To simply answer the question, "Do the candidates of the 2008 presidential elections seem like agents of their parties?", well...yes, despite the different ways both came to their respective party's nominations, I think they very much do. With many people having predicted '08 to be Hillary's year to run as the Democratic candidate, Obama took many by suprise with his quick rise in the early primary season. In a different way, many Republicans are still just flat suprised that McCain is their nominee. But they will, in most cases, back him up with their votes even if he screwed them by supporting some investigation or bill they didn't like because he's still preferable to the other guy. This comes back to part of what I had in mind when I defined "party" for myself, that people who are members of a party may not like every other member or agree on every point, but they come back to that group when it's time to vote. Anyway, while it is perhaps nice lip service to talk about change, bi-partisanship, or being a "maverick", ultimately both candidates need their respective party's core voters just as much as they need those moderate, undecided voters. I think for the most part they do both carry the support of the party hardcore. As they should - saying you're different or independent doesn't make one so, and just because these candidates weren't handpicked by party officials in a smoke-filled room doesn't mean they won't act as relatively typical agents of the party in order to get elected. McCain certainly has crossed that line (but that's a value judgement, I'll reserve elaboration in the interest of more scholarly matters). Moreover, to actually deliver on many of the things they are proposing, they would need that kind of support in a U.S. Congress where bi-partisanship is, in reality, pretty much a thing of the past. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsort/default.aspx on the recent bailout bill vote. The chart is pretty stark. To me, whether or not the Democratic/Republican Party structure got behind Obama/McCain...so then he won, or he forced them to because he won doesn't really matter. The structure may have changed in terms of the frontloaded primaries and voters having a more direct say in who becomes the nominee, but there is still a large role for the party with regard to pushing candidates in the invisible primary phase and just providing the basic presidential campaign structure of primary > convention > election.
I think the difference and tensions of candidate-centered vs. party-centered campaigns certainly tips in favor of candidate-centeredness just because of the increased opportunities for congressmen or candidates to appear on television, build their own website, etc. Ultimately I don't see this as entirely different from party-centric campaigns because there can be so many tie-ins. I remember reading an article last spring about the mayoral election in London (http://www.slate.com/id/2190110/) where in the campaign itself there was almost no mention of party, party platforms, agendas, etc. whatsoever...it was quite literally both candidates insulting each other and engaging in what amounted to a personality contest. While it is perhaps an extreme example, I have not yet become aware of anything quite similar in American politics. There always seems to be some of party angle, that sense that they are still on some sort of team and very much aware of it. In most cases I think the people watching these shows or engaging themselves in politics are aware of which side representatives and candidates are on too (Joe Lieberman excluded).
As far as the candidates websites, first of all I noticed how similar both of them are in many ways. Both have frontpage links for volunteering, issues, blogs, contributing (of course), campaign calendars, etc. - the types of tools mentioned in Teachout's article. Obama's is a little easier to navigate, but for either him or McCain it's pretty simple to select the state you're from and find a local office to sign up or volunteer in just a couple clicks of the mouse. Obama also has links and tie-ins with other news and social networking sites. But if the point is to find an internet structure that in Teachout's words, "emphasizes simplicity", then I would have to give the edge to Obama.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campaign Finance, Etc.
I think one of the more striking points made in the reading for this week was regarding putting spending in political campaigns in perspective - "Bradley Smith observes that Americans spend two times as much on potato chips every year as candidates spend on political campaigns" (p116) - because it can be easy to simply look at the amount money goes into campaigns and be offended or morally indignant at the situation, but really there's a lot of money being spent on much less important things. The money spent on politics may appear staggering, but compared to how much is spent advertising cars or Diet Coke, it becomes less so.
So to the extent that campaign finance reform levels the playing field for all candidates in competition for an office, certainly it can be a good thing. Does it actually work that way? Well...sometimes, I think so. Maybe "in theory" is a better way to put it. While both primaries and campaign money regulations are intended to diminish the influence of political organizations and give that influence back directly to the voters, and in some ways they do, it seems more likely that this has only changed the way in which political organizations (whether they be parties, interests groups, donor groups, etc.) exert their influence. Someone always has to define and drive political, policy, and electoral discussion, and regardless of the type of primary or regulations on money, people will always naturally organize themselves into like-minded groups and attempt to win elections. In the U.S. this takes place largely through the structure of the Democratic and Republican Parties, to whom any smaller groups (or factions) tend to acquiesce to in order to get action on a particular issue that is important to them. So long as the political sphere remains broad, the logic of Madison in Federalist #10 still holds in that it is remains unlikely for either party or smaller faction to unduly affect the operation of the government in a substantially negative way. Except for the 2000 Election I guess. Just kidding!
So to the extent that campaign finance reform levels the playing field for all candidates in competition for an office, certainly it can be a good thing. Does it actually work that way? Well...sometimes, I think so. Maybe "in theory" is a better way to put it. While both primaries and campaign money regulations are intended to diminish the influence of political organizations and give that influence back directly to the voters, and in some ways they do, it seems more likely that this has only changed the way in which political organizations (whether they be parties, interests groups, donor groups, etc.) exert their influence. Someone always has to define and drive political, policy, and electoral discussion, and regardless of the type of primary or regulations on money, people will always naturally organize themselves into like-minded groups and attempt to win elections. In the U.S. this takes place largely through the structure of the Democratic and Republican Parties, to whom any smaller groups (or factions) tend to acquiesce to in order to get action on a particular issue that is important to them. So long as the political sphere remains broad, the logic of Madison in Federalist #10 still holds in that it is remains unlikely for either party or smaller faction to unduly affect the operation of the government in a substantially negative way. Except for the 2000 Election I guess. Just kidding!
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Electoral Institutions
It perhaps goes without saying that primaries be looked at as good or bad in any number of ways. While attempting to make a simple pro and con list, it was sometimes difficult to decide if a certain effect was a strength or weakness of the primary system. The one obvious thing primaries do is select a single party candidate from a pool of contenders. So, is it good or bad to have candidate selection narrowed down early in the campaign? And how soon is too soon? I remember just this past spring after it became clear that McCain would be the Republican candidate, many in the Democratic Party were clamoring for either Obama or Clinton to step aside ASAP so their party's candidate could be in the spotlight too; then, of course, there was all the handwringing over the "superdelegates" (haven't heard that word in awhile, huh?) for months while they battled in the remaining primaries. For the party and voters, the Obama/Clinton matchup also brought up questions of "electability" of each candidate - do you just vote for the candidate you prefer, or do you have to be concerned over their hypothetical performance in the fall general election? Could (should?) the party subvert the will of the voters in the face of such a concern? Of course, in the Republican Party Mick Huckabee also stuck around a little too long for some people - since he was so far behind, why keep campaigning? Maybe to get McCain to pay attention to all the people voting for him, or to a certain issue that was important to him? Or just to push his 15 minutes of fame a little farther? And this was 7-8 months away from the general election.
While the primary season is always filled with much talk of policy and/or party platforms that the candidates are going to push, in order to change (or not change) policy they first must be elected. So primaries also force candidates to tell a whole bunch of lies, make promises they can't keep, say their position on a given issue is the opposite of the way they've voted for the past 20 years...okay maybe that's a bit facetious (I'll let you decide), but it does sometimes force them to alter or conform their positions on certain issues to something more moderate so they can get enough votes to win the election. In a primary against a member of the same party this is particularly important because even within the parties - as referenced in the Hetherington and Keefe text - there exists much heterogeneity. Going back to this year's presidential primary again, there was a time when there were open questions about whether McCain could attract enough votes from the Republican base, or whether he was truly conservative enough to get out the vote from the most conservative wings of the party.
The electoral college makes the election of a president different from congressional elections. With the winner-take-all nature of each state's electoral college votes, generally speaking not all states' votes are seen as competitive. Months before the actual election, journalists and political strategists are already able to determine what the "battleground" states are. Hetherington and Keefe mention the declining number of such states in recent years, albeit with similar win differentials in popluar vote totals (p 46). Obama came out this year pushing a "50 state strategy", and has perhaps put a couple of otherwise typically Republican states into play for himself. However there are simply states that either candidate knows they are not going to win, so candidates, their party, and their voters can expend less energy and spend less money there once the party nomination has been secured. This differs from election of a Representative or Senator because even after those candidates secure the primary, they are going to continue to campaign in a similar manner in competition for the same voters.
Primary contests have a variety of affects that differ depending on the size of the election, and I generally believe most of these effects can be seen or expressed in a positive or negative light. Setting up, in most cases, a two-candidate race can simplify the process for the voters and candidates to express the policies they would support if elected, but that doesn't mean the best candidate will always be chosen in the primary. Competition for votes in a primary can moderate the positions of candidates or party platforms in order to compete for independent voters, which is good because it can eliminate more extreme candidates, but that could also inhibit the ability of the government as a whole to move policy in the direction the voters are intending.
While the primary season is always filled with much talk of policy and/or party platforms that the candidates are going to push, in order to change (or not change) policy they first must be elected. So primaries also force candidates to tell a whole bunch of lies, make promises they can't keep, say their position on a given issue is the opposite of the way they've voted for the past 20 years...okay maybe that's a bit facetious (I'll let you decide), but it does sometimes force them to alter or conform their positions on certain issues to something more moderate so they can get enough votes to win the election. In a primary against a member of the same party this is particularly important because even within the parties - as referenced in the Hetherington and Keefe text - there exists much heterogeneity. Going back to this year's presidential primary again, there was a time when there were open questions about whether McCain could attract enough votes from the Republican base, or whether he was truly conservative enough to get out the vote from the most conservative wings of the party.
The electoral college makes the election of a president different from congressional elections. With the winner-take-all nature of each state's electoral college votes, generally speaking not all states' votes are seen as competitive. Months before the actual election, journalists and political strategists are already able to determine what the "battleground" states are. Hetherington and Keefe mention the declining number of such states in recent years, albeit with similar win differentials in popluar vote totals (p 46). Obama came out this year pushing a "50 state strategy", and has perhaps put a couple of otherwise typically Republican states into play for himself. However there are simply states that either candidate knows they are not going to win, so candidates, their party, and their voters can expend less energy and spend less money there once the party nomination has been secured. This differs from election of a Representative or Senator because even after those candidates secure the primary, they are going to continue to campaign in a similar manner in competition for the same voters.
Primary contests have a variety of affects that differ depending on the size of the election, and I generally believe most of these effects can be seen or expressed in a positive or negative light. Setting up, in most cases, a two-candidate race can simplify the process for the voters and candidates to express the policies they would support if elected, but that doesn't mean the best candidate will always be chosen in the primary. Competition for votes in a primary can moderate the positions of candidates or party platforms in order to compete for independent voters, which is good because it can eliminate more extreme candidates, but that could also inhibit the ability of the government as a whole to move policy in the direction the voters are intending.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Defining Political Parties
When I think of political parties I tend to think of them as groups of voters and/or representatives, depending on whether we're talking about an election or a congressional vote, that usually come back together to vote for the same candidate, legislation, or policy that most closely fits with their own position. Perhaps it's far more complex than that (I kind of hope so, anyway), but at least in a two-party system such as in the US I think that it's a labelling process that is useful at the same time as it is frustrating. Party members have shared policy positions, goals, and platforms that they will tend to support and that can be an important part of simplifying election and voting processes that are already complex. While there is of course variation and people who consider themselves independent of party affiliation, generally in America most people identify with either the Democrats or Republicans and see it in opposition to the other, and vote (or not) accordingly. That isn't to say that smaller parties aren't also parties...certainly when I hear about the Green Party or Libertarian Party I think of them as parties in some sense of the word, even if they lack the ability of the two major parties to exert direct influence on legislation they still share ideas and positions and band together to try to win political offices. There are even battles within parties for control over what exactly the party's positions and platforms will be, but I think that exists outside of the context of party since in any large group of people, smaller groups (what Washington or Madison would probably call a faction) of more or lesser extreme positions will always form and try to steer the dicsussion in their respective direction. That would be true whether or not there was something formally called a "party" for everyone to see.
From the readings, the difference between the Washington and DeLay farewell addresses really is striking. I can see where both are coming from though, despite the literally hundreds of years of history that are also relevant when comparing the two statements. Some of what Washington was saying still resonates - even now, do people want to be in a party and win elections because they want to do what is in the best interest of the nation, or because they just want to win? Although the party system has institutionalized itself in many positive ways in the US, that isn't true everywhere in the world so it's understandable that Washington feared it when the nation was still so young. And certainly there are opportunities for personal gain in politics that - while they may not amount to "tyranny" - are attractive to those who might abuse their office. Speaking of which...Tom DeLay's statement highlights some of the positive developments of parties, pointing out that the debate is healthy, that it is in fact necessary to prevent tyranny. People see things differently, it's just how it is, and having the debates and battles over how to do things are preferable to not being able to have them.
From the readings, the difference between the Washington and DeLay farewell addresses really is striking. I can see where both are coming from though, despite the literally hundreds of years of history that are also relevant when comparing the two statements. Some of what Washington was saying still resonates - even now, do people want to be in a party and win elections because they want to do what is in the best interest of the nation, or because they just want to win? Although the party system has institutionalized itself in many positive ways in the US, that isn't true everywhere in the world so it's understandable that Washington feared it when the nation was still so young. And certainly there are opportunities for personal gain in politics that - while they may not amount to "tyranny" - are attractive to those who might abuse their office. Speaking of which...Tom DeLay's statement highlights some of the positive developments of parties, pointing out that the debate is healthy, that it is in fact necessary to prevent tyranny. People see things differently, it's just how it is, and having the debates and battles over how to do things are preferable to not being able to have them.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
About Me...and Hopes, Dreams, and/or Fears Concerning the Study of Party Politics in America
This is Matt Bluethman's blog for the Fall '08 Party Politics in America course. I generally don't refer to myself in the 3rd person, so that will be the last time. About me...well, I'm a brunette, I need to find a new apartment, I'm originally from Illinois, I like the White Sox, and even though Carlos Quentin broke his wrist a couple days ago, I'm pretty sure they'll still win the division as the Cubs slowly implode as October comes nearer. I am a senior and Political Science major in my final semester here at UWM (as an undergrad at least, you never know) and I took this class because the subject of parties is interesting to me, and having touched on the subject somewhat during Tofias' Congressional Politics course last spring (which I reccommend, it's fun), I felt some more depth would be beneficial and perhaps even fascinating. Plus it fit my schedule.
In any case my hope is that this will help me to better understand the processes and role of parties in American politics...what's right with it, what's wrong with it, how these roles have changed over time, and maybe how we might expect them to evolve in the future. My fear is that everything I thought to be true about parties will be turned on its head and I will realize I know nothing and immediately leave school. That's not true. It is a big election year and all, and I writing this right now I realized that I have not paid close enough attention to the non-presidential campaigns/races this summer (as many Americans have not, I would guess) because I have almost no thoughts on that, so it's time to do that I think, since regardless of who wins the presidency Congress still has a rather big say in what goes on even if the candidates don't like to mention that during the conventions. Anyway, looking forward to studying some parties, have a good day, goodbye.
In any case my hope is that this will help me to better understand the processes and role of parties in American politics...what's right with it, what's wrong with it, how these roles have changed over time, and maybe how we might expect them to evolve in the future. My fear is that everything I thought to be true about parties will be turned on its head and I will realize I know nothing and immediately leave school. That's not true. It is a big election year and all, and I writing this right now I realized that I have not paid close enough attention to the non-presidential campaigns/races this summer (as many Americans have not, I would guess) because I have almost no thoughts on that, so it's time to do that I think, since regardless of who wins the presidency Congress still has a rather big say in what goes on even if the candidates don't like to mention that during the conventions. Anyway, looking forward to studying some parties, have a good day, goodbye.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)