A post from Ezra Klein on the Washington Post’s online political blog is a little out of date - it is from November when Republican presidential candidates not named Romney were still in the hunt for the nomination - but it makes an interesting point about American politics now:
The article goes on to frame the paper (the link goes to a .PDF of what seems to be an updated version of the research) within the constrains of the modern day GOP and their race to unseat Barrack Obama, and while that might be an obvious place to frame the debate, it’s an interesting one (to me, anyway) even without using that specifically.
According to the abstract:
In short, in the past the prevailing thought was that an electorate as a whole would vote to elect politicians who would most closely follow their own views. But now (and maybe this was always the case) special interest groups and and activists are actually driving policy and politicians use their views and support to see just how far they can get the rest of the electorate to come around to their way of thinking - and even do this in the hopes that the electorate just isn’t paying that much attention!
To be sure, this is a very cynical view, but is it happening?
Also, if it is, why does it seem to be more common on the conservative side than for those who are more progressive? That might be debatable, but it’s an undeniable fact that the extreme views of the conservative activists in this country drive the policy of the Republican party with much greater success than progressive groups impact Democratic platform.
The most obvious example of this is the Tea Party versus the Occupy Movement. Although the Tea Party has been around longer, the impact of what is really a very vocal minority of the electorate has had an undeniable impact on shaping the makeup and policy of the Republican party whereas the Occupation made a splash in the American conscience for a minute there but didn’t change the course of the Democratic party at all.
It’s an imperfect example - one movement was founded with corporate backing and covered by a news organization that helped it along whereas the other was more organic but lacked a cohesive message - but I think a telling one.
If this is true, how has and how will this impact the way our country is governed? It can’t be positive, can it?
A Wikipedia article (on which conservative Dopers have declined to comment) may help explain why some right-wing voters are more easily gulled:
As to why elections are more easily controlled by special interests these days, one need only look to the relaxation of both campaign spending rules and rules limiting news media monopoly powers. In a recent thread, some Dopers implied that election control by the rich was a right guaranteed by the sacred First [del]Commandment[/del] Amendment, which was inscribed by the Finger of God on Mount Sinai.
So some extent they should do this. Politicians are supposed to be elected to lead, not simply to do what the people tell them to do. Elections, consultations etc. should sway the opinions and choices of the politicians, but in the end the idea is to vote for someone who is supposed to be wiser and better placed to make political decisions than the average person.
I would mostly blame the American people for this. It’s their combination of apathy and the general idea that even a whiff of socialism is fundamentally anti-American that allows “vocal minorities” to have a bigger impact than those who at least attempt to speak for the majority.
And of course, no one claimed that. However, if you disagree with the SCOTUS’s interpretation of the constitution, you may need to go the amendment route unless you can get more justices in your camp.
Do I need a cite to clarify that I was being hyperbolic to claim Dopers thought the Bill of Rights was written by the Finger of God?
Do I need cites to demonstrate that right-wing Dopers indulge in extravagant hyperbole and reply to counterclaims by saying they “were just speaking colorfully”?
If you imply that the present five men running SCOTUS produce different decisions than the SCOTUSes of the past, I agree with you. Perhaps we differ as to whether that is good or bad.
But the real point is: We should identify problems and explore remedies. The cited thread identified a real problem. Helpful responses would have had the form “Here’s how we can modify your suggestion and still comply with Free Speech rules.” Instead, right-wingers simply cited the 1st Amendment as though that settled the matter.
Did you note that the link in the OP was to a paper written in 2006? And that the paper is purporting to explain the political landscape going back to the 1790s?
You’ve lost me. I wrote “cited thread” to distinguish from “this thread” (or “cite in OP”) and to refer to Real campaign-finance reform: Ban all paid political advertising in the U.S.
I thought, mistakenly it now appears, that this was obvious in context.
I realize my posts sometimes are poorly written and confusing. But to skim or make assumptions such as my “cited thread” being a typo for “cite in OP” will compound, not alleviate, any confusion.
Yes, I noticed it. I was just using your latest post as a jumping off point to note that the paper in question was written before the Citizens United decision, and was meant to describe the political situation in the US as it has always existed. Sorry if that caused confusion.
You earlier claimed that elections are now controlled by special interests more than in the past. I doubt that, but if you have a cite to prove it, I’d be interested in seeing it. Maybe you thought that link in the OP proved it, but it didn’t.
So what? American parties have always worked this way. Back in the day, it was even worse: they were explicitly based around specific policies. Hating communists, monetary reform, land reform, and so on.
I think RNATB has it right, and that this is generally how democracy works here. Activists coalesce around specific clusters of issues, ally with other activists, and then try to figure out how to add on a sufficiently general platform so as to attract a majority of voters. Once in, the determination of whose issues get pursued into policy depends on what caught fire with the voters as well as which activists were most influential in providing resources toward victory.
And certainly both parties are coalitions of interests. The Tea Party has had successes (and some failures – remember Delaware) because it deliberately set out to work its way into the grass-roots party structure, whereas OWS specifically declined to take that approach. There are other interest groups, though, that play a large role in the Democratic Party. For instance, 10% of the delegates to the 2008 convention were members of teachers unions.
I would disagree. Although I think they have long ago outlived their usefulness, I think the Occupy wall street succeeded in their mission to alert the public at large of the large and increasing wealth gap between the middle class and the very rich. Before them I say the 99% vs 1% statistics mentioned here on the dope and in a few blogs or OP eds but it wasn’t really an issue in the main stream media. After occupy a much larger percentage of people were made aware of this difference and it started entering the national dialogue. The problem with the Occupy movement is that once they had gotten their message out, they didn’t know how to end it without looking like they were giving up, and so the narrative became more about the logistics of the protest than it did the message. However without occupy I don’t think you would be hearing much of anything in the main stream media about the wealth gap.
Regardless of whether the narrative was “a minute” or a little more, the issue is whether it impacted the platform of any party to the degree that the Tea Party did and it’s not even close.
That’s a really interesting article. Do you have any comment on the conclusions that liberals are more apt to misrepresent the political views of others?
I’m not sure that quote says what you interpret it to say. ISTM that the “very liberal” group described doesn’t understand the conservative group at all. To say they misrepresent the conservatives’ views implies that the “very liberal” group understands the conservatives, but chooses to lie about them.
