Does defeat cause a party to moderate or radicalize?

Politics & Elections
1

In the 1990s, the rise of Bill Clinton and Third Way Democrats was probably a response to the Republicans winning three straight presidential elections in the 80s. But Obama’s reelection in 2012 and Trump’s election in 2016 didn’t have the effect of centering the Republicans and Democrats, instead it caused the GOP and Dems to move further right and left, respectively.

Not sure how that happened but my theory is that the Republicans were never able to move to the left as much as the Democrats did rightwards in the 1990s, and Trump’s election was so ghastly to many people on the political left that moving towards the right just was not an option - there was too much anger to move to the right. Another culprit might be that, in the 1980s and early 1990s there was still more bipartisanship, but by now, both sides are so bitterly dead-set against each other that there can’t be any more moving towards the center, even if doing so would mean winning more elections.

Finally, the 1980s elections were all landslides, whereas elections since 2000 have been closer, which gives less incentive to move towards the middle.

2

I reject your view that the Democrats moved left (although the Republicans moved right). Obamacare, for example, is basically Romneycare on a national level. If the Democrats had moved left you would see single payer.

3

I agree. The Republicans moved to the right in the eighties. The Democrats responded by moving to the center in the nineties. And both parties have stayed in those positions.

4

I mean they moved left after Trump was elected.

5

Yeah, Democrats want single payer now and no immigration enforcement. They’ve actually left European left-wing parties in the dust. That’s not smart.

As to whether parties radicalize or moderate, depends on how long they’ve been out of office and why they think they are out of office. Three straight defeats tends to result in moderation. One or two proves nothing, coulda just been one charismatic guy. Given that the Democrats haven’t won a Presidential election since 1976 without a super charismatic candidate, the Republicans had a point. Republicans on the other hand have won with charisma and with dopeyness.

6

Yeah, when Al Gore looked in your eyes, you just melted.

More people voted for the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate in six of the last seven Presidential elections. The Republicans have clung to power by controlling the voting system not because the American public supports them.

7

How so? The only movement I’ve seen in the Democratic Party is away from Trump. And a lot of Republicans are doing that.

8

The big defeats were in '64 for the Republicans and '72 for the Dems. Both won the very next election by tacking back to the middle. Oh, of course there were other factors. And drawing any kind of direction-inspiring conclusion from '16 is pretty silly as it was about as anomalous a contest as I can imagine.

9

The Democrats can lose a lot more electoral votes while winning the popular vote if they continue on their current path.

10

Anyone think that Trump’s ego is so bruised at having lost the popular vote last time, he’s going to concentrate his next campaign on winning the popular vote, even though that’s not how one wins elections?

I can dream, can’t I?

11

It’s probably difficult to look to history for examples of what we’re seeing now. But we’re entering an age another culture war age, similar to what the country dealt with in the 1960s and periodically for much of the 19th Century. Culture wars lead to radicalization more than party defeats. People vote for partisans who can express their views with intensity.

The aftermath of the 2016 is unlike any we’ve seen in a long time because there is the belief among those of the left that the moderate Democratic party is no longer fit to defend passionately its sacred economic and cultural values. This is similar to how Republicans felt in 2012 after Romney lost. Republicans also felt that the moderate and pragmatist party had failed them, that it couldn’t represent their values with the requisite intensity. Voters on the right rejected their pragmatists in 2016 and nominated a wrecking ball candidate. Democrats reluctantly trusted their seemingly formidable establishment candidate. The wrecking ball candidate swung violently into the blue wall and left it in shambles.

Now the Democrats are angry and they don’t want another successor to a throne. They want William Wallace. They want their own wrecking ball. The question is, is their wrecking ball heavier and more powerful, or not? And will it damage the other party, or swing backwards and damage their own?

12

He is making the Democrats more radical.

13

I think a lot of people oversimplify even how they talk about this, and it confuses their conclusions.

It’s not really true that a political party that wants to win more votes, decides to “move left” or to “move right.” That’s more what commentators and other observers say about it.

What actually USUALLY happens, is that their leadership takes a look at what various voting blocks appear to want or to dislike, and then they tailor their party message to try to grab the votes of that block, while still pursuing at least a GENERAL version of their original goals. Onlookers might SAY that the party is “tacking right” or “tacking left,” but really, that’s never actually the case.

The thing is, in order to gain controlling power in the US, a party has to figure out how to KEEP the people that they already have in positions of influence, and then ADD to them. If the party suddenly dumps everything it stood for on the previous election and shifts to the other end of the spectrum, they will LOSE a lot of their existing people.

So. Defeat NEITHER causes a party to radicalize, NOR does is cause a party to moderate. It only causes a party leadership, to try a different approach to tempting voters to choose their side.

The nation as a whole, ALSO doesn’t suddenly shift from one point of view to the other. People didn’t become vastly more liberal in the 1960’s, or swing to being vastly more conservative in the 1980’s. They didn’t vote FOR Obama because they suddenly became less racist, nor did they vote for Trump because they suddenly became MORE racist.

The reason why the Republicans may have SEEMED to move right at various times, is because the potential voting blocks that they saw as up for grabs (i.e. being discarded by the Democrats), were all rather right-ish looking.

Abortion itself, for example, isn’t either a right or left wing thing. People on both ends of the spectrum as well as all sorts of people in the middle, don’t positively LIKE the idea of it. What leads it to SEEM to be a right or left wing issue, is what people want to do about it, and how.

By all logic, Republicans SHOULD be the party that supports “choice,” and the party that supports marriage equality, because they make so many righteous pronunciations in opposition to government intrusion into private concerns. But instead, they completely discard those supposed “core values,” because they saw that the Democrats had discarded the large number of people who want government to RESTRICT everyone’s individual rights in that area.

The same thing is true about Health care. By all logic, the GOP SHOULD be the party that favors universal coverage, and government funded health care, both because it’s much more efficient, and because it would remove the financial burden of health care from employers and businesses, so that they could more easily compete with foreign interests.

But they didn’t, because they have a long heritage of opposing anything that was first supported by traditional Democratic groups, such a labor unions.

Trump IS certainly an anomaly election, in more than one way. But then it’s true that most of the latest Presidents we’ve had, have been anomalous in a way. Clinton won reelection despite being caught screwing around on his wife, and was popular despite a successful impeachment. Bush junior won twice, despite being disliked for the mess in the middle east. Obama won despite racism, more because everyone was so angry at the Republicans for the economic collapse of 2005, that they would have voted for pretty much any THING that ran against them.

And aside from the people who refuse to accept facts, Trump’s victory was assuredly NOT a mandate for anything. He also won by being AGAINST things, rather than by being for anything concrete. Hence his odd reverse margin of victory.

And by the way, adeher is entirely off the mark with his post saying " Yeah, Democrats want single payer now and no immigration enforcement. They’ve actually left European left-wing parties in the dust." There’s zero evidence to support either assertion. A joke post perhaps?

14

Agree with igor as to the most rational members of the leadership within a party. But they’re not the only fingers pushing on the Ouija puck.

Agree with your whole post.

Ref the snip above and other fingers on the Ouija …

Ultimately our collective politics are far too complex to be reduced to a simple binary choice: D or R. But our electoral system demands a binary choice on a game-theoretic basis and our rigid archaic constitution precludes any sort of slow evolution of our system of government. It must remain exactly as it was in 1780 until the day it shatters under the strain.
Which leads to my conclusion:
As to the OP’s narrow question: “Does defeat cause a party to moderate or radicalize?”, my answer is:

It depends entirely on which narrative takes hold within the up and coming movers and shakers. Certainly in 2012 the Rs decided they lost because they weren’t radical enough. Once they believed that, the way forward was clear. To them at least if not the rest of us.

The other large thing that the OP and a few other posters did was confuse “party” with “presidential candidate”.

The major parties contend for thousands of state-level offices. And over 500 Federal offices. One of which is President. Each party is far from a single monolithic entity pushing a single coherent policy prescription at all levels for all offices. So it’s a fundamental mistake to talk about them as if they were.

15

I think a big part is that the parties are more ideologically unified now. There used to be liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Now polls show about half of democrat voters are liberals (compared to 29% in 2000) and the % of republicans who are conservative has gone up too.

So when a party loses, the most energized people take over which tend to be the ideologues.

So in modern times, I think it makes them radicalize. However 50 years ago, it’d probably make them moderate.

Keep in mind the third way was 30 years ago. Close to 40% of voters who were alive at that time are dead now. The electorate is a different place now.

16

I would argue that Democratic *voters have shifted considerably further left in their views. Democratic politicians, on the other hand, are doubling down on moving to the center, and the right, as they repeatedly state publicly, much to their detriment. They’re still laboring under the false assumption that they’ll snag more votes if they appeal to “moderates” and “centrists,” without realizing that there increasingly is no such animal.

Other than that I agree with all of the above :slight_smile:

17

Parties don’t “move”. That implies intentional manipulation of the process by those in charge. :rolleyes:

In 1964, Barry Goldwater, a very conservative Republican, got annihilated in the general election. In 1968, Richard Nixon, a somewhat conservative Republican in some ways, but economically a more liberal Republican, was nominated, and won. But it’s not like Nixon didn’t face more conservative opponents. Ronald Reagan, for example, was his strongest challenger. In 1972, George McGovern, a very liberal Democrat, got annihilated in the general election. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a somewhat conservative Democrat in some ways (but not in foreign policy!), was nominated, and won. But it’s not like Carter didn’t face more liberal opponents.

The winner of a party’s primary election depends upon the public perspective of the message being offered. If those who vote in primaries feel happier with a new message, then they will vote for those offering it. That might mean that the candidates of that party end up being more liberal or conservative than they were in a previous election cycle. But there are plenty of examples of candidates losing badly in a general election without the next set of primary winners being more “centrist”. And in truth, I see no indication that the primary winners for the Democrats since November are more “liberal” than those offered in the general election.

18

Then I guess that all the talk about gay marriage, and all the hatred against “bigots” (i.e., people who oppose making up “rights” out of thin air), and all the talk about the poor oppressed transgender people–all that must be figments of our collective imagination.

We DO support “choice.” We support school choice; we support the right of parents to choose how to raise their children without government interference; we support the right of business owners to choose who to serve, and who to not serve; we support the rights of people to choose what weapons to buy, and how to carry them; etc. What we don’t support is the “right” for people to murder their unborn babies.

19

But not the right to choose to marry someone of the same sex, or the right to choose to live with a gender identity different from one’s sex assigned at birth, or the right to choose to smoke marijuana, or the right of a broadcast station to choose to allow profanity or nudity, or the right to choose to burn a flag, etc.

20

It’s worth noting that it wasn’t until 2003 that the Supreme Court ruled sodomy was legal on a federal level, making it effectively illegal to be born gay before 2003.

It’s interesting that the people who scream the loudest about our freedoms tend to be the same people who have no problem with throwing people in jail over actions that cause no harm to anyone else.

It’s not about “making up rights” as suggested above, it’s about affirming that everyone has those rights, and stopping people from being persecuted.