I realize; I was just hoping the OP had a specific example or two in mind to justify the word “savaged”, which suggests something a bit more obvious than something unpleasant “somehow” happening. The premise after all is that Democrats, once in power, do more bad “partisan” things than Republicans, as the OP is very vaguely defining the term. So which congressman have been taken out and shot for not voting the party line? Which have had their homes firebombed? Which have received wet-towel snappings in the congressional locker room? Stop me, OP, when I’m getting close.
Yup, the voting stats seem to bear that out. It would also be interesting to compare Presidential veto rates in these situations, i.e. Clinton vs. Bush II.
The thread hasn’t been a total waste - at least I got to see that my Congressman only votes with the Repub “leadership” 91% of the time, making him practically an independent by Moto standards. Could my elected weasel be feeling the hot breath of an effective challenge in '08? We can only hope…
The wrong (or rather, grossly incomplete for the question asked) dataset subjected to the wrong analysis, based on a flawed conception of what measuring partisanship involves (given the problem of controlling for whether or not the bills proposed by the leadership are politically extreme: the more politically extreme they are, the LESS partisan that party will seem as its more moderate members break away).
Of course, these are exactly the sorts of mistakes anyone would make when trying to measure such things: which is, I guess, why political scientists have fancy positions in universities as opposed just being random people pulled off the street.
Mr. Moto, from someone who agrees with your position more often than not, I suggest you unclench your grasp on your hypothesis. First, even if the votes would align as you had hoped, it is weak to then ascribe the tendency to vote party with mere partisanship. As** Ravenman** and others pointed out, a different mix of who controls different branches of the government at the time is a better explanation. Also, we all know that sometimes votes are intended to send a message home to home states/districts. if, like now, we have an unpopular President and a vote comes up which the outcome is a fait acompli, congresscritters are not above kowtowing to their electorate. There are many other scenarios that would explain a break with party. That’s not to say that rank partianship exists. It does.
Time to shrug your shoulders and move on. Save your energy for when you’re on more solid ground.
Here’s a thought: Democrats more often vote the party line (assuming for the moment this true) because the party takes greater effort when forming legislation to consult each member and allow them to raise objections and modify the legislation accordingly so acceptable compromises are reached by the time the floor vote comes.
It’s just a theory, mind you, but I think it scans better than “Democrats are more partisan!”
First, we need a definition of partisan. So far, the definitions given don’t really make sense. So long as you have a political view and you join a party in order to advance that political view, your votes on legislation are mostly going reflect your political views, not “partisanship.” After all, one assumes that you have a particular political view, because you believe it is “good for the country”? Does anyone go into politics in order to harm the country?
Once you have a definition, then you have to find a way to measure it. It seems to me that legislative votes are not helpful at all in measuring “partisanship.”
How about this for partisanship? Which party is most likely to run roughshod over traditional separation of powers and traditional legislative practices designed to protect the minority party? Say, for example …
- Institute an all-but-official declaration that no judicial nominations by the current president will advance in the Senate
- Muck about with legislative procedures, such as time limits on voting on a bill, in order to give party leadership the time to coerce or bribe members who oppose the bill in question?
- Ignore all signs of executive overreaching, mismanagment, incompetence, and malfeasance and thus surrender the oversight function of the legislature?
- Routinely call those who disagree with them politically “traitors”
… any more?
Pardon granted!
I am using partisan in this context:
“partial to a particular party or person, often political in nature. One criticism of federal politics, especially regarding Congress, is that some politicians spend more time and effort trying to promote their party’s platform than trying to develop laws and policies which serve the American people.”
There’s a lot of ways of looking at what partisanship means, and in a different context I think yours would be correct. But Your definition would restate the OP as simply asking if there are more GOP than Democrats, since those are the ones who identify. Pretty silly question.
UP OR DOWN VOTE! UP OR DOWN VOTE! WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!
Or something like that.
-Joe
To add on a bit, (what the heck it’s GD)… this is what I think of as partisanship. (emphasis mine)
A quick look at the Jerkitudinal Index would show that the Republicans vastly outstrip democrats. The trouble is, there are no solid metrics to cite; it’s just friggin’ obvious. Just rewind the tape to the Clinton Administration and relive the antics of the likes of Tom Delay and Karl Rove. But because jerkitude is rather intangible, the Republicans can keep spinning and spinning and not have to admit to anything.
Pretty standard bullying tactic. The bully never really get his comeuppance, but the victim has made so much noise so that when it’s his turn, he’s the one who gets held to the highest standards–and it’s the bully who is at the forefront of enforcing them on him.
Hmm.
While I still think there is something to this, and I will be watching it, I will agree that it isn’t something that can be conclusively determined at this time.
I will certainly agree that Republicans in past years have behaved in a very partisan manner as well, though not to this degree, by the looks of it. And whether this pattern will be sustained through the rest of this Congress has yet to be determined.
I don’t think I should have drawn a conclusion here, though examining the issue in general was probably fair. I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses, and in the future, should more data become available, I’d love to revisit this subject.
Thanks.
Very clever.
You thank the posters for their “thoughtful” comments, yet you fail to acknowledge the principal point they make – that you have failed to establish any degree whatsoever, on either side.
So, I guess your appreciation didn’t extend to actually reading any of the responses, right?
I disagree.
The question actually cannot be answered.
If you decide what partisan means, then there are a number of ways to quantify it. I think the problem is that different people have different interpretations of what partisanship is.
Well, in the one actual example of an actual Republican dominated Congress that has already been presented in this thread, the Republicans at that time were in such partisan lockstep (using your definition) that they made the current Democrats look like advocates of their own dissolution, so the claim of “not to this degree” is clearly false.
I would guess that wandering back into the thread six days after your thesis has been upended by facts and declaring “We can’t really know, but I think I’m right” is probably not going to be a successful way to persuade other posters.