decentralization puts a big strain on swift partisan action.
Both Obama and McCain won a few states (Oklahoma, Vermont) by huge margins, indicating a great disparity between them. Do Republicans and Democrats risk support in some of these states by appearing too moderate? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThey may risk support in some of the states by appearing too moderate when it comes to the primaries, but when it comes do the general election it seems that many people tend to vote for what the feel are the "lesser of two evils", which many times means the one in which is related to their party, which definitely helps getting them elected.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you have drawn a positive relationship between decentralization and moderateness of candidates. "At the state and county levels, the different elected officials may not be as moderate but because they represent a smaller group within the party." You also appear to draw a negative relationship of election scale to decentralization."In many instances, the nominees for the presidential parties end up being fairly moderate within their parties and are able to please the majority of their party at least at a core conforming level." On a first impression it would appear that you are arguing that County and State elections are more partisan and more centralized because of their decreased scale. This seems to be in conflict with a trend that is apparent in smaller governments, which is that legislative bodies such as County Boards, or City Aldermen have a tendency to be non-partisan. We certainly have many local examples of this: Milwaukee County's Board of Supervisors, Sheboygan County's, The aldermen from Milwaukee and Madison all have non-partisan structures. This trend seems to be opposition to the trend that you outline in your argument. Perhaps it is because the pressures of factionalization from partisan politics are so great as to damage the well being of people in the municipalities, ala Federalist No. 10? who knows? either way nice post.
ReplyDelete