Writing at CNN.com Alex Castellanos sums up his theme that the Democratic Party is more extreme than the Republican:
Which party is more extreme?
A Republican Party divided between 180 mainstream House members and 40 Ted Cruz mini-me’s? Or a Democratic Party united to preserve our fossilized, ineffective public sector?
I don’t know that I agree with him. I think that both parties have pretty much purged their moderates and the Congress is more polarized than it has been in 150 years. It is also less representative than it has ever been—nearly half of all Americans characterize themselves as “independents” and, interestingly, they’re indepenents with a remarkably consistent point of view.
Something to reflect on. The states with the greatest domestic outmigration per the 2010 census were all Blue states—New York, Illinois, California, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Connecticut—while the states with the largest domestic inmigration were Red states. Some, seeing that as a glass half-full, will interpret that as predicting that the Red states will become Bluer. That may be true. Another interpretation is that when you have a solid majority you can enact your program into law but you can’t necessarily make it work.
“Which party is more extreme?”
Usually the minority party, which almost by definition has lost seats in the middle.
A party operating with a large majority almost always has to deal with collective action problems, where the members on the extreme think they constitute the majority.
Have to agree with PD. The minority party cannot pass or overturn legislation. It can use the leverage of threatening to shut down the govt or a default to try to wring concessions from the majority. The majority party does not need to do that, and wants to avoid that since it risks losing its majority position if voters are unhappy. The difference this time is that the minority party seems a little more willing to go over the cliff than it has in the past. (As an aside I saw my Congressman, a Republican, making good sense last on an interview. He acknowledged that people are afraid of primary challenges so they are being intimidated by the minority pushing to repeal the ACA, which most Republicans knew could not work. A small group of us meet with him a couple of times a year. Reasonable guy and the only individual politician to whom we regularly donate.)
I agree that it is less representative, but not just by party affiliation. We need a lot more Congressmen so that we have more equal representation on a population basis. The small states hold too much power.
Steve
It’s interesting how the terms majority and minority take on different hues, strengths, weaknesses, criticisms, all depending on who and how they are used. In the case of health care, the entire system has been impacted by a minority of people who were uninsured. Nonetheless, this was a cause feverishly pursued and promoted in a semi-Marxist deduction –> where the needs of the minority outweighed the satisfaction and/or opinion of the majority.
Now, we are enmeshed in Congressional-Executive policy differences, where the minority opinion is re-cast as contrary, obnoxious, obstructive, secondary and therefore should be summarily dismissed as exemplifying a negative, dissenting aberration of DC politics. Lost in all this talk, though, are fundamental concerns of mounting deficits, as we continue to sign up more people on entitlement programs that are unsustainable, in the long run. So, as far as I am concerned, I see the House conservatives as doing their job, under great duress, in sounding fiscal alarms regarding the CR and raising the debt ceiling. It seems, though, such built in safeguards, insuring greater fiscal sanity, has yielded to the fiscal insanity whims of the party in power. Sad…..
“minority opinion is re-cast as contrary, obnoxious, obstructive, secondary and therefore should be summarily dismissed as exemplifying a negative, dissenting aberration of DC politics.”
Nope. It was a political effort to leverage the threat of default to achieve a political end. This was planned for months, but it got out of hand. The Rs actually talked seriously about a default as though it would not be harmful. Worst of all, it was a minority within a minority controlling things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/us/politics/boehner-foresees-whale-of-a-fight-over-debt-limit.html?_r=0
If the Rs want to address our debt, then they should address the debt. The problem is that they will have to make compromises, perhaps even including some tax increases. That could not pass in the House, so they had to try using the debt ceiling for leverage. Too bad for them that Cruz got involved.
Steve
Sometimes you have to wait and see what the full impact of intense policy challenges will be. While, the R’s certainly do appear to have taken it in the shorts (polling-wise, and media rhetoric), I think their venting and open-airing of complaints, regarding mounting debt, deficits, inequities of the PPACA etc., may have raised the lid of awareness and discontent a bit, along with exposing the temerity and overreach of current social progressive policies.
Lying and obfuscation coexist well in a government, as long as the by-products of their mismanagement are muffled and misleading enough to be misinterpreted by the people, successfully blamed on someone else. That has been the entire leadership strategy of the Obama Administration, in a nutshell. And, so far it has worked like a charm.
However, the very public display of democratic/republican bickering has not only highlighted policy details, but also put political party personalities front and center on peoples’ news screens. And, IMO, the dems showed less flexibility, statesmanship qualities, or proactive engagement for the general well being of people. Their performance, while conveying stoic strength via an unbending adamancy against any policy modification, was contrasted by republicans who appeared more cooperative by moderating their stances, showing repeated attempts to find alternatives and compromises. And, even though egos and operatives may give a win to the dems, the republicans scored well in conveying a genuineness of conviction, which will be remembered more fondly and reviewed less critically, as the nation lumbers onward in economical disarray.
Consequently, when the dust settles, clearing out the political haze, I do believe there will be substantial fall-out generated from those who want something better than just being a devoted, card-carrying lackey in a pabulum-fed, government-controlled society.
Okay, so the minority party is more extreme, and the majority party is more moderate.
Which one is the majority party again? The one with the razor-thin margin in the Senate, or the one with the slightly larger but still slim margin in the House?
Here’s something a bit more complete on California migration. From Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2013/02/12/jobs-arent-leaving-california-for-texas-but-people-are/
It seems California loses a net of 9,000 jobs in the average year through migration. Out of 18 million. So, let’s open up the Google and do some calculating. . . Always dangerous because I am very bad at math. But I believe that’s a job loss rate through migration of 0.0005. Did I get that right?
When you look at people leaving you see that they are taking fewer jobs with them than they’re leaving behind.
And the peak year for population out-migration? Guess, anyone? It’s 2005. Back when both the country and the state had Republican chief executives. Our out-migration now is actually lower than it was a decade ago.
And who is leaving California? Is it the over-taxed rich? Um, no. It’s poor people and working poor. And why would they leave? Is it California’s depressed economy? No. It’s the cost of real estate. Duh.
Now, with that out of the way. Let’s take a look at the rest of the out-migrators. I wonder if there’s a simple factor in addition to expensive homes that might explain why people would leave New Jersey for Florida. Or Illinois for Texas. Anyone? Here’s a hint: it’s the same factor that’s been in play since the invention of air conditioning. It’s called climate.
So, to summarize: California is so desirable that our real estate is expensive. By virtue of this we are shipping our poor to other states. Which somehow I’m sure proves Obamacare is going to kill us all.
Jan:
Your brain isn’t just washed, it’s starched, folded and put away in a drawer.
“Which one is the majority party again? The one with the razor-thin margin in the Senate, or the one with the slightly larger but still slim margin in the House?”
How about the one that lost the popular vote in both Houses and for POTUS?
Steve
Majority and minority are, I think, irrelevant WRT extremism. I think we need to dig a bit deeper – are we talking extreme methods, extreme ideologies, extreme worldviews, or extreme policy positions? Extreme as compared to what?
Also, “extremism” isn’t inherently a bad thing – it’s all context-dependent.
“Or Illinois for Texas.”
Nah. Its because IL doesn’t have decent logistics anymore. I heard it from some guy on the internet.
So it must be true.
Red:
I was hoping you’d come by and explain how the “unready” and “not very smart” Mr. Obama once again bitch-slapped your party.
Obama got, let’s see. . . absolutely everything. And your side got, um, let me do the math here. . . zip. Nada. Nothing. Not even a shred of something, unless you like falling poll numbers and internal division.
So, 2008, Obama slaps McCain-Palin. 2009 passes Mitt Romney’s health care plan, thus ushering in a new Nazi-Commie-Muslim apocalypse. 2012 slaps Mitt Romney and the creepy little Ayn Rand acolyte, what’s his name. 2013 and Mr. Darkly Inadequate once again crushes your side.
So, I have a question. If the Unready Negro you so despise keeps beating your team — composed entirely of business-savvy white guys just like you — what do you think that says about your side? Maybe that they’re delusional idiots?
Michael,
You shouldn’t pat yourself on the back too much for a GoP own-goal.
Threads been Reynolds’d again.
Michael.
Brute strength and bullying seem to be the traits you admire most in your own party — along with calling African Americans, ‘Negros,’ in some strange, convoluted attempt to keep the racism meme alive and well in America. Wow, I think you’re putting an “unwashed” brain into a drawer, continually feeding it garbage to insure the stench of caustic partisanship remains foul and confrontational.
Rock on, Michael!