In his New York Times article, “Democrats Carrying Anti-Abortion Banner Put More Congressional Races in Play,” Raymond Hernandez discusses the trend of pro-life Democratic candidates running and performing well in House elections. Candidates like Bobby Bright of Alabama and Jim Esch of Nebraska this year, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania two years ago are making abortion a “major theme” of their campaigns, even when their position puts them in opposition to most of their fellow Democrats. Hernandez notes that the strategy was born out of the Republicans’ big victories in 2004, where they successfully “portrayed the Democratic Party as being out of step with Americans on issues like abortion, gun rights and religious values.”
One one hand this is a very smart strategy. It makes Democrats competitive in traditionally conservative areas that usually elect Republicans by a large margin. However, these candidates’ positions on social issues do not align with the Democrat’s official platform, making it harder for Democrats to get that part of their agenda passed. Democrats are, in essence, conceding the abortion issue in selective areas in exchange for more support in other policy areas. If there’s no chance of getting a “real” Democrat elected, then the party is better off with at least a “half” Democrat instead of a “full” Republican.
Party power-plays aside, these unique candidates call into question the conventional defining characteristics of political parties. Our winner-take-all election rules make the two-party system inevitable, but many people don’t fit neatly into either one. There is no particular reason for someone’s stance on abortion to relate to their stance on economic issues, but the candidates most often arbitrarily fall in line with their party’s positions. The party does not have one coherent ideology, but rather comprises an aggregate of separate social and economic philosophies. Libertarian David Nolan developed his well-known “Nolan Chart” that had political philosophies as each corner of a square with two axes, Personal Freedom and Economic Freedom. Left-wing represented only personal freedom and Right-wing only economic freedom, while Libertarianism advocated both and Populism or Totalitarianism advocated neither.
If the two parties are visualized as stretching as far as they can around the square to pick up the maximum number of votes, there are several pitfalls to avoid. If a party stretches two far on either side, they may splinter from within. If the party moves two far in one direction, the other party may pick up the neglected voters on the other side. For instance, if the Democratic party goes too far seeking religious, anti-abortion voters, then a socially liberal Republican could potentially capitalize on the newfound vulnerability by courting more Libertarian-minded voters away from Democrats.
Evangelical voters seem to be at the dividing line between the two parties, strongly opposed to abortion, but likely supportive of expansive Democratic social programs. Competition for newly risen "boundary" groups like the Religious Right push the parties around the Nolan chart, and these new “Religious Left” candidates are evidence of that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Nice post! I really like your analogy of stretching across the board for votes, and I definitely see your logic on candidates spreading themselves too thin, or appearing to “flip flop” on issues. While I agree that there isn’t a “particular reason for someone’s stance on abortion to relate to their stance on economic issues” I think that it’s more the need to be fully supported by a political side than an “arbitrary” choice to “fall in line with their party’s positions.” After all, if the “two-party system [is] inevitable” then the candidates have to adjust their issues to the proper party. Or at least used to. I think that the new divergence is a good step not only in eliminating the liberal/conservative stereo types that permeates the voting booth, but in allowing a new depth to the candidates. The depth will also force voters to evaluate what issues they want in an elected official and not just put a check the blue or red box.
I think it's sad that we can no longer differentiate between whether a politician's position is a result of his or her personal convictions or merely a strategic move intended to guarantee election (or reelection). I'm not sure that the two-party system itself is at fault; rather, the nature of it is at fault, as Perry notes.
If Mr. Bright, Mr. Esch, and Mr. Casey truly are opposed to abortion, then I commend them for being willing to stand against their party on this issue, and I hope their conviction remains strong. If they are only anti-abortion because it is convenient for campaigning, then their constituents may be very surprised at how their representative votes when, inevitably, an important abortion bill comes up for a vote. You can rest assured that Pelosi and Reid will not quietly let these wayward party members slow their agenda.
That being said, I hope that they are truthful about their positions and that all of this is not just a political strategy. I'm a big advocate of voting for individual candidates rather than a party. I think the mixed ideologies these candidates (and some Republican candidates) display is a more accurate representation of American citizens and provides some realistic and tangible choices when it comes to voting. I can only hope that this trend continues—politicians actually standing up for what they believe is a novel concept in the United States, but is the only thing that can restore citizens’ faith in the political process.
As a selectively pro-choice Republican, I strangely identified with the plight of pro-life democrats in reconciling their convictions with the party line. I often feel that the two party system forces voters to choose their candidates based on a single quintessential issue since no party platform encompasses the wishes of all. Perry hits the nail on the head when he describes the party platforms as conglomerations of entirely separate issues that coalesce into uniform ideologies merely because of the two-party system. This makes for a polarized yet mutable political climate; I will be interested to see how the party lines shift in years to come. Although the two-party system remains a double-edged sword, the success of pro-life Democrats in elections and John McCain’s efforts to reach across party lines give me hope that the will of the American people will always prevail over partisan politics.
Again, I'll choose to take a cynical approach to Esch, Casey and Bright's campaigns and assume they are pandering to pick up supporters.
In the past, Republicans have successfully framed the Democrats as being pro-abortion, rather than pro-choice. This gives Republicans the chance to be "anti-abortion". Naturally, the majority of people are against abortion because of it's nature. The actual debate is whether a woman has the option in her unique situation to consider abortion or if the government removes the option, forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy to term or seek radical alternatives. It's not 'is abortion a good thing or a bad thing?'
What 'pro-life' democrats are doing is jumping on the successful bandwagon of being 'anti-death'. With abortion being a heavily polarizing issue - often the one topic for single issue voters - these democrats have omitted the abortion issue from the debate.
It makes one wonder: if removing this polarizing issue would focus debate around issues that directly affect everyday citizens (taxes, healthcare, education) then aren't the voters given a clearer view of the majority of issues. Campaigns with abortion differences tend to center around the issue, making other issues less covered.
If this is the case, then wouldn't it be better for Republicans in liberal areas to concede abortion rights and gay rights in an attempt to focus voters on broader policy issues? In turn, wouldn't pushing aside hot button topics push the campaigns to differ on issues that affect the broader population, and thus produce representatives that better represent the wishes of their constituents?
I really enjoyed your post, especially the part about “half” democrats versus “full” republicans. I think that this phenomenon is largely due to the fact that our two party system, which used to produce generally cohesive governments, has recently led to partisan governments unable to pass legislation efficiently. What used to be such a significant advantage of a bipartisan political system has disappeared, highlighting the drawbacks of such a structure, such as lack of conformity and cohesion within the parties. The number of people identifying themselves as independents has risen from 22% in 1952 to 30% today, signifying a general disillusionment with the parties and their increasingly polarized platforms. As the parties step closer and closer to the extremities of the political spectrum more and more people are abandoning them and voting as independents. It is no surprise then that some politicians are mimicking this trend by similarly picking and choosing policy positions from each party. While this development may seem bizarre at first glance, it actually reflects the direction that many of America’s politically involved citizens are headed in.
Post a Comment