Two Party Systems and Party Discipline
by Brien Jackson
I think Evan Bayh’s “Senate Blue Dog” caucus is as laughable as the next guy, but I don’t really understand this complaint from Yglesias:
The hilarious catch, however, is that when Bayh was asked to name the members of his new Obstruction Caucus he couldn’t name them all.
One bizarre feature of our political system is that, where other systems have coalitions, we instead have single parties. That’s not a fundamental weakness, per se, but it does lead to a rather odd dichotomy in which observers and commentators just sort of assume that everyone in the majority will agree with each other on various issues, and imagine that our “parties” should have the sort of discipline parties in other countries have. But if our system actually worked like, say, Israel’s system, the Democratic Party wouldn’t exist. Instead, you’d have a Labor Party, and Women’s Party, a Blue Dog party, a Populist Party, a left-wing party or two, etc. all competing for votes. And after the election, these parties would probably come together in a governing coalition. But no one would be shocked if the elements of that coalition had disagreements from time to time.
Instead, what we have is a situation where this coalition exists under the banner of one specific party, and disagreements and competing interests within the party are looked at as a bizarre thing. But I’m not so sure that’s an unusual thing, or something you shouldn’t expect to have happening at any given time, so much as it’s a misunderstanding of the unique way the party system in the United States works as a rule.
Tags: Blue Dogs
March 18th, 2009 at 6:43 PM
To play devil’s advocate, I don’t think Yglesias expects everyone to agree with one another…what I think his complaint is….and i don’t want to put words in his mouth…but it seems on CORE issues that really could separate the two parties, you have this corporatist blue dog coalition that seems to prevent the progressive party from actually being the progressive party. Healthcare, social security, gay rights etc…
when it comes to CORE GOP issues, the party for the most part marches in lock step…it promotes a clear message, and everyone knows where the Republicans stand…there is no blue dog republican caucus muddying up the message….so in my opinion, when it comes to the minor, non hot button issues, I don’t mind disagreemt from within the Democratic party, but when it comes to the issues that define their brand, pro-choice, pro social security pro marriage equality,…too often nothing gets done and the public ends up confused on just what separates DEMS from the GOP
March 18th, 2009 at 7:29 PM
I think that’s fair, and maybe it’s well enough for them to pay nominal support for those core values, but I also think calling the Democratic Party the “progressive party” isn’t really accurate, in the sense that progressives are more a part of the coalition, albeit a large part, rather than something each member of the party would be expected to identify as. Also, I think the Democratic Party is weird, in a way the Republican Party just isn’t. Democrats represent everything from the IL-05 to the OH-18 districts. In the Senate, they represent states from Louisiana and Arkansas to Vermont and Rhode Island. You don’t really see that with the Republican Party, even in their uptimes. Moreover, as Yglesias pointed out in a different post, the idea of a progressive governing majority just isn’t likely, and as such, a completely progressive Democratic caucus isn’t really likely either.
This doesn’t really have a practical purpose, mind you, it was just something that stuck out a bit to me, and is one of those things where I think it’s helpful to point out how truly unique our political system is. No one is surprised when governing coalitions fall apart in other countries, and the only reason we find it odd is because we insist that our coalitions are actually parties.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:43 PM
I think the issue is what defines these people as Democrats. If they’re not going to vote for key elements of the Democratic agenda (and in the case of people like Lieberman, actively campaign for the other party’s presidential candidate), why do they not just cross the aisle?
March 19th, 2009 at 2:06 AM
but I also think calling the Democratic Party the “progressive party” isn’t really accurate, in the sense that progressives are more a part of the coalition
i agree totally…and i think that you’ve nailed it here….but the fact is that those in the Democratic party, the moderates…when they dissent and en up embarrassing the party nationally…often times it not not out of principal, but out of love for corporatism… i suppose i could be more tolerant of those blue dogs should they defend their policy choices and embarrassments with actual substance rather than the garbage they usually feed us…think centrism and telecom and immunity, but they are hacks and as Polk says, maybe they should just cross the aisle
And that is not to say that Progressive Officials can’t be corrupt either…but i think the point of the purging would be to allow the party to better define itself and would probably be less corrupt
March 19th, 2009 at 2:10 AM
but i guess getting the leadership to purge these people is impossible, so faced with that you play with the hand with the cards your dealt…so in other words, nothing changes