Political Partying

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One popular right-wing radio host here is advancing the notion that American Democrat politicians are behaving cowardly, in political terms, because they are not advancing their "real" beliefs or trying to further their core supporters real agenda. Ted Kennedy scores well whilie many others do not, so this host asserts that moveon.org and other such groups are, increasingly, the heart and soul of the democrat party and will demand/create true liberal candidates to represent them.

Is this accurate?

Should a political party's elected representatives steadfastly advocate the views of their party constituents - even when those views run counter to the "mainstream?"

Can a party be effective when its platform becomes dominated by relatively extreme views relative to the mainstream of a given polity?

Seamus

[Goofball]

Can a party be effective when its platform becomes dominated by relatively extreme views relative to the mainstream of a given polity?

Seamus

The answer to your question in my mind, is quite obviously "yes."

If by effective you mean "Are they able to get elected?"

The extremists in both the Democrat and Republican parties have succeeded in supplanting all hints of moderation in their respective left and right leaning agendas with polarization that forces voters (most of whom I believe to be moderates) to hold their noses and make the voting decision that they find least offensive to their own positions.

The abortion issue is case and point. Although I believe most American voters fall somewhere in the middle on the issue (i.e. they believe early term abortions should be available to women in some circumatsnces), they are forced to decide between the Dems, who will fight to the death any limitation on abortion for any reason at any stage in any pregnancy, and the Republicans whose rhetoric leads to the belief that they want to outlaw abortion entirely because they view it as murder no matter what stage the pregnancy has progressed to.

So now you have the notional Joe Lunchbox voter, who believes that, say, only first trimester abortions should be permitted, but should be permitted for any reason. Neither party fits with his convictions, so he is forced to decide between the lesser of two evils.

The problem is that the extremists in both parties are the ones who make the most noise and have the most impact on platform/policy. But since there are only two choices when it comes to election time, the vast majority of moderates have no choice but to keep electing these extremist parties.

[Don Corleone]

Well said Goofball. You're nailed our political problems to a "T".

[Goofball]

Well said Goofball. You're nailed our political problems to a "T".

Thanks Don.

[yesdachi]

Any major political race today is as much a popularity contest as it is about the issues and there isn’t a chance for anyone with “extreme” views to get elected because the mainstream masses wont follow (unless they have really good hair ).

I am all for standing up for what I think is right but if I wanted to be a politician I better get used to doing what the masses want or I wont have much of a career. It is a sad situation that causes our strong leaders to often turn into sheep being herded by the masses rather than the other way around.

[Kongamato]

I don't think that's a good idea. The strategy that works right now is to appear somewhat moderate, avoid the tough issues and make your opponent look like a total jerk. You get a large majority of the voters on your end of the spectrum, and win with swing voters from the other side who've lost faith in their candidate. At least, that's how I see it.

I heard in a lecture a few years back that the democrats tried this "extreme" stance during the George McGovern presidential campaign, letting their platform be decided by those furthest to the left.

The platform, ripped from Wikipedia:

In the 1972 election, McGovern ran on a platform of:

unilateral withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war [White p. 122] and amnesty for draft evaders who had left the country [White p. 360]
an across-the-board, 37% reduction in defense spending over three years [White p. 123]
a "demogrant" program giving $1,000 to every citizen in American [White p. 125], later changed to creating a $6,500 guaranteed minimum income for Americans, later dropped [White p. 190]
ratification the Equal Rights Amendment.

I also heard he said he would go to Hanoi "on bended knee" and ask for peace.


I think that the only way to get a nation's viewpoint polarized enough to choose extreme government is for there to be an unprecedented, massive catastrophe or crisis of some kind. Worse than Katrina or 9/11, i'd say.