Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
I wonder if this is an evolution where in another few years Democrats and Repulicans bear as much resemblence to what we now have as the current parties resemble the Civil war Democrats and Republicans.

Is the Democrat Party changing?

I see the logic that the Tea Party constitutes an extreme right wing within the Republican Party, powerful enough to pull it away from its position on the right of centre.

However, is there an influential wing -- either right or left -- within the Democrat Party which is similarly capable of moving their centre of gravity?

The Democratic "establishment" seems split along the lines of those who like the Clintons and those that hate them.

The Clintons, though, are a thing that will go away in time whether people like them or not.

The Republican divisions are ideological. Do the Democrats have some ideological fault lines?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Clintons, though, are a thing that will go away in time whether people like them or not.

The Republican divisions are ideological. Do the Democrats have some ideological fault lines?

Ideology? In modern, western politics. I don't mean to sound offensive, but...

Here's my explanation: politicians, from all Western countries, are so devoid of ideas, so in thrall to the markets/economy (and mostly career politicians) that they have been reduced to nothing more than glorified bank managers.

Could you honestly say, with a straight face, That David Cameron is a conservative, or David Miliband a socialist? Sorry to hijack an American thread.

If Obama is a Democrat, then my name is FDR!

Back to tea party Republican thing. The next election is an open goal chance for the Republicans, but they'll probably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They have a growing Hispanic vote (who tend to be natural conservatives) and after 8 years of a Democrat, they'll likely want to switch sides. But as sure as I have a hole in my rear, the Republican party will shot themselves in the foot.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I wonder if this is an evolution where in another few years Democrats and Repulicans bear as much resemblence to what we now have as the current parties resemble the Civil war Democrats and Republicans.

Is the Democrat Party changing?

I see the logic that the Tea Party constitutes an extreme right wing within the Republican Party, powerful enough to pull it away from its position on the right of centre.

However, is there an influential wing -- either right or left -- within the Democrat Party which is similarly capable of moving their centre of gravity?

The Democrats have changed from what I remember them being as a child. My father was a staunch Democrat who addressed Democrat gatherings in a then Republican Maine.
The fact of gun control is huge, and there weren't many Democrats back then that would support such a measure and would be taking the line that this is the first step towards full government control. If any candidate talked as much about that as Obama does, they would never have made it out of the primaries. Gay marriage is another item that would have doomed someone's political career in either party and would have had them regulated to a fringe nut group in people's thinking.
It's just the nature of the beast for parties to evolve because people's attitudes and thinking evolve. Sometimes it's a gradual change, sometimes major events take a hand.

I didn't realize Obama had talked all that much about gun control. I remember the NRA, Fox, and Gun manufacturers telling people what they thought he would do, but until a string of high profile massacres involving firearms that created public pressure almost 5 years into his presidency he said and did almost nothing about guns.

 Ahtman wrote:
I didn't realize Obama had talked all that much about gun control. I remember the NRA, Fox, and Gun manufacturers telling people what they thought he would do, but until a string of high profile massacres involving firearms that created public pressure almost 5 years into his presidency he said and did almost nothing about guns.

Compared to Democratic candidates when I was a kid, he seems rabid about gun control. There were also high profile killings back in the day, such as the Texas tower shootings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

The thing goes back, though, to what I said about thoughts and attitudes evolving gradually or in respnse to events.

Relapse wrote:
Compared to Democratic candidates when I was a kid, he seems rabid about gun control.

Someone saying next to nothing being considered rabid doesn't seem reasonable, or well considered.

Relapse wrote:
There were also high profile killings back in the day, such as the Texas tower shootings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

And if a few months later there had been another, and then a few months after that another, and then a few months after that another, I imagine more discussion would have gone on.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Compared to Democratic candidates when I was a kid, he seems rabid about gun control.

Someone saying next to nothing being considered rabid doesn't seem reasonable, or well considered.

Relapse wrote:
There were also high profile killings back in the day, such as the Texas tower shootings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

And if a few months later there had been another, and then a few months after that another, and then a few months after that another, I imagine more discussion would have gone on.

Read what I said about events effecting attitudes again it might sink in. Also read what I said about comparing him to politicians when I was a kid. To you it might seem next to nothing, but back then it would have seemed over the top. You are a perfect example of evolution of attitude, and I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean it to show how much thinking has changed.

I'm confused your saying people's viewpoints evolve and this is news how? No gak. The Republican party isnt at all like it was when you were a kid either.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I'm confused your saying people's viewpoints evolve and this is news how? No gak. The Republican party isnt at all like it was when you were a kid either.

Read back to the top of the page, where I just made the statement about parties evolving, then read down. Yes the Republicans are not the same either. That's why I used the plural, talking about Democrats and Republicans. It seems like we are at one of those points in time where events are causing a major change.

Relapse wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I'm confused your saying people's viewpoints evolve and this is news how? No gak. The Republican party isnt at all like it was when you were a kid either.

Read back to the top of the page, where I just made the statement about parties evolving, then read down. Yes the Republicans are not the same either. That's why I used the plural, talking about Democrats and Republicans. It seems like we are at one of those points in time where events are causing a major change.

When were we ever at a point that events didn't cause changes?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I'm confused your saying people's viewpoints evolve and this is news how? No gak. The Republican party isnt at all like it was when you were a kid either.

Read back to the top of the page, where I just made the statement about parties evolving, then read down. Yes the Republicans are not the same either. That's why I used the plural, talking about Democrats and Republicans. It seems like we are at one of those points in time where events are causing a major change.

When were we ever at a point that events didn't cause changes?

I didn't see that much change in the 1970's, 1980's, or even the early 1990's compared to what's happened since 2001. It seems there are lull times, then an accelerated period of serious change in attitude in the parties. Maybe because it's a whole new generation growing up.

Or maybe its a post-9/11 world?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And trust me there were plenty of changes during those years. What weren't dealing with was a decade long war and terrible economy. But there was still plenty of revolutionary changes being made in those decades. Methinks your wearing some rosy colored glasses when looking back.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Or maybe its a post-9/11 world?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And trust me there were plenty of changes during those years. What weren't dealing with was a decade long war and terrible economy. But there was still plenty of revolutionary changes being made in those decades. Methinks your wearing some rosy colored glasses when looking back.

Not really with the rosey glasses. Remember, I said compared to the years after 2001, not that there were no changes in party attitudes just a bit of a lull, then some serious accelation in changes. It's just an observation as I see it as someone who lived through those decades.

Relapse wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I'm confused your saying people's viewpoints evolve and this is news how? No gak. The Republican party isnt at all like it was when you were a kid either.

Read back to the top of the page, where I just made the statement about parties evolving, then read down. Yes the Republicans are not the same either. That's why I used the plural, talking about Democrats and Republicans. It seems like we are at one of those points in time where events are causing a major change.

When were we ever at a point that events didn't cause changes?

I didn't see that much change in the 1970's, 1980's, or even the early 1990's compared to what's happened since 2001. It seems there are lull times, then an accelerated period of serious change in attitude in the parties. Maybe because it's a whole new generation growing up.

The heightening of the cold war, followed by the collapse of the Eastern Block...

The superdominance of the right wing economic/social vision of the Regan/Thatcher ideology for at least 15 of those 30 years.

The rise of computers, followed by the creation of and proliferation of the internet..,

The Aids virus and it's change on western sexual behavior...

The rise of the middle class...

The foundation of adolescence as an approx 10 years of teen to early 20s lifestyle, society changing to incorporate this.

I think quite a lot happened in those 30 years.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


The foundation of adolescence as an approx 10 years of teen to early 20s lifestyle, society changing to incorporate this.

The idea of the teenager has been a mainstream idea since the 1950's.

The Tea Party was coopted within a few months by the Republican Party and has already been absorbed into the Republican Party.

It's also widely been observed that the Tea Party no longer exists as an independent political force.

Their only effect, in fact, was by extremizing the Republican Party, e.g. see the 2010 congressional elections, but the pushback in 2012 signified that their influence has been cut short and the Republican Party repudiated them shortly thereafter. They were only used by the Republican Party and now that they have severed them they have nowhere to go and will probably have scant influence on elections considering that public opinion has moved almost totally against them after the "debt ceiling" and "fiscal cliff" debacles.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I'm confused your saying people's viewpoints evolve and this is news how? No gak. The Republican party isnt at all like it was when you were a kid either.

Read back to the top of the page, where I just made the statement about parties evolving, then read down. Yes the Republicans are not the same either. That's why I used the plural, talking about Democrats and Republicans. It seems like we are at one of those points in time where events are causing a major change.

When were we ever at a point that events didn't cause changes?

I didn't see that much change in the 1970's, 1980's, or even the early 1990's compared to what's happened since 2001. It seems there are lull times, then an accelerated period of serious change in attitude in the parties. Maybe because it's a whole new generation growing up.

The heightening of the cold war, followed by the collapse of the Eastern Block...

The superdominance of the right wing economic/social vision of the Regan/Thatcher ideology for at least 15 of those 30 years.

The rise of computers, followed by the creation of and proliferation of the internet..,

The Aids virus and it's change on western sexual behavior...

The rise of the middle class...

The foundation of adolescence as an approx 10 years of teen to early 20s lifestyle, society changing to incorporate this.

I think quite a lot happened in those 30 years.

Once again, I'm not talking world history here, just commenting on the evolution of the Democratic and Republican parties. Just read back a few posts where I speculated on the nature of the parties becoming as unlike today's parties as Today's parties differ from their Civil War counterparts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
The Tea Party was coopted within a few months by the Republican Party and has already been absorbed into the Republican Party.

It's also widely been observed that the Tea Party no longer exists as an independent political force.

Their only effect, in fact, was by extremizing the Republican Party, e.g. see the 2010 congressional elections, but the pushback in 2012 signified that their influence has been cut short and the Republican Party repudiated them shortly thereafter. They were only used by the Republican Party and now that they have severed them they have nowhere to go and will probably have scant influence on elections considering that public opinion has moved almost totally against them after the "debt ceiling" and "fiscal cliff" debacles.

It'll be interesting to see what they'll be like in 10 years.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Back to tea party Republican thing. The next election is an open goal chance for the Republicans, but they'll probably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They have a growing Hispanic vote (who tend to be natural conservatives) and after 8 years of a Democrat, they'll likely want to switch sides. But as sure as I have a hole in my rear, the Republican party will shot themselves in the foot.

While I agree that the Hispanic vote trends towards being socially conservative, I think the average socioeconomic position of Hispanic voters keeps that entire demographic firmly in opposition to the Nihilistic-Banker Republicans, and the fact that the Hispanic voters aren't Caucasian will keep them from being swayed by the fear-mongering messages of the Liars-For-Jesus Republicans.


EDIT: basically, the only hope the Republican party has (other than re-drawing political districts and purging voter rolls) is to basically split the party into the Tea Party and the RINOs.

 dogma wrote:
The distinction, broadly, between a Presidential system (what you're incorrectly calling a republic) and a Parliamentary system is election of the Executive. In a Presidential system it tends to be direct, in a Parliamentary system it does not. Of course, there are exceptions.

As to appointments: are you really going to claim that the US system doesn't allow for them?

I think he might have been trying to get at the idea of direct elections of individual members, as opposed to the system of proportional representation used in some countries.

That is, in the US you form electorates, and each electorate directly elects one individual in a first past the post election. In this system having two parties with similar political positions can weaken their position overall, as in a left wing candidate winning with 45%, over two right wing candidates who won 35% and 20% votes each. ie Bill Clinton in 1992 (arguably, anyway).

Whereas in a system of proportional representation the above vote would have members split between the three parties, so you'd have the left wing party with 45 seats in parliament, then the right wing parties with 35% and 20% each. Presumably the two right wing parties would form a coalition government (though it isn't certain, coalition politics can get really strange - look at the history of weirdo coalitions in Israel for instance).

But then you add in preferential voting and that issue stops being a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Clintons, though, are a thing that will go away in time whether people like them or not.

The Republican divisions are ideological. Do the Democrats have some ideological fault lines?

The Clintons reflects an ideological difference in the party. The Clinton method of politics (triangulation, politics of the possible etc) is very much hated by the left wing of his party, as its seen as giving in to the right wing. Now I don't think that the division between the left and centrist elements of the Democratic party is anywhere near as strong as in the Republican party, but its still definitely there.

That said, I do kind of wonder if the Tea Party split is probably overstated a lot (I've done a lot of that myself, and am beginning to doubt it now). The issue really does come down to the Tea Party votes still being very important to Republican chances of winning. While it might cost the Republicans some votes and drive others to vote Democrat, and sometimes lead to a total nutter winning a primary, the Republicans can't just turn their backs on those votes without spending a long time in the wilderness. And at the same time the Tea Party is not so important that it can go it alone.

So both factions need each other, and so will put up with each other. They'll fight among themselves, to expand/limit the influence of the Tea Party, but I don't think you'll see any kind of formal split because they need each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I didn't see that much change in the 1970's, 1980's, or even the early 1990's compared to what's happened since 2001. It seems there are lull times, then an accelerated period of serious change in attitude in the parties. Maybe because it's a whole new generation growing up.

In the 1970s you saw the wake of the Southern Strategy, and the Republicans coming to dominate the previously staunchly Democrat southern states. That was a real, powerful political change. In 1980 you saw the Reagan re-branding of the party, where it moved from being a broadly right wing party to a party dedicated to small government (well, at least in its speaches, anyway).

Those were real, powerful political changes. This thing with the Tea Party, I'm not sure that's really all that much of a big in comparison. And when you consider that it's during recession that you typically get the biggest political changes, well then I think we can probably say this was an unusually politically stable recession.

@Sebster, Those are some good points, but I still see the biggest changes to the parties seeming to come post 9/11.
There are going to be some interesting times ahead.

Relapse wrote:
There are going to be some interesting times ahead.

Certainly lots of interesting times ahead. I'd just say they're no more interesting than what's come before

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
There are going to be some interesting times ahead.

Certainly lots of interesting times ahead. I'd just say they're no more interesting than what's come before

I hope you are right on that one.

To confuse matters even more, consider how the Dems started life as a conservative party and the paradigm shift in ideology for both parties in the middle of the last century..