So say political experts Larry Sabato and Thomas Mann.
The article goes on to mention that Rep. Ken Lucas (D-Ky.) is mulling the possibility of switching parties.
Also, any African American in Congress could likely write his/her own ticket if s/he offered to become a Republican. Such a switch would benefit all African Americans, because it would force the Democrats to more for them, rather than just take their support for granted.
To quote General McAuliffe, “Nuts!”
Oh, absolutely, I certainly feel that the Democrats could “more” more, for African Americans and everyone else. But it occurs to me that since it was liberals in the 1940s-1960s who enabled such equality as African Americans have achieved, and conservatives (largely old-school Southern Democrats of the time, of whom the last is retiring this January) who combatted this, and since liberals are welcomed in the Democratic party and virtually taboo to most Republicans, it would make absolutely no sense for them to abandon the party that has fought for them in the recent past in favor of the party that fought for them in its radical origins 150 years ago and has since moved steadily to the right.
Anyone who abdicates his or her principles for political gain deserves nothing but contempt. If those “conservative Democrats” find themselves in sympathy with Republican principles, this may be a wise step for them.
However, typically “conservative Democrats” are moderate libertarians opposed to “big government” but staunch for individual rights. And a fair proportion of Republican leaders (not all, but a sizeable group) seem insistent on imposing majoritarian values as mandatory on all.
In short, December, this is one more example of partisan spin brought forth as a proposed Great Debate. I would advocate your applying to WorldNetDaily as a columnist, but there are times when you indulge in rational discourse with your fellow posters here, and so I don’t think you’d meet their editorial standards. 
Then it’s time for the remaining moderate Republicans to join the rest of the centrists in the Democratic Party too, isn’t it?
You have some good points, Polycarp. I’ll focus on areas where I disagree. “Right” and “left” are not linear measures. Yes, the Republican Party has moved steadily to the right since Barry Goldwater in terms of economic issues.. However, they have simultaneously moved steadily in the direction of racial tolerance. African Americans wield more influence in the Bush Administration than in any prior administration.
There’s a lot to be said for long-term loyalty, but one ought not ignore, “what have you done for me lately?” The Democratic Party has several key constituencies, including African Americans, plaintiff’s attorneys, and unions. The interest of the latter two groups is not parallel to the interest of blacks. In fact, the interest is somewhat antithetical in the case of the teachers’ unions. As a result blacks are getting less than their fair share of support. Some blacks in Congress are starting to complain.
Imagine how much more leverage Eddie Johnson would have if defections were a real possibilty!
True, but this also goes for a sizable portion of Democratic leaders.
Despite my pro-Israel stance, I could barely meet their standards on this issue. It’s noteworthy that WorldNetDaily’s editor, Joseph Farah, an Arab, has more one-sided support for Israel and against the Palestinians than just about any other commentator. However, I agree that WND sometimes comes across as kooky.
Er, is the OP putting forward the opinion that there are no significant differences in ideology between the Republican and Democratic parties?
If so, this certainly seems to go against previous statements by the OP.
In any event, I fail to see what significant benefits would accrue to Democrats by switching parties, or to the nation by moving closer to a one-party state.
I didn’t mean that. Rather, there are some centrist Democratic Congressmen whose philosophies are about as in tune with the Republican Party as with the Democratic Party. These individuals might be comfortable changing their party.
As a slight tangent to the debate at hand, I tend to believe that if a person takes the measure of switching parties, that same person should offer to re-run in a special election under the proposed new party affiliation.
You mean racial tolerance is a quality of the left wing of the political spectrum? Right-wing = racist? Whoda thunk it?
If people switch to the Republican party, will they be condemned and insulted like Jeffords was? Or will turnabout suddenly become fairplay again?
Yes, of course. Jeffords’ switch was an act of craven ambition, while the switches the OP refers to are acts of high moral principle. :rolleyes:
december"African Americans wield more influence in the Bush Administration than in any prior administration."
Hardly obvious, bubbeleh - and even then, only if you claim Powell has actual influence.
As a disinterested outside observer who thinks both major parties are full of crap, I just wanted to inform Polycarp and other Democrats that, by dismissing December’s arguments with poking fun at his typos and insulting his intelligence makes you — not him — look bad.
His points are not entirely meritless, and if Indians had any political clout, they might be wise to join the Republicans, too.
Polycarp thunk it. I was disputing his/her implication of that very point.
december, when you say “the Republican party is moving to the right on economic issues; however, they have moved steadily in the direction of racial tolerance”, the sentence implies that racial tolerance = left-wing position
I don’t think that racial tolerance is necessarily a “left-wing” position, though perhaps it might appear that way in the USA.
I was just kidding around. I should have included a smiley.
I’ve actually heard that, based on the obvious superiority of the Republican party on all issues, that the Democratic party is considering disbanding. After all, democracy can only improve without all the partisan squabbling inherent in a two-party system. Who needs more than one party?
Note: The preceeding remarks were sarcasm.
AW: I don’t think that racial tolerance is necessarily a “left-wing” position, though perhaps it might appear that way in the USA.
Not much anymore; in fact, I think one of the greatest triumphs of the civil rights movement is the fact that opposition to racial equality is no longer mainstream on either end of the political spectrum. The liberals may have embraced racial nondiscrimination first, but the conservatives are pretty much all on board now.
The same seems to be true for gender discrimination, which also used to be one of the liberal/conservative dividing lines, but no longer is (except perhaps for some of the Christian Right conservatives who have more stringent views on gender roles). Sexual-orientation discrimination may still be one of those dividing lines, though; liberals tend to lump it in with race and gender discrimination as unacceptable, while many conservatives see it as a social necessity.
december: *Also, any African American in Congress could likely write his/her own ticket if s/he offered to become a Republican. *
You mean, in terms of committee chairmanships and the like? I kind of doubt their influence would extend to actually changing conservative policy trends. And since most of their black constituents, who generally provide their core support, are Democrats, they might not last long as Republicans. It might be a profitable move for what Mann calls “conservative Democrats whose districts better fit the GOP”, but how many African-American Congresspeople fit that description?
[hijack]
The interest of the latter two groups is not parallel to the interest of blacks. In fact, the interest is somewhat antithetical in the case of the teachers’ unions.
Apparently the groups involved don’t see it quite that way; witness the partnership recently formed by the NAACP, AFT, and NEA to facilitate collaboration on issues of common interest. You personally may feel that “teachers unions = bad public education = bad deal for African-Americans”, but I don’t see any evidence that African-Americans in general agree with you.
[/hijack]
I think it’s also time for all the extreme right-wingers in the Republican Party to move to the American Constitution Party so no one will vote for them.
Colour me confused - I can’t see the long term advantage to either the “switchers” OR the Republican party from this proposal.The most likely longterm consequence seems to be a scenario like this:
Constituency A elects Mr Democrat to the house, passing over Mr Republican-Candidate who stood against him. Presumably this happens because the constituency has a tendency to … well… vote Democrat.
Mr Democrat changes his coat somewhere along the line. Republicans now have slightly more of a majority in the House than they used to. This makes Republicans temporarily happy, but makes no difference to the balance of power since they ALREADY had a majority.
Four years later, Mr Ex-Democrat stands for reelection as a Republican. Constituency A (following their usual practise of “voting Democrat”) votes for a Democrat - ie, not him anymore.
Final result:
A LOOSE for:
Mr Ex-Democrat (out on his arse after the second election)
Mr Republican-Candidate (got squeezed out of the process early on by the coat-turner. Probably mightily pissed off by the whole process)
The Republican Party (lost the seat again, and has to cope with a number of pissed-off Mr Republican-Candidates in its own ranks. Also, the new representative for Constituency A, Mr New Democrat is likely to be further to the left than his predecessor - after all, why would the Democrats put up another potential coat-turner for election?)
What do any of the participants in this process actually get out of it??
I think you ought to spend more time reading “real” news.
And btw, you need not worry about the defection of Lucas. That is, if you can believe anything the reputable CNS News or its parent company Media Research Company prints. Let’s leave the “fair and balanced” approach to Fox News (“We report, you decide” - what a joke…).
Also, if it weren’t for some crazy Democrat, the whole notion of minorities in the White House would be just as it was during Reagan-Bush.