The GOP After Specter

The GOP After Specter talks about how the GOP is starting to worry about the health of their party. Republicans are deeply concerned about this switch because the Democrats pretty much now have a filibuster-proof majority.

Module 13: Party Switheroo

When Senator Arlen Specter announced he would be “switching” parties last week, a lot of us probably weren’t too interested. This announcement, however, has rocked the political boat in Washington, DC. In a recent statement, Specter announced, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans." Some wonder if this was true, or whether his whole switcheroo was some sort of political strategy for his own benefit. I think this recent party switch says that politicians are only in it to win it. Specter became a Democrat because he believed that he could not win the upcoming primary in his own party, as a Republican. Specter says he spent all his life as a Republican and in the end, the Republicans abandoned him. Is this really what happened? On the one hand, the GOP has fell under harsh criticism lately for their breakdown, so perhaps Specter really did feel that the GOP had “abandoned him.” On the other, I think this is a classic example of a politician only looking out for himself. He wanted to switch parties so he could remain in office. He knew he couldn’t win against his competitor, Pat Toomey in the upcoming 2010 election so he pulled this stunt purely for personal reasons. I am sure a lot of Pennsylvanians are angry that their Senator has turned out to be a turncoat on them. No one likes a politician who switches sides (like McCain – we all know that his Democrat¬-ish ideologies on some issues turned a lot of people off). Basically, this switch says to me that the party system in the United States caters to the politician, and not the people. With Specter on the “other side” now, the GOP is going to find it almost impossible to get their way in Congress. Their margins were already pretty thin, and now with Specter becoming a Democrat, they’ve lost even more. Fiorina argues that Americans are not polarized, but politicians sometimes are. Congress is more polarized that the average American citizen and I think we see this here with Specter. He has stated over and over the he feels the Republican party does not align with his ideologies anymore and that he’s more attracted to the Democrats. The bottom line is, according to Fiorina, politicians are seeking votes and Congress especially shows clear indications of increased polarization in recent decades. I think Specter’s switch makes sense because, in politics, it’s all about approval ratings. Specter even said, "The most important number was the approval rating - it dropped from the 60s to 31." I think a lot of politicians are concerned about this these days. Many are not concerned about the constituents they represent, rather they are more concerned about their own personal image in ratings. It’s clear Specter only pulled this move so he could have a chance at winning in 2010.

Candidates Saying More About Less

This article gives a brief quote from Larry Bartels. He's quoted as saying,"Sometimes, voters only have a sketchy idea of where the candidate they support stands on many issues, especially secondary ones." The article, although a bit dated, talks about how Bush and Kerry in 2004 began to talk about "less important" issues during the campaign.

Module 12: Bartels v. Frank - Who's Right?

After reading these two articles, in my opinion, Bartels seems to be right. Frank’s article asserts that the Republican Party has created a “dominant political coalition” by attracting the lower-income working-class citizens of America on the basis of cultural issues (such as guns, abortion, gay rights). There are several reasons why this may not be the case. Frank seems to oversimplify his logic. This so-called trend we see in the Republican Party is almost entirely constituted in the South. The South is an area where support for the RP was overly inflated by segregation era feelings. It’s not this way throughout the entire country. Because there is only a high concentration of “dominant political coalition” primarily in the South, Frank is incorrect in assuming the entire country still acts and feel this way. Think of places like New York City, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, etc. – highly Democratic areas of the country. You compare this to the South and you usually see something a bit different. The South is a highly concentrated area of citizens who hold very, very strong beliefs on issues such as guns, abortion and gay rights –which make you believe that social issues are the most important political influence in this region, but this may not be the case because it’s oversimplified – it’s not like this everywhere, therefore you cannot generalize.

Bartels also argues that there is no proof that, “culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern” when it comes to looking at working-class Americans. Bartel uses data from National Election Study (NES) surveys to test Frank's thesis and he finds that, “abortion, gun control, school vouchers, gay marriage, the death penalty, immigration, and gender roles – suggests a total impact that is only about two-thirds as large as the total impact of the economic issues included in the analysis.” It can therefore be concluded that working-class citizens haven’t moved right and that "moral values" are not pushing them to vote Republican like Frank suggests. Bartels cannot find any evidence that economic issues are no longer an issue among Americans. It’s quite clear from Bartels’ research that social issues (including abortion, gun laws, gay rights, etc.) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income working class, which is what these articles focus on.

Social issues are important, but not the most important influence when looking at working-class Americans. When looking at the 2008 election, we see that, while social issues like abortion and gay rights were talked about a little bit, the main focus of this election was economics. Perhaps comparing the 2008 election to these articles is unfair. We were after all in the midst of a economic “crisis” as this election as taking place, so no doubt more focus was put on economic over social issues. That gives an unfair advantage to Bartels. I think during 2008 there was still an overall concerns for gay rights, abortion, and guns, but it was highly overshadowed by economic concerns so it’s not fair to say that economic issues really do in fact always trumpet social concerns.

McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'

The article I'm posting for this week is: McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'.

This article discusses that fact that the Republican Party is becoming too divided with the rest of the country when it comes to gay rights. The Republicans are at risk for becoming too religion oriented and this is going to be their eventual downfall.

Module 11: My Political Party

This week we are asked to write about what a new political party would look like if either one of the other collapsed. Although this is highly unlikely, especially in our live time, this may be tricky. If the Republican Party fell, a similar party to the Republicans would probably rise, and vice versa. I don't think either party has a chance of dying right now. Sure, the Republicans have lost alot of power, but that's the natural cycle of politics. Look what happened when FDR took office. The Republicans pretty much got kicked to the side for many years, but did rise again.

If the Republican Party fell, I think a new ultra-conservative party would emerge. There are too many Americans in this country who disagree with the Democrats and if the Republican Party did die, I think something even stronger than the Republican Party would emerge.

Who are the new leaders? They are the strongest conservatives in the nation. Somewhat to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but a politician. They leaders will stand for strict enforcement of the Constitution and preserving this nation to what it once was. This new party will care a great deal about traditional values. They will support a strong military and won't back down when the country's security is at stake. The will not tax us all into an ice age - and speaking of ice ages, there will be no more talk of global warming. This new party will be smart enough not to fall for anyones schemes when it comes to this global warming hoax. They will not tolerate the Democrats coming up with all this crazy ideas for us to "save the planet." If Americans want to use plastic bags at the grocery store, they will be allowed to. No more wasteful spending. This new party will veto every bill they come across that wastes the tax payers' money. This new party will reaffirm states' rights and the rights of individual Americans. No more telling us what we can and cannot do. They will appeal to all groups of people because the will cut taxes, but also keep them at a sustainable rate. Who doesn't want a little bit more of their hard-earned money back? Groups that may appeal to this new party would be anyone who pays taxes. Taxpayers are the backbone of this country and they don't get enough praise. Less government intervention will make the country more productive and useful. National defense will be one of their main priorities. We cannot allow other country's to see our weaknesses. We must remain strong and the only way to do that is to focus more attention on military. Harassment of soldiers will not be tolerated. Pork-filled stimulus bills will not be tolerated.

There is a strong base in this country for this type of party. Yes, it does resemble the Republican Party, but it will be even stronger and more conservative. There will become a point when Americans are sick and tired of the government trying to run their lives and take all their money - and when that day happens this new party will emerge.

Rush Limbaugh's Party of Failure

Here is an article to take a look at. I'm sure some of you have heard about Rush Limbaugh's comment that he wants Obama to fail. What do you think about this?