I found it surprising how much sway minority parties have in Congress. As explained in Hetherington and Keefe, the role of these minority parties is to "mobilize congressional majorities and shape public policy." When I first heard about the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006, I was excited to hear what changes they'd enact after 12 years of Republican rule. When I failed to see any real action, I wondered why. Was it because the House couldn't come up with groundbreaking new legislature? Was there no media coverage of their decisions? Or did President Bush have something to do with it?
Now, while I don't understand the whole process completely, I think that the fact that Democrats didn't have that wide of a majority over the Republicans made a huge difference. The Republicans were still able to filibuster or in other ways block the House from passing Democratic-backed bills. And even though Democrats hold the majority, not every Democrat will vote with his party 100% of the time. The vote of the moderates can make or break a bill.
As explained in the class video, when a bill is presented to five people on varying places in the political spectrum, it will usually appeal to 2 of those people and not appeal to the other 2 on the opposite side. The majority vote, then, goes to the person square in the middle. The moderate. If he agrees with parts of the bill, it will pass. If he mostly disagrees with it, it will fail. It seems that moderates play a vital role as tiebreaker for the House. The Richert article, "Moderates Come Front and Center,"describes a specific scenario in which the moderates decided the fate of a certain bill. "In 1994, Clinton bet much of his political capital on being able to sell his health care initiative to a solidly Democratic Congress, completely misunderstanding how many moderates in his own party hated his ideas and were willing to join with virtually everyone on the Republican side to bury his ambitions." Certainly, the minorities play a huge role in determining the effectiveness of legislature negotiations.
As for the bailout bill that flew through the Senate but failed in the House, I found a number of explanations for the result. First of all, congressmen seemed reluctant to vote for a bill so unpopular with their districts. During a reelection year, congressmen generally will not vote for a bill that will doom their campaigns in the future. And since the term limit for congressmen is two years versus Senators' six, the Senators had less to lose by passing the bill.
There was also the question of partisanship related to this bill. Right after the bill failed, Minority Leader John Boehner blamed Nancy Pelosi's speech, right before the voting began, for the failing of the bill. He stated, "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house." Whether or not that speech actually made that big of a difference is unknown, but it was amusing to hear Rep. Barney Frank's opinion of Boehner's comment. "We don't believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that's hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer: Give me those twelve people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they'll now think about the country."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Campaigns & Elections II
In this year's campaign, both candidates are focusing their platforms on change, and in the simplest terms possible, both platforms seem to center on change from the current administration. John McCain's aim is to set himself apart from typical Republicans through his "maverick" title and his choice of maverick Sarah Palin as his running mate. He strives to accentuate the differences between himself and the current president, citing how often he has voted against Bush or stood up to his own party. Barack Obama is running his campaign on change -- not just from a Democrat standpoint, but from a seemingly ideological standpoint as well. His speeches don't declare that the Democratic party will bring about change, but that he will. In this respect, neither candidate seems like an agent for his party; both seem pretty intent on keeping their respective parties out of their campaigns.
In terms of the impact of technological advances on the presidential race, I think that the ability of candidates to separate themselves from their parties becomes much easier. With the ability to create web sites, post videos, reach out to social networking sites, and contact millions of people through a simple listserv, candidates don't need to rely on their parties to spread the word. Candidates are able to promote themselves any way they'd like for very little cost.
After studying both candidate's web sites, I've observed that both adhere very closely to Teachout's recommendations.
1.) Meeting tool
Both web sites offer visitors the opportunity to search for events in their areas. By typing in their zip code, and the max miles they're willing to travel, they're offered pages worth of debate watching parties, phone-bank volunteerism, or even pot-luck dinners. The meeting tools, in both cases, are offered right on the front page of each site.
However, it seems as though Obama's site offers more in terms of meeting venues and making arrangements. Obama's site offers visitors the change to make their own web page to connect with people in their area.
2.) Listserv
Again, both web sites encourage visitors to enter their email addresses to get on their candidate's listserv. However, Obama once again one-ups McCain's site by offering a listserv via text messages as well as email.
3.) Blogs
Yes, both sites also have blogs! Both blogs appear to be updated on a daily basis -- sometimes several times a day. Both seem to have a primary contributer (Matt Lira for John McCain and Amanda Scott for Barack Obama), and both utilize photos, links, and videos in their entries. The only real difference here is that Obama's site features the blog on the home page while McCain's is only accessible via a link.
In terms of the impact of technological advances on the presidential race, I think that the ability of candidates to separate themselves from their parties becomes much easier. With the ability to create web sites, post videos, reach out to social networking sites, and contact millions of people through a simple listserv, candidates don't need to rely on their parties to spread the word. Candidates are able to promote themselves any way they'd like for very little cost.
After studying both candidate's web sites, I've observed that both adhere very closely to Teachout's recommendations.
1.) Meeting tool
Both web sites offer visitors the opportunity to search for events in their areas. By typing in their zip code, and the max miles they're willing to travel, they're offered pages worth of debate watching parties, phone-bank volunteerism, or even pot-luck dinners. The meeting tools, in both cases, are offered right on the front page of each site.
However, it seems as though Obama's site offers more in terms of meeting venues and making arrangements. Obama's site offers visitors the change to make their own web page to connect with people in their area.
2.) Listserv
Again, both web sites encourage visitors to enter their email addresses to get on their candidate's listserv. However, Obama once again one-ups McCain's site by offering a listserv via text messages as well as email.
3.) Blogs
Yes, both sites also have blogs! Both blogs appear to be updated on a daily basis -- sometimes several times a day. Both seem to have a primary contributer (Matt Lira for John McCain and Amanda Scott for Barack Obama), and both utilize photos, links, and videos in their entries. The only real difference here is that Obama's site features the blog on the home page while McCain's is only accessible via a link.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campaigns and Elections
This post is going up a little later than I intended. I got caught up in the latest news story about McCain suspending his campaign to address the economic crisis, and then I was fortunate enough to catch Obama's response. This election just keeps getting more fascinating by the day! I really hope that the debates continue as scheduled -- I'm so looking forward to watching them on Friday.
Back to topic.
Just as the primaries aimed to take the elections out of the hands of party bosses and into the hands of the general public, campaign finance reform seeks to reduce the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations and thereby motivate the general public to fund their candidate's campaign. Unfortunately, there's no sure way to keep party bosses out of the general election, and there will always be loopholes allowing wealthy individuals to funnel their money into a campaign. While the McCain-Feingold act may have "banned the national parties, congressional committees, and federal officeholders from raising and spending soft money," it left opportunities for the wealthy to fund 527 groups independent of certain campaigns. This is what happened to the Kerry campaign back in 2004, when the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" bombarded the airwaves with their "issue advocacy ads," and it will continue to happen, since those Swift Boat ads were such a pivotal part of Kerry's defeat.
I think that these reformations of both campaign finance and primaries do have their merits. The primaries add an element of unpredictability to the elections, and since they're done on a state level, more attention gets paid to the voters' opinions. As stated in the textbook, "Presidential primaries, because they tap into voters' preferences in a more direct fashion than caucuses and involve a much larger sector of the electorate, present a particularly good opportunity for testing candidates, policies, and issues in a variety of states." Obviously, the greatest merit to the primary system is its direct correlation with the heart of democracy: the power of the people.
On the flip side, the book also suggests that, perhaps, the people aren't always the best judges of leadership ability. "Whether the new system produces better presidential candidates (or better presidents) than those previously chosen in smoke-filled rooms is another matter."
In the matter of campaign finances, I think it's impossible to imagine reform that completely eliminates partisanship. I think there will always be loopholes like the ones found in the McCain-Feingold act. Based on the loopholes, that even supposedly non-partisan 527 groups can release ads and influence the election, I don't believe that partisanship will ever be fully purged from the elections. Because factions are an inevitability of a democratic system, it's downright laughable to think that America can hold an election without the influence of parties.
And I also think it's unfortunate that money plays such a huge role in campaigning when it's position issues that should take center stage. Third party candidates will never get the recognition or the voice they deserve because of their inability to find campaign donations -- they'll most likely never accrue a large enough following to match the funds raised by the republicans and democrats.
Back to topic.
Just as the primaries aimed to take the elections out of the hands of party bosses and into the hands of the general public, campaign finance reform seeks to reduce the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations and thereby motivate the general public to fund their candidate's campaign. Unfortunately, there's no sure way to keep party bosses out of the general election, and there will always be loopholes allowing wealthy individuals to funnel their money into a campaign. While the McCain-Feingold act may have "banned the national parties, congressional committees, and federal officeholders from raising and spending soft money," it left opportunities for the wealthy to fund 527 groups independent of certain campaigns. This is what happened to the Kerry campaign back in 2004, when the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" bombarded the airwaves with their "issue advocacy ads," and it will continue to happen, since those Swift Boat ads were such a pivotal part of Kerry's defeat.
I think that these reformations of both campaign finance and primaries do have their merits. The primaries add an element of unpredictability to the elections, and since they're done on a state level, more attention gets paid to the voters' opinions. As stated in the textbook, "Presidential primaries, because they tap into voters' preferences in a more direct fashion than caucuses and involve a much larger sector of the electorate, present a particularly good opportunity for testing candidates, policies, and issues in a variety of states." Obviously, the greatest merit to the primary system is its direct correlation with the heart of democracy: the power of the people.
On the flip side, the book also suggests that, perhaps, the people aren't always the best judges of leadership ability. "Whether the new system produces better presidential candidates (or better presidents) than those previously chosen in smoke-filled rooms is another matter."
In the matter of campaign finances, I think it's impossible to imagine reform that completely eliminates partisanship. I think there will always be loopholes like the ones found in the McCain-Feingold act. Based on the loopholes, that even supposedly non-partisan 527 groups can release ads and influence the election, I don't believe that partisanship will ever be fully purged from the elections. Because factions are an inevitability of a democratic system, it's downright laughable to think that America can hold an election without the influence of parties.
And I also think it's unfortunate that money plays such a huge role in campaigning when it's position issues that should take center stage. Third party candidates will never get the recognition or the voice they deserve because of their inability to find campaign donations -- they'll most likely never accrue a large enough following to match the funds raised by the republicans and democrats.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Primaries
(Please bear with me -- I have a nasty cold that's stuffing my head!)
Regardless of how long it seems that the elections drag on, primaries are an absolute necessity for the democratic process, both in terms of party discipline and education of the public.
The primaries serve multiple purposes; they encourage debate about key issues, they inform and energize the public about politics, and they (usually) unite parties behind a candidate. For voters, the primaries serve to inform and energize. Through debates between the candidates, political ads, and media coverage, voters learn more about their candidates and how they stand on certain issues. This part of the primaries is vital; without adequate knowledge of the candidates, voters cannot make informed decisions. The conventions serve as the energizing portion of the primaries. Both parties choose respected and vibrant speakers to praise the chosen candidate and explain why he/she is the better choice which hopefully encourages the public to vote. The only downside of the primaries, for voters, is the overall length of the season and the incessant advertising and campaigning. Voters get slammed over the head with politics during primary season, which can turn people off to voting.
For parties, the primaries generally serve as a positive force. When the entire party supports a candidate, the party becomes a united front. And, when a party is united, that candidate has an edge in the election. Party unity isn't always the case during primaries, as we have seen from the 2008 race. When Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama, the Democratic party split; many of those who supported Clinton shunned Obama, forming their own group (PUMA) to elect anyone but Obama. This division increased when Obama chose Biden as his running mate instead of Clinton. On the other hand, the Republican party does seem united behind McCain and Palin thus far.
I'm not sure whether or not the primaries are good or bad for either specific candidate. They seemed wonderful for Obama at first, since he received so much media attention and voters became familiar with him. But when Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, the dynamic shifted, and she's now receiving the most attention. In general, though, primaries give candidates the chance to reach voters and inform them of their ideologies.
Regardless of how long it seems that the elections drag on, primaries are an absolute necessity for the democratic process, both in terms of party discipline and education of the public.
The primaries serve multiple purposes; they encourage debate about key issues, they inform and energize the public about politics, and they (usually) unite parties behind a candidate. For voters, the primaries serve to inform and energize. Through debates between the candidates, political ads, and media coverage, voters learn more about their candidates and how they stand on certain issues. This part of the primaries is vital; without adequate knowledge of the candidates, voters cannot make informed decisions. The conventions serve as the energizing portion of the primaries. Both parties choose respected and vibrant speakers to praise the chosen candidate and explain why he/she is the better choice which hopefully encourages the public to vote. The only downside of the primaries, for voters, is the overall length of the season and the incessant advertising and campaigning. Voters get slammed over the head with politics during primary season, which can turn people off to voting.
For parties, the primaries generally serve as a positive force. When the entire party supports a candidate, the party becomes a united front. And, when a party is united, that candidate has an edge in the election. Party unity isn't always the case during primaries, as we have seen from the 2008 race. When Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama, the Democratic party split; many of those who supported Clinton shunned Obama, forming their own group (PUMA) to elect anyone but Obama. This division increased when Obama chose Biden as his running mate instead of Clinton. On the other hand, the Republican party does seem united behind McCain and Palin thus far.
I'm not sure whether or not the primaries are good or bad for either specific candidate. They seemed wonderful for Obama at first, since he received so much media attention and voters became familiar with him. But when Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, the dynamic shifted, and she's now receiving the most attention. In general, though, primaries give candidates the chance to reach voters and inform them of their ideologies.
Friday, September 12, 2008
What is a party?
Based on the readings, I've drafted a pretty basic definition for political parties.
A party is an inevitable product of a democratic government, consisting of an organized group of individuals who share similar ideas about how government should function, and who actively work to elect a member of their group to serve in office.
First of all, I stated that parties are inevitable based on both Federalist papers 10 and 51. In #10, James Madison seems to argue against political parties, stating that parties, "inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." Madison believes that political parties will encourage discord and partisan bickering rather than collaborate to improve quality of life.
However, Madison admits that you cannot destroy parties; you would have to either "destroy liberty," which is unthinkable and borderline treason, or by "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests," which is impossible. Therefore, parties must form in order to allow each person to express his opinion. And when multiple people share the same opinions, parties emerge.
But whether or not political parties are a positive or negative result of democracy seems to be a matter of opinion and circumstance. When looking at this election, for instance, Washington's opinions are right on the ball. "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection." All candidates seemed more intent on bashing each other than emphasizing bipartisanship. However, when both parties do collaborate, important and necessary bills do get passed, like this most recent one regarding tax breaks for clean energy production and for buying energy-efficient cars: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/energy_bills/index.htm?cnn=yes
A party is an inevitable product of a democratic government, consisting of an organized group of individuals who share similar ideas about how government should function, and who actively work to elect a member of their group to serve in office.
First of all, I stated that parties are inevitable based on both Federalist papers 10 and 51. In #10, James Madison seems to argue against political parties, stating that parties, "inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." Madison believes that political parties will encourage discord and partisan bickering rather than collaborate to improve quality of life.
However, Madison admits that you cannot destroy parties; you would have to either "destroy liberty," which is unthinkable and borderline treason, or by "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests," which is impossible. Therefore, parties must form in order to allow each person to express his opinion. And when multiple people share the same opinions, parties emerge.
But whether or not political parties are a positive or negative result of democracy seems to be a matter of opinion and circumstance. When looking at this election, for instance, Washington's opinions are right on the ball. "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection." All candidates seemed more intent on bashing each other than emphasizing bipartisanship. However, when both parties do collaborate, important and necessary bills do get passed, like this most recent one regarding tax breaks for clean energy production and for buying energy-efficient cars: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/energy_bills/index.htm?cnn=yes
Welcome!
Hello everyone!
My name is Kate, and this is my blog for Poli Sci 421: Party Politics in America. I'm a senior, and I'm finally graduating in December with a major in English (Professional/Technical Writing) and a minor in Journalism and Mass Communication. In addition to school, I work at a bakery and a nursing home, and I'm also interning with Professor Leslie Whitaker who writes a syndicated column for a bunch of newspapers across the country. In my free time (ha!) I like to knit, do yoga, play video games (WoW and Diablo are my favorites), and religiously follow the presidential election and the news in general.
This is the first political science course I've ever taken, and I'm pretty nervous about it. I've been a politics junkie since the 2004 election, but I never had time in my schedule for a poli sci class until now. I hope I can keep up with all of you Political Science majors! But I'm really interested in the concept of political parties, and I hope that this course will help me not only understand parties better, but also teach me more about politics overall.
My name is Kate, and this is my blog for Poli Sci 421: Party Politics in America. I'm a senior, and I'm finally graduating in December with a major in English (Professional/Technical Writing) and a minor in Journalism and Mass Communication. In addition to school, I work at a bakery and a nursing home, and I'm also interning with Professor Leslie Whitaker who writes a syndicated column for a bunch of newspapers across the country. In my free time (ha!) I like to knit, do yoga, play video games (WoW and Diablo are my favorites), and religiously follow the presidential election and the news in general.
This is the first political science course I've ever taken, and I'm pretty nervous about it. I've been a politics junkie since the 2004 election, but I never had time in my schedule for a poli sci class until now. I hope I can keep up with all of you Political Science majors! But I'm really interested in the concept of political parties, and I hope that this course will help me not only understand parties better, but also teach me more about politics overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
