The results of this year’s election and (especially) the 2000 election brought this topic to mind. To me, it seems that in terms of political success, conservatives are a lot more effective than liberals. Case in point: the 2000 presidential election. Early on, the success of John McCain against George W. Bush in the Republican primaries seemed to indicate that some deep cracks had developed in the GOP’s conservative coalition that was at its peak during the Reagan Administration. With the Cold War over and the Soviet Union gone, it seemed as though as the various groups that made up the Republican’s core constituency (i.e., the pro-business Wall Street contingent, the cultural warriors of the religious right, the quasi-Libertarian small government advocates, etc.) were taking a good look at one another and discovering that they didn’t have as much in common as they used to. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, it seemed as though Gore–despite some petty grumbling from the Naderites–would be able to get most of the nominal liberals into the Democratic camp. Of course, by that November, the various conservative sub-groups were so harmoniously and enthusiastically behind Bush that you’d think his dust-up in the early primaries with McCain never happened. In contrast, Nader ended up taking away enough dissatisfied “lefter than thou” liberals in several states to cost Gore an electoral victory. Moreover, even many of the liberals who did vote for Gore, support was moderate and seemingly nowhere near the adoration of many of the conservatives supporting Bush.
I bring up the 2000 election only because it’s just one example of how people on the left wing of the political spectrum seem more fractious than people on the right wing. They seem more intent on examining one another for any apparent deviations from the ideological line than on staying together to get their candidates elected and their policies implemented. (Of course, conservative dopers would see this as a good thing.)
I think it’s generally easier to be unified when you’re on the outside, looking in. That is, when your party is out of power, and desperate to get back INTO power, everybody’s united in hatred of the guys in charge. But if your side manages to win the elctions, and comes back into power, all the divisions begin to surface again.
The Democrats have their Naderites, the Republicans have their Buchananites. Each side has ideologues who think the party has “sold out,” and isn’t pure enough.
Now that liberals are clearly on the outside, I predict they’ll rally around Nancy Pelosi, and will be VERY unified in fighting George W. Bush tooth and nail. How long will that unity last? Until the next time we have a Democrat in the White House, of course!
And I’m not counting on conservatives remaining united in support of the President, either. Because now that the GOP controls the WHitre House AND both houses of Congresses, many on the far/religious right are going to demand that the WHite Hosue take immediate action on their pet issues. When that doesn’t happen (notice I said “when,” not if- Bush can’t afford to give the religious right all it wants), you’ll see the usual schisms again.
It can’t be helped- if we were Israel or Italy or France, we could have 20 different parties, each getting 5% of the vote, but those parties would all be “pure” in their ideologies. But in a two party system, you have to piece together a majority by appealing to numerous groups that don’t always like each other much. That’s a tough act to pull off. Keeping all those factions united requires a brilliant political tactician or a very charismatic President.
NDP: *I bring up the 2000 election only because it’s just one example of how people on the left wing of the political spectrum seem more fractious than people on the right wing. They seem more intent on examining one another for any apparent deviations from the ideological line than on staying together to get their candidates elected and their policies implemented. *
Maybe. But what about, say, the Jim Jeffords party switch? Left or right, when members of a subgroup (such as moderate or “liberal” Republicans among the Republicans, or left-liberals or progressives among the Democrats) feel that they are not being adequately represented by the policies of their larger group, they tend to break ranks, even if they compromise the political success of the larger group in doing so.
Well, (for the 2000 election, at least), Bush was more conservative than Gore was liberal. Gore was/is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, as Clinton was/is, and the Clinton/Gore ticket, when they ran, didn’t run on liberal issues. They focused on moderate/conservative issues, like fiscal conservativism, balancing the budget, welfare reform, and crime reduction.
So, even though Gore’s platform in 2000 was to the left of Clinton’s in 1992-1996, a lot of liberals didn’t trust him, and it didn’t help when he picked Joe Lieberman, who had, in the past, supported social security privatization and school vouchers, and opposed affirmative action, as his vice-presidential candidate. Also, the liberals had been feeling ignored by the party, and were reluctant to give it their full support.
You see something similar among the Republicans both in 1998, when Robertson in Iowa seemed to threaten Bush’s position as heir apparent to the Republican nomination, and in 1992, when Pat Buchanan ran for the nomination against Bush, while Bush was the sitting president.
So, I don’t think it’s that liberals are more politically divided than conservatives.
I’m not saying that factionalism doesn’t exist among conservatives. I just think when push comes to shove, conservatives seem more likely to hang together than liberals.
NDP:I just think when push comes to shove, conservatives seem more likely to hang together than liberals.
Well, Perot picked up a lot of conservative votes in the 1992 Presidential election, and it’s been suggested that he lost Bush Sr. the White House, in the same way that Nader is said to have played “spoiler” for Gore in 2000. Why didn’t the conservatives hang together then, when push came to shove?
While Perot may have been somewhat conservative politically, he did not run as THE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE the way that Nader ran as THE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE. Perot’s supporters generally saw what they wanted to see in him regardless of their ideology (although you are right in saying Perot took away more conservative votes from the Republicans than liberal votes from the Democrats). Also, 1992 was the first presidential election after the end of the Cold War, which had a huge impact in the way the right and the left defined themselves. Without it, definitions of what it means to be “liberal” or “conservative” were (and still are) in a state of flux. That’s why, for example, you had the odd alliance of Pat Buchanan, Perot, and Nader against NAFTA. However, since then, most of the conservatives have stayed in the Republican camp and I think the reason is that they see the big picture better than many on the left. Conservatives seem more willing to compromise among themselves if it means they’ll have a better chance of winning than take a “whole loaf or none” attitude.
NDP:However, since then, most of the conservatives have stayed in the Republican camp and I think the reason is that they see the big picture better than many on the left.
Okay, so the topic question now seems to be “Has There Been More Political Unity Among Conservatives or Liberals Since 1993?” With a few more judicious counterexamples, we can probably narrow this down to “Was There More Political Unity Among Conservatives or Liberals In The 2000 Presidential Election?”, and then we’ll probably all agree with you.
That’s okay, Kimstu. I don’t want anyone to get the impression I want everybody to agree with me. This thread is in Great Debates and you can’t have a debate without having different points of view.
Anyway, as for a time frame, I do think a good place to start would be the presidential election of 1968 when many liberals who were angry at Hubert Humphrey for his failure to distance himself from LBJ’s policy on the Vietnam War, left the ballot blank. Although it’s been nearly 35 years, I don’t think the Democratic Party–or American liberalism–has ever totally healed from that split.
Well, conservative “unity” has been no sure thing either.
While it’s true that H. Ross Perot was NOT all that conservative, it’s also true that many who voted for him were- and they voted for him either because
He talked Southern, which made many people (on BOTH sides of the aisle) assume he was a lot more conservative than he was.
He was running against George Bush, whom the far right NEVER trusted (even though he’d been as solidly conservative in office as the beloved Ronald Reagan ever had).
Beyond that, you’ll recall that Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan both mounted challenges to George Bush from the right. How “unified” was that?
Even before that, in 1976, Ronald Reagan chose to divide the Republican Party (hurting Gerald Ford’s chances of winning).
Get the idea? The Democrats are NOT alone in having an ideological faction that’s willing to take the party down, even cost them an election, in the name of purity.
If I remember correctly that was during the primary and afterward the people that supported the Pat’s mostly voted for Bush as apposed to not voting or supporting the democrat.