What is a Democrat? What is a Republican?
Most political thinkers and analysts do not bother with party affiliations. Instead, they discuss political orientations. They talk about liberalism and conservatism, and how these ideologies or political philosophies are reflected in government. However, over the past 2 years the party label has become much more important and significant. Part of this is because of the influence of the Iraq War on American politics, and part of it is because of the influence or globalization. The rest is the emergence of political candidates that are either repulsive or appealing, but seldom in between.
The Iraq War is a major force because it is the most pressing issue driving today's political environment. Many Democrats have created a litmus test for democratic presidential candidates: if a candidate was against the war all along, or was initially for the war and has since turned against it, that candidate is viable. As a result of thie new litmus test. the previous standards for being a democrat have been tossed away. It used to be, for instance, that a Democratic candidate for any office was judged on two related criteria: (1) how long the candidate had served in a previous office and (2) how many innovative proposals the candidate could produce. These previous standards existed for a simple reason. Most democrats identified government as a source of positive, constructive change in society, and so a candidate for political office had to prove that he or she had the experience working with government, and the ingenuity to apply government solutions to difficult problems. However, before the Iraq War many Democratic Politicians voted to authorize it for various political reasons, including a desire to get the subject back to liberal issues (health care, education, social security, the economy) and the belief that war would happen only as a last resort. Thus, many democratic politicians were fooled by Bush, and are now suffering as a result. To be a Democrat to means that you cannot be fooled by political calculations to do something that is wrong.
This litmus test thus excludes Sen. Hillary Clinton as a viable presidential candidate, despite her years of experience and her detailed policy proposals, because she is deemed by many democrats to be the quintessential calculating politician, whose calculations obscure her judgment concerning right and wrong. In contrast, Sen. Barack Obama is a viable presidential candidate because, despite his lack of experience and detailed policy proposals, he is deemed by many democrats to have shown good judgment all along about right and wrong. As Frank Rich writes, the prevalence of judgment as a criterion over experience and policy expertise implies that, for many democrats, Obama should run for president now, before the Senate turns him into just another calculating politician who lacks sound judgment about right and wrong.
Globalization is the other force that is shaping our politics. The central challenge posed by globalization is this: Can the United States turn its citizens into educated, hard-working employees and entrepreneurs who can compete with educated, hard-working employees from China, India and Eastern Europe? Even if the U.S. can do this, do American citizens want this? The answer, for now, seems to be that the U.S. can train its citizens for a globalized world, but American citizens don't want to be trained yet because globalization only benefits the very rich, not the poor or the middle class. Many democrats are highlighting what they call the "middle class squeeze", which entails middle class Americans losing good jobs and replacing them with worse jobs. "Good" jobs have the middle class troika: high income, pension, and benefits (education, health, dental, eye care, etc.) "Bad" jobs, in contrast, lack these things. Instead, they are likely to have minimum wage, no pension, and no benefits. The Democrats point out that many hard-working Americans have lost the good jobs and now have 2 or three bad jobs to replace them. Thus, with globalization, the income levels for poor and middle class Americans have dropped while expenses for a middle class lifestyle, like real estate, education and health care, have risen. The debate is over how much income levels have dropped and how much expenses have risen.
For Democrats, the income levels have dropped dramatically while the expenses have risen dramatically. For example, a typical democratic argument may be that, because of globalization, a married father of 4 has gone from a 100k/year job as a software engineer to three $20k/year jobs working at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Arby's on a contract basis. This story is simple: American workers are suffering under globalization because all the high-skilled knowledge-based jobs are being sent to India, China, or Eastern Europe, and American workers have to choose from a small pool of poorly paid service jobs. However, David Brooks writes that globalization isn't as bad as most Democrats think it is. He argues that income levels have not dropped much and expenses have not risen much.
For Republicans, the requirements are different. Part of the problem for Republicans is that there is no real definition for being a Republican anymore. In the past, a Republican supported low taxes, small government, and limited foreign military activity. However, under Bush most of these principles have been violated. The federal government has grown enormous, and there is perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only part that has remained the same is low taxes. Thus, many Republicans are trying to define themselves.
The presence of repulsive or appealing candidates is also a big factor. Most voters consider the personality of the candidates in addition to the policy proposals. The Democratic party has the unusual benefit of being represented by three popular presidential candidates: Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In contrast, the Republicans are fielding some very unpopular candidates, or even unknown candidates. Bush is slipping below 30% approval ratings, while McCain is becoming unpopular for supporting the Iraq war. That leaves Mitt Romney and Rudolf Giuliani. Romney has switched has political beliefs to become palatable to different voters, first running as a liberal Republican in Massachusetts and then running as a conservative Republican in the primaries. Thus, many voters don't know if he has any principles at all. Giuliani gained fame as a mayor who responded to a terrorist attack, but otherwise most Americans have moved on from the terrorist attack.
Hence, Bush is repelling citizens from the Republican party while Clinton, Obama and Edwards are attracting voters to the Democratic Party.
The Iraq War is a major force because it is the most pressing issue driving today's political environment. Many Democrats have created a litmus test for democratic presidential candidates: if a candidate was against the war all along, or was initially for the war and has since turned against it, that candidate is viable. As a result of thie new litmus test. the previous standards for being a democrat have been tossed away. It used to be, for instance, that a Democratic candidate for any office was judged on two related criteria: (1) how long the candidate had served in a previous office and (2) how many innovative proposals the candidate could produce. These previous standards existed for a simple reason. Most democrats identified government as a source of positive, constructive change in society, and so a candidate for political office had to prove that he or she had the experience working with government, and the ingenuity to apply government solutions to difficult problems. However, before the Iraq War many Democratic Politicians voted to authorize it for various political reasons, including a desire to get the subject back to liberal issues (health care, education, social security, the economy) and the belief that war would happen only as a last resort. Thus, many democratic politicians were fooled by Bush, and are now suffering as a result. To be a Democrat to means that you cannot be fooled by political calculations to do something that is wrong.
This litmus test thus excludes Sen. Hillary Clinton as a viable presidential candidate, despite her years of experience and her detailed policy proposals, because she is deemed by many democrats to be the quintessential calculating politician, whose calculations obscure her judgment concerning right and wrong. In contrast, Sen. Barack Obama is a viable presidential candidate because, despite his lack of experience and detailed policy proposals, he is deemed by many democrats to have shown good judgment all along about right and wrong. As Frank Rich writes, the prevalence of judgment as a criterion over experience and policy expertise implies that, for many democrats, Obama should run for president now, before the Senate turns him into just another calculating politician who lacks sound judgment about right and wrong.
Globalization is the other force that is shaping our politics. The central challenge posed by globalization is this: Can the United States turn its citizens into educated, hard-working employees and entrepreneurs who can compete with educated, hard-working employees from China, India and Eastern Europe? Even if the U.S. can do this, do American citizens want this? The answer, for now, seems to be that the U.S. can train its citizens for a globalized world, but American citizens don't want to be trained yet because globalization only benefits the very rich, not the poor or the middle class. Many democrats are highlighting what they call the "middle class squeeze", which entails middle class Americans losing good jobs and replacing them with worse jobs. "Good" jobs have the middle class troika: high income, pension, and benefits (education, health, dental, eye care, etc.) "Bad" jobs, in contrast, lack these things. Instead, they are likely to have minimum wage, no pension, and no benefits. The Democrats point out that many hard-working Americans have lost the good jobs and now have 2 or three bad jobs to replace them. Thus, with globalization, the income levels for poor and middle class Americans have dropped while expenses for a middle class lifestyle, like real estate, education and health care, have risen. The debate is over how much income levels have dropped and how much expenses have risen.
For Democrats, the income levels have dropped dramatically while the expenses have risen dramatically. For example, a typical democratic argument may be that, because of globalization, a married father of 4 has gone from a 100k/year job as a software engineer to three $20k/year jobs working at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Arby's on a contract basis. This story is simple: American workers are suffering under globalization because all the high-skilled knowledge-based jobs are being sent to India, China, or Eastern Europe, and American workers have to choose from a small pool of poorly paid service jobs. However, David Brooks writes that globalization isn't as bad as most Democrats think it is. He argues that income levels have not dropped much and expenses have not risen much.
For Republicans, the requirements are different. Part of the problem for Republicans is that there is no real definition for being a Republican anymore. In the past, a Republican supported low taxes, small government, and limited foreign military activity. However, under Bush most of these principles have been violated. The federal government has grown enormous, and there is perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only part that has remained the same is low taxes. Thus, many Republicans are trying to define themselves.
The presence of repulsive or appealing candidates is also a big factor. Most voters consider the personality of the candidates in addition to the policy proposals. The Democratic party has the unusual benefit of being represented by three popular presidential candidates: Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In contrast, the Republicans are fielding some very unpopular candidates, or even unknown candidates. Bush is slipping below 30% approval ratings, while McCain is becoming unpopular for supporting the Iraq war. That leaves Mitt Romney and Rudolf Giuliani. Romney has switched has political beliefs to become palatable to different voters, first running as a liberal Republican in Massachusetts and then running as a conservative Republican in the primaries. Thus, many voters don't know if he has any principles at all. Giuliani gained fame as a mayor who responded to a terrorist attack, but otherwise most Americans have moved on from the terrorist attack.
Hence, Bush is repelling citizens from the Republican party while Clinton, Obama and Edwards are attracting voters to the Democratic Party.
posted by Marriah @ 2:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home