CE Week #2: “Crackup? Not So Fast.”
Calm down. The GOP’s demise isn’t as imminent as some would have it.
By Karl Rove
NEWSWEEK
Feb 2, 2008
“We are at the end of the Reagan era.” Or, at least, that is the claim of voices as diverse as Newt Gingrich and Ed Rollins on the right and Sen. Chuck Schumer and pollster Stanley Greenberg on the left. It is true the Republican Party is having difficulty retooling its message for the 21st century. But so is the Democratic Party.
Every presidential election is about change, and no more so than at the end of a two-term president’s time in the White House. Parties have to constantly update themselves if they hope to remain relevant. The difficulty for both Republicans and Democrats is that our political system is at a point where more than the normal amount of party growth and development is needed. Both parties are suffering the consequences of seeing substantial parts of their 20th-century agendas adopted; both parties are struggling to fashion new answers to the new challenges of a young century.
But that’s not to say that the Reagan legacy is exhausted. Ronald Reagan’s legacy was not simply that he was “a campaigner and orator of uncommon skill,” as Don Campbell argued last week in USA Today. President Reagan’s gifts to the Republican Party were ideas: growing the economy through tax cuts, limiting government’s size, forcefully confronting totalitarian threats, making human rights a centerpiece of America’s foreign policy, respecting unborn human life, empowering the individual with more freedom. Those ideas endure. They give Republicans a philosophical foundation on which to build. The Reagan coalition has a natural desire to stick together. Fiscal, defense and values conservatives have more in common with each other than with any major element of the Democratic Party’s leadership.
Democrats have a similar philosophical storehouse in the ideas of FDR and LBJ. Both expanded the size and scope of the federal government and saw it in almost an entirely positive light: as an agent of economic redistribution from the rich to the less affluent, as a provider to the poor and the disabled and as an enforcer of equal rights and equal justice. The Democratic Party has two challenges. One is that the modern economy has led voters to prefer markets, decentralization and consumer choice far more than centralized control by government and the substitution of “expert” decisions for those of the individual. The other challenge is that many in that party mistake the “Third Way” tactics of the Clinton years for a substantive approach to governing. Triangulation—making yourself look good at the expense of allies and adversaries in both parties—is lousy for providing coherent answers to modern issues.
Why then the media’s recent fascination with the supposed demise of the Republican Party? What are the reasons given for why, at least when it comes to the Republicans, “the party’s over,” as NEWSWEEK recently pronounced? First, we are told the GOP nomination has not been won “fairly quickly,” as in recent contests. This is a horrible misremembering of history. The senior Bush took 45 days after the first contest to secure the nomination in 1988. It took Bob Dole 35 days to become the presumptive nominee in 1996. The current president took 45 days to clear the field in 2000. The first contest this year was on Jan. 3. Let’s at least give the process until the middle or end of February before pundits start predicting doom because of how long it’s taking. And if the Republican nomination not being settled is evidence of disaster, what does the Democratic nomination being up for grabs say? It’s normal for both parties’ nominees to be undecided at this point. The season is not moving too slowly. If anything, it is moving too quickly this time, with 38 contests in the first 33 days.
Second, we are told recently by Susan Page, also in USA Today, that “never before in modern times has there been such a muddle,” and then by Jon Meacham in this magazine that the “chaotic nature of the Republican primary race” means “the party of Reagan is now divided in ways it has not been in more than a generation.” Many who witnessed the primary battles of 2000, 1996, 1992 or 1988 might disagree. By their nature, primary races are chaotic. Then a nominee emerges, and the chaos recedes (most of the time). If spirited competition on the Republican side is evidence of a crackup, then what about the Democratic battle? It is focused more and more on race and gender, and Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives of any candidate at this point in an open race for the presidency. The Democratic House and Senate have plummeted to the poorest congressional approval ratings in history.
Third, we are told Democrats have raised more money. You will search in vain for a similar declaration of last rites for the Democrats in 2000 when Republicans outraised them. And having more money doesn’t decide the contest. Consider 2004, when Democratic presidential candidates, committees and 527s outspent their Republican counterparts by $124 million—and lost. Besides, the RNC has nearly eight times the cash on hand as the DNC. Just a month has passed since voting began, and nine months remain before November. Let’s see what happens to Republican bank accounts as the year goes on.
Maybe we are not seeing the crackup of the GOP. Rather, America is more likely to be at the start of an intense and exciting election. The contest will be hard fought, the actions of the candidates each day hugely significant. It’s far too early to draw sweeping conclusions about the health of either party; the presidential race, after all, has barely begun.
Lots of surprises lie ahead.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/107568
Well this article touches on a very important point about politics that we learned earlier this year, the eras. These include the Republican era, the Democratic era and the divided era. Currently we are in the divided era, when one party controls Congress and the other party controls the presidency. What a lot of people are speculating is that because we have had such a tragic past 8 years with the lost war on terror (I think it’s safe to say we lost this war, seeing as we haven’t found any WMD’s or haven’t found Osama)…oh yeah and that every other country in the world hates us. Anyways, since a lot of people are saying George Bush has been our worst president ever ( I agree), some say this next coming election might be a critical election causing party realignment and maybe even a shift into another Democratic era. The War on Terror has a horrible approval rating and many believe voters will want to move as far away as possible from the war and Republicans as possible. But according to this article, that doesn’t seem to be the case. This article is arguing the point that both the Democrats and Republicans have completely screwed up our country for the past 8 years or so. The Republicans are blowing our money away and the Democrats aren’t doing what we want in Congress. Well, who knows what we really want, but that’s beside the point. All we know is that we are pissed at our government and are unhappy with the current situation. The voters are looking at our current situation and asking, “What has my government done for me lately?” The time has come for a major shift in our government, either into a completely different era, or even just a swap of party in Congress with the party in power.
This election could be the end of the divided era. The GOP faces many problems in todays elections, mainly the problem is the split in the party between the conservatives and moderates. To be a Republican does not mean what it used to in Reagan’s days. A Republican can be a moderate more often than likely in todays Republican party. Speculation of the end of the GOP definitely has some clout. The candidates that remain in the race for the Republican nomination are not exactly conservatives. McCain, the projected leader, is very liberal in certain areas, and is gaining great support. Romney may seem to be more conservative, but has moderate voting patterns. The party is changing. The most conservative candidates have dropped out because they were not getting enough votes. The votes are going to the moderate republicans. Why? Well one reason could be because of the anti-conservative sentiment among the country at the moment, or the other could be that the party is splitting. Only time will tell what this means.
One thing that we can be sure of is that the end of a party is something that takes many years, not just one election. As Rove states in this article, the roots of the parties are still strong, and not easily destroyed. I do disagree with his statement about the Democratic party though. The party is not in the same predicament as the Republican. The Republican party is moving towards more liberal ideologies, giving the Democratic party more strength. I can see some legitimacy of his point though. I just find the one I stated above to be more pivotal. Both parties are moving towards a moderate viewpoint. Extremism is ending, and the moderate movement is beginning. However, this middle ground is much more liberal than conservative. That is why the Democratic party is being strengthened.
This article like Jackie said is all about eras. We are still in the divided era with a Democratic controlled Congress and a Republican Presidency. It seems too soon to jump to conclusions about the fall of the Republicans. The author seems to be supportive of the Republicans and said: “The Democratic House and Senate have plummeted to the poorest congressional approval ratings in history.” We all know that Bush hasn’t had the best approval rating either, so in other words both our Congress and President have sucked it up over the last eight years. I think that many American’s have a retrospective way of thinking when it comes to politics and who they do or do not like. They want whoever does what is best for them, which is understandable. People have not been happy with the decisions and outcomes of America’s events, and many think that the Democrats will be taking over the Party in Power and control the White House. That all depends on if American’s can put aside their racial or sex opinions and vote for who they think would be best. If they can’t then as of right now it looks like McCain could be a potential threat and so could Huckabee if he becomes Vice President because there is probably a pretty good chance ol’ McCain’s ticker could run out. I agree with the author in that it is still too early to tell who could become the next president. Many factors come into play by just looking at the candidates.
This article is suggesting that it is too early to call this the end of the Republicans, and that we need to focus not just on the end of the Republicans, but the Democrats as well. The American people disapprove of the president and congress so the people really disagree with both parties. This article also hints at the end of an era, that this could be a critical election, one that decides history where we could lose the presidency to the Democrats and the legislative branch to the Republicans. Or an era shift could happen and we could have a pure republican era, where Republicans rule the presidency and congress, or a democratic era where the Democrats rule the presidency and congress.
It is too early to call the demise of either party because the primaries and caucuses aren’t even over yet.
The Republican Party could become unified behind McCain and win the presidency, it is possible, but hopefully not. The Democrats have Obama and Clinton neck and neck as the results of Super Tuesday role in. I think this article has a slight Republican slant, because it seems to be defending the party, but I do agree that earlier in the primary election campaigns it seemed like the Democrats were a shoe in for the presidency because the lead for Hillary was so great, and the Republicans didn’t have a front runner. Now, the Republican Party has McCain as a front runner and the Democrats are almost tied between Clinton and Obama.
In the last century of our country we have seen the birth and growth of political campaigning. During the first century of our country presidents didn’t even campaign for the job. As time went on America developed the television and created the most powerful media we have today. It is impossible, today, to get elected if you haven’t been on T.V. The growing power of the electronic thrown has made campaigning expenditures rise through the roof. With as much as we know and can learn about through television picking the perfect candidate has become impossible. When Washington took the presidency, people saw him as an ideal president. He was a war hero who saved many men and led us into battle in our time of need. Had he been running for president today we would know that when he negotiated his first treaty he asked the armed Indians to surrender unconditionally and had to run for his life. ( He was close to 18.) We would also know that the poor man had no teeth. Today many of the candidates have many details of their lives displayed to the public. With so much information there is bound to be something about them we don’t like. As a result the parties want to pick their candidate carefully. Is it really that surprising that the parties take a while to decide on a candidate? I don’t think so.
Making assumptions about what’s going to happen is usually half the fun. Karl Rove does say thought it is hard to make sweeping conclusions this early in the race, in which case he is right. Anything now is at best an educated guess, but it’s still a guess. This article talks a lot about different pundits, self proclaimed political geniuses. Notice the self proclaimed part, but they have to be somewhat knowledgeable to still be around one must think. I was a little confused about the whole Regan Era part of this article. Regan gave the Republican Party ideas. What does this mean then, the Republican Party is out of ideas. From what I can tell it seems they are doing fine as of right now. I have heard more talk about the possibility of a republican president instead of a democratic president since this summer. Which I find rather depressing. So how does this translate into the Republican Party being out of ideas? To me it seems they need to keep doing what they have done for the fast few months. The whole section of this article where the pundits are making hasty assumptions because there is not clear cut nominee yet seems to be quite funny to me. The race has barely started and they’re freaking out already. I guess that would be why they are pundits and not something else, maybe a little more important.
While Karl Rove undoubtedly knows much more about politics than I do, I dare to disagree with a few of his points. He cites triangulation, an invention of the Clinton administration, as “making yourself look good at the expense of allies and adversaries in both parties,” and a “lousy” way of governing. I personally don’t see how taking pieces of each party’s traditional platform is any worse at “providing coherent answers to modern issues” than staunchly remaining in one party’s domain. Rove seems to believe that only ideas concretely Democrat or Republican can solve our world’s problems. This is the opposite of what we read about the two-party system in the United States and its affect on the party platforms. With only two parties, and a winner-take-all system in the Electoral College, each party has to appeal to a wide range of voters. Attracting such a range is accomplished by putting forth a vague position instead of a clear, definitive stance on any issue. So voters have come to expect generalities, and Karl Rove believes polarized stances are our best bet when addressing global warming or immigration? Seems an odd paradox.
I also disagree that the Democrats are experiencing division comparable to the Republicans’. It seems to me Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have very similar policy stances on most issues. John McCain and Mitt Romney, or McCain and Mike Huckabee, have significantly different platforms. McCain is more moderate, appealing to liberals within the party, while Romney (at least now that he’s running for the Republican nomination and not governor of Massachusetts) represents the values of conservatives. Huckabee rides on the hopes of voters who couldn’t stand a slightly tolerant person in the White House and are afraid of Mormons and/or flipfloppers.
I agree with the article on that we should at least give the candidates until mid February if not the end of the month before we start declaring who will be the candidate. This is because past elections have shown us that, what we might have thought as a sure victory is not always as easy as it appears. This was the case for Nixon as well as Bob Dole. The article also pointed out how former President Clinton used the Triangulation to make himself look good. It points this out as a negative though. I disagree with this for a couple of reasons. The first is that even though this method made himself look good, he was looking good because of his ability to choose the best of the bills to be past. He was also listening to the people’s voice in what they wanted. Yes, I understand it may have made both parties look lake they were not accomplishing much, but let it go. The main goal of both parties as well as all smaller parties should be to make the United States the best place it can possibly be by working together with members of opposite parties. I feel that the method of Triangulation is superior to the method of Wheels and Spokes. Which causes for the President to hear more ideas from all points and gives more people access to the President. However, it also causes for the President to hear ideas that are not necessarily worth hearing and should have been filtered out, due to the lack of practicality. One thing is certain however, and that is that that the people of the United States want change and that change will be evident in this coming election.
It is funny to think that people are saying that this election will be the end of the Republican Party. I have to agree with the author in this case that this is just ridiculous. As we have read about we are in the Divided Era of government and we are constantly changing the party in control. Since this is the case it would seem that the Democrats are going to have the white house for a few years since the Republicans have been there for eight years. It seems somewhat hypocritical for the media to be saying the Republican Party is dying merely because they did not have a clear frontrunner yet, the same could be said of the Democrats. As the author said, the primary season is hectic and this year will come down to some of the later states to decide the outcomes, which is fine by me….maybe it will discourage frontloading in the future. I personally love to see a tight race; it makes it all the more exciting. I think another big part of this is the fact that fewer and fewer people are associating themselves with one of the two major parties. Instead, most Americans declare themselves to be an independent which makes them swing voters. This could be interpreted that both parties are actually declining since fewer people are associating themselves with one or the other party. All I know is that it will be an exciting election to watch and vote in.
Lindsey Devaney
This article is very well written regarding its ability to get the point across. I do think that in a way, the media is obsessed with the diminishing of the GOP. However, I do not think that is true, and neither does the author. It is more of the end of the Reagan era, but not the end of the party. This upcoming critical election will indeed change the way politics and political parties operate, but not so drastically that an entire party in deleted. Anyways, I really was interested by the article that talks about how fast the party nominations have been narrowed down in the past elections. In the last few elections the Republican candidates especially have been chosen in about 40 days, which seems amazing in comparison to the three man Republican race we are seeing today. The Republicans were fortunate to have a leader like Reagan to set the standard for future Republicans, but, like the article said, changes are occurring rapidly in American politics. The baby boomers are starting to fade into the background and collecting their Social Security checks, while a new young generation is emerging. The Republican and Democrat parties just need to adapt, which they have already begun to do.
It’s hard to look at the race at this point at time and try to figure what’s going to happen in the end. Sure everyone has their assumptions and possible hopes, but there is no say now in what party and who is going to be in power come next year. I found it interesting that this article focused so much on the different parties and how much they seemed to be changing. It seemed to be making such a big deal about something that has happened many a time in the past and something that is bound to happen as eras change. Not only have we learned about the different eras, the Republican and Democratic eras as and the divided era, but we also learned about parties that have not lasted long and have also changed in the years. One of the first parties was the Federalist Party was the first party system and only lasted for some years. New issues have come up and parties have had to change for what the new era is doing and what is happening. Today there just happens to be change because people are beginning to become more independent than they have been in the past. This calls for Republicans to not be as conservative and Democrats to not be as liberal. This is for the hopes of getting those who may be on the border line to lean to one party or the other. So I’d have to say that people need to stop fussing about slight changes in the political changes, as they are expected to happen and that they need to stop trying so hard to predict the out come of this year’s election.
I agree. We are at the end of an era–be it Reagan or Republican. By “the end of the Republican era,” I mean simply the end of our near-constant election of Republican candidates to office. If not this election, then soon. Perhaps it will be this election, for the simple reason that there are too many polarizing candidates. Except for McCain. He has a lot of crossover appeal, but that’s only because he’s practically a Democrat.
It’s hard to figure out who will win this early on. There are too many popular candidates, for one thing. Christians like Huckabee, Mormons AND some Christians like Romney, liberal-ish Republicans like McCain. On the other side of the Looking Glass, Hillary and Obama are duking it out, and it’s not clear who will make it out alive. (They’re both pretty vicious; if they were each just a little more sensitive, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them crying on stage. Yes, I’m using hyperbole. Sort of.)
In this race, predicting who will win is half the fun partly because it’s impossible.
First of all, I would like to say that I have missed Dick Vitale and I am so glad he is back from his surgery and is a commentator in this Duke-UNC game. No other man can make a game more in enjoyable than Dicky V BABY!! Alright, this article just talks more about what we spent a large amount of time on in class: the eras. We learned about the Democratic, Republican, and the Divided Eras. As we are still a part of the divided era. This election is a critical election with the war and the job that Bush has done. We certainly need an economic boost and choosing a president that can provide both will be tough. The Republicans are receiving all the media attention because of Bush. It will be tough for a Republican to be elected following a terrible job a Republican just did in office. The Republicans also are not the big name candidates. They are the Appalachian State of the political world. This election will be some what like the Super Bowl. The Democrats will be a double digit favorite and no one will pick a Republican to win except a comedian.(Frank Caliendo chose the Giants to win) But like the article said, you can not start choosing people until the middle to the end of February. So we will all just have to wait it out.
This article presents a number of reasons why the republican party is not fading, and I agree with Karl Rove and his article. One thing I found interesting is that even though many states leapfrogged, which means they set their primary/caucus date to an earlier date, there is no real clear republican or democratic canadate. Both parties still don’t know who is going to win. This goes against the trend, as we found out, that the first few states will narrow the huge field of canadates to only 1 or 2. With 3 competetive republicans and 2 democrats, there is no knowing who will win at the National Party Convention. Even super tuesday, with numerous caucauses and primaries, didn’t give America a clear leader. It put Huckabee back in the race on the republican side because of the solid south, and it put Obama and Clinton at a near tie. This is getting a little exiting. Also, as far as the republican party fading, there has to be a loyal opposition. People know that a loyal opposition is really a must have to check the party in power. I don’t see any parties who are stepping up and ready to take the elephant’s place.
Even though right now it may make both parties appear weak to the public, I believe that this “muddle” is a good thing in the long run. It is a good thing that we are taking our time to weed out the losers and emerge from the chaos with nothing but the best. The American people have been slowly drifting from the two-party system mentality, or at least the two parties they have to choose from. More and more independents are blooming all over. Dissatisfaction with both parties will eventually give way to at least one new one. However soon this realignment may happen will be the surprise we have all been waiting for. This upcoming 2008 election has the potential to be a critical one. A critical election is an electoral “earthquake” whereby new issues emerge, new coalitions replace old ones, and the majority party is often displaced by the minority party. Because we are in the divided era of government, it may be a long while before we know if indeed this election will go down in the history books as a critical one. This could be one of those instances where there needs to be more than one election to bring about a new party era.
“We are at the end of the Reagan era.” Is this so true? I find that we are no longer in either party’s era. Previously discussed and probably ad nausium to Mr. Kautzman, we are in the divided era. This is the split between Congress and the Presidency. “The Democratic House and Senate have plummeted to the poorest congressional approval ratings in history.” I found this very similar to the fact that Congress might have low approval ratings but the Presidency does too. Two separate parties are both being hated by the public. This leads to the reason why the election is moving so fast. “The season is not moving too slowly. If anything, it is moving too quickly this time, with 38 contests in the first 33 days.” It seems as if we want to switch them out as fast as possible so someone else can fix what was wrong before. Whether it’s switching either party’s in Congress or the Presidency we seem to be anxious. This in result could be blinding us from the candidate’s real points. Like the article said, it seems to be more about race, gender, and religion than anything else. And perhaps instead of wanting to be part of the next black president, woman president, or Mormon president, we should be focusing on who is most fit instead of who’s going to make history.
I would like to add that Karl Roves statement about money is rather ignorant. “And having more money doesn’t decide the contest.” I think it has more of an effect than recognized by Rove. In such a media based world, advertising (which cost money) is vital in becoming elected. Perhaps money directly doesn’t win the contest but the power it gives does. I think that line should be reworded.
-Caitlin Barschig
I just thought that it was really interesting and surprising that even though the Democrats have been raising more money, the Republican National Party has eight times the amount of spending money as do the Democrats.
I agree with the author of this article, that the Presidential race is just beginning, and it is a little early to start writing off many candidates, much less whole political parties. Huckabee proved this in the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, by winning the South, and exceeding expectations in the delegate count. With three viable candidates (sorry Emily but Ron Paul doesn’t count), I think that the Republicans are far from down and out. On the other hand, neither is the Democratic Party falling behind. Both Clinton and Obama are receiving a lot of support, with Obama raising $32 million in January, and Clinton receiving the majority of the super delegates. One other thing that I found interesting was this quote, “many in that party(Dems) mistake the “Third Way” tactics of the Clinton years for a substantive approach to governing. Triangulation… is lousy for providing coherent answers to modern issues.” I know that triangulation is picking the best or most popular ideas from both parties to improve the Presidents approval, but is it carried to far? Are we trading practical and cohesive governing just for public approval?
Andrew Barnes
I enjoyed reading this article because it was truthful to what is actually happening in the 2008 presidential nominee races. Both the Democrat and the Republicans are having a hard time finding new tricks up their sleeves. Although this is the most diverse race in presidential history, I think that parties are having trouble finding a way individualize their stances without going out of party lines. Both parties thrive off of its specific platform. Like we have read in previous chapters, in a party’s platform there are certain stances that Republicans or Democrats are obligated to take. The problem is, candidates are having trouble making those stances sound like their own and not something they were told to think. A majority of the Republican Party’s platform ideas revolve around that of Reagan. Republicans push for tax cuts, limiting the size of government, making sure American foreign policy is centered on health rights, and most conservatives are anti-abortion. These are the basic building blocks for a Republican politician. The Democrats on the other use FDR and LBJ presidencies as their platforms. Democrats try to expand size and scope of government, work towards redistribution of wealth, and the enforcement of equal rights. I feel that both current parties are trying to uphold the legacy of all their past presidential icons. It will be interesting to see if the candidates decide to spice things up or go the safe route and play off of previous presidents old tricks.
Wow, how privileged are we to be able to take this GO PO class right in the midst of the most exciting elections in years. I am not trying to earn extra points; (although they will be gladly accepted) I am just excited to be able to use my vote in such an election.
But this article has also addressed some questions I have raised. I brought up the point earlier in the year that parties distances from each other has increased, but their individual power has decreased.
It seems to me that the Democratic Party has always been in a mess. They have always had a hard time deciding where they stand on topics and there is such a broad spectrum within the party itself.
Now it seems that the GOP has fell into the same downward spiral. They are having broader candidates come out of the woodwork (see McCain and Paul) and now being a conservative doesn’t mean being a Republican.
All I can say is that it seems to me that the parties are deteriorating. What is the need for them anymore? Couldn’t we accomplish the same thing by having an open pool for our selection? That way the best person for the job would win.
Of course this idea seems to be from NeverNever Land, but hey; I can dream.
Connor Christeson
This article has a lot to do with the eras that we discussed earlier in the year. Now we are in a divided era, an era in which neither party is in complete control. I do think that election ’08 is bad for republicans because a lot of people seem to think that Senor Bush really screwed up with the war and such and probably ruined any chances of a republican winning the presidency. However I do not think that a democratic era is going to arise from this election. A lot of people might share the opinion that the war was a bad idea but the war won’t last forever and I doubt the democrats will live up to expectations just like congress isn’t living up to expectations right now and by the time ’12 rolls around the GOP will have a good chance at winning again. Is it the end of the Republican Party? I’d agree with Karl and say no. And that’s all I have to say about that.
I agree with this article completely. I find that in some ways it connects completely to bipartisanship. We are always talking about how a candidate to win the general election must unite the party; well this is it to the T. To me it is as if both parties to, survive, will have to become bipartisan. As we have learned people are no longer strait ticket voters, they decide who they like and what they like and vote for them no matter what party affiliation they might have. It seems that the demise of both parties might come with this election, I don’t think that it would be an immediate demise but over the next twenty or thirty year I think that it is possible that we become more like European countries and have hundreds of parties to chose from, and therefore no clear cut winner. I think that would be better representation of what the people of the United States want because all the radical ideas would be addressed along with the not so radical ideas. If both parties do survive I think that it will take some major compromises because the rift between Obama and Clinton and in the GOP the rift between the conservative Christians and the other republicans that are not so conservative.
I disagree with those who say that it is the end of the Regan era or that the Republican Party is too weak and has no chance. I agree with the article when it says that it is still too early to predict anything as drastic as that. As we have recently seen with the results of Super Tuesday nothing is yet decided and anything can still happen. I also agree when the article says that things are definitely not moving to slow and if anything they are going too quickly. I think that in an election that is this big and this important we should not rush through anything and take our time choosing the right nominees to become president. Earlier in last semester we learned about party eras and critical elections. This election definitely has the potential to be a critical election. Something else that Kautzman had told us before is that he thinks that even though the republicans don’t have the strongest competitors that they’ve had in previous elections, he thinks that they still have a very good chance of winning because the people like the idea of a divided government. In my opinion as their campaigns move on people are starting to think of what is going to benefit the country better and are starting to think of the remaining republican candidates more highly. – Matt Powles
As we have gone over so many times in class, and as everyone above me has said, we are living the “divided era”, with a Democratic Congress and Republican President/executive office. We, as Americans, like this split because it causes gridlock in getting things passed. The thought is, if something is truly worth having and necessary, both parties will agree on it. I really don’t think this division is going to change within the next election. Kautzman told us that there are enough Republican seats up for election that give opportunity to Democrats to not only take the majority, but make the Senate fillibuster proof. Something like this would put a hault to Republicans’ ideas/beliefs.
As of right now, we don’t know exactly who the nominees are, but for the Republicans, McCain is the front-runner and probably will remain. With the attacks on Obama from the Clinton campaign, and the ugliness coming from Hillary in her strategies, the two strong candidates (who are neck and neck) has become discredited some.
It is too early to know who will win the nominations for the parties (even if we think we have good ideas already), but even if what this articles brings up about the end of the split era, will it really be so?? I mean, the Democratic Congress we have now has super low approval rates, so if the Democrats win into the Presidency, there is a good chance our Congress could even go Republican…staying a divided era.
This article talks a lot about party eras. Currently we are in the divided era where one party controls the presidency and the other controls House and Senate. Due to the great dislike for both the president and his low approval ratings, and the public just not liking congress all together because they don’t like what they’re doing this article is edging towards the next election being a critical election. This means that the party in power and loyal opposition will switch essentially. This would also mean an end of the divided era possibly. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised but honestly there isn’t a clear answer. Like the article was saying: “never before in modern times has there been such a muddle”, meaning they are saying this race is pretty unclear so far. But as for the government we have had now for the past 8 year it appears they aren’t doing such a good job making them unfavorable to the public. Like said in the article: “The Democratic House and Senate have plummeted to the poorest congressional approval ratings in history”.
~Ryan Brannan
The GOP is not breaking up… unfortunately ;D While there are some parts of this article that I disagree with, the author is right about one thing: the Democrats are having difficulty, too. Various demographics of the GOP party each support their own candidate.The current race for the Republican nomination has made it appear that the party is very divided. McCain is ahead by a quite a bit, but it’s still too early to know and many factors have opportunity for further effect (ie- money). In regards to the Dems, Obama and Hillary are too close to call. A few remaining key states and superdelegates will be the determining factor.
I think Rove’s comment on triangulation, not the definition, but the view, is inaccurate. BOTH parties have to appeal to a wide range of people; therefore, they have to give generalities regarding several issues. It’s the way of nominations and elections, and not so much a “lousy” tactic. The silent majority of America truthfully resides in the “independent” category, leaning a little towards either side. Few are extreme left or right.
As for the health of the parties, the chance of GOP, or Dem for that matter, party collapsing is very low. Sure, they are amidst some confusion currently. But, it’s just not possible for a major party to see it’s demise. If anything, we may see a third party emerge greatly sometime in the next few elections. The era of divided government, I believe, will not come to a real end. If anything, a Dem. president gets elected and later, the Republicans are elected to take over both Congressional houses yet again. But, if a very controversial Dem. gets the nomination, I believe it very possible that a certain Republican, if nominated, could easily receive the vote of many unhappy Democrats. One other thing Rove was right about, this WILL be an exciting election!
I like a lot of people in this article agree that this probably isn’t the election that will end the Republican Party. It seems hard to believe that an entire party, the bigger party, will just somehow be destroyed. Besides, who will fill their place? We have always had two parties in this country. Our own form of duality. I believe though that a lot of people have just become completely disgusted by the Republicans and need a break from them for a while.
.
The idea of the elections being muddled and this being a terrible thing is also a joke for the parties. I don’t necessarily agree with some of the people who have posted on this article in saying that it is a good thing, yet it seems that it would happen a lot. Democrats are mostly arguing on character and hope and experience more than they are on platform. Whereas the Republicans are arguing on which stance to take. They are more concerned about which stance they will take this go around then character because each of the Republican candidates is a character.
I also disagree with some of the people who believe if a Democrat is elected (should be) that a Republican Congress will somehow spring out of nowhere. I only foresee this if Barack Obama, I mean the Democratic President somehow starts to really screw things up and make things even worse than this one President name “Dubya”. Whoever wins won’t have a 100 percent approval rating ever..No President ever will because right off the bat roughly 50% already hate that President. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if a Democrat is elected there is a fairly good chance of going into a Democratic Era, whereas if a Republican is miraculously elected then we will continue to be in the divided era.
Response to all my AP peoples
Right off the bat, Jackie Goldman, I agree with you 100%, lost war, worst president, unanimous hate, parties screwing everything up. Now there are some people who have written that this may indeed be the end of the divided era, personally I don’t think so. Despite the fact that the republicans seem to be doing all that is wrong and the democrats seem to be doing all that is right it’s only a matter of time before the trend is reversed and the country is longing to get a republican candidate in office. Now what could happen is the divided could change slightly… but it would still be the divided era. I think something more radical needs to happen before there is 100% change. Most of you also agree that the Republican Party is not fading… duh, if starting pointless wars and being closet homosexuals ended parties then Christianity would of faded away a long time ago. If history teaches us anything, its money, or a lack there of that will ruin a party. One comment that struck me as interesting was from Caitlin Barschig stating; “perhaps instead of wanting to be part of the next black president, woman president, or Mormon president, we should be focusing on who is most fit instead of who’s going to make history.” Very true statement… unfortunately we live in America, where our mostly stupid population only cares about these sorts of things… bummer for us.
Megan Vertullo said: “The party is changing. The most conservative candidates have dropped out because they were not getting enough votes. The votes are going to the moderate republicans.”
I disagree that the conservatives are dropping out because they are not getting enough votes. In the case of Fred Thompson, he just couldn’t rival big names like Romney or Huckabee. Romney + Huckabee > McCain. The sum of Romney and Huckabee’s votes were greater than the amount of votes McCain got in most of the Super Tuesday contests. The conservatives are still getting more votes than the moderates.
I do, however, definitely agree that the party is changing (at least for now). This may have a lot to do with just the era we are in right now. You can’t really take a conservative approach anymore to our world’s problems such as Iraq and the environment. Sitting there and watching it not going to do anything. That’s why you’ve been seeing even the Republicans wanting to protect the environment and doing big things in Iraq. I don’t think that the party is splitting, they are just disagreeing. There are the way-right conservatives who refuse to acknowledge more liberal approaches are needed for our world at this particular moment.
-Jason Wong
Response to all of those media-haters out there:
There’s no need to heavily criticize the media’s every move (especially when you are criticizing them for being heavily critical). Sure, the media can be somewhat hypocritical, but so is everyone else. And they may be “obsessed with diminishing the GOP,” but they are also obsessed with diminishing everyone else, so at least they are consistent. And yeah, they may at times publish a story simply for the purpose of selling papers rather than keeping us informed to what’s important, but everyone has to make a living somehow.
As much as we all love to bash the media, we should also take into account something else: The media is saving our nation. Not in the sense that it warns us of MRSA and bird flu outbreaks, but that it has begun to turn this apathetic nation around. The media has given ridiculous amounts of attention to this election and has analyzed and overanalyzed everything that it can possibly get a hold of with regards to each of the candidates. While a lot of it seems a bit unnecessary and over the top, the miracle of it all is that is has made a nation full of idiots (in the Greek sense) pay attention. Americans are attending primaries and caucuses in record numbers. At my own caucus, they asked how many of the approximately 200 people there were first-timers and nearly everyone raised his or her hand. These were people who were willing to give up a couple of hours—ON A SATURDAY—to lend their support to a presidential candidate—completely un-American. This election has been awesome, and we owe it all to the media. If the media hadn’t covered this election to the extent that it has—overemphasizing Hillary’s womanness, Obama’s blackness, Mitt’s Mormonness, McCain’s oldness, and Rudy’s 9/11ness—we might be treating this election the same way we have treated every other election: with apathy. And yet, we aren’t. We are living and dying with our favorite candidates the way we have lived and died with our favorite sports teams and rock bands. This is a great time for our nation in that regard.
So let’s give the media a break for once. We owe it all to them.
I have to disagree with Megan on this one. There is no way to tell that this election could be the end of the dived party era because, one we haven’t had the election yet and you can’t really speculate that until at least two years into the next presidency. As we learned in class president’s party, over divided area, generally loses seats in congress. It is the same thing that happened with Bill Clinton. So to say now that the end of the divided area is coming to an end is not accurate. I do agree thought that the party might be splitting. I think that the extreme conservatives might not turn out to vote this coming November because McCain might as well be a democrat and an extreme conservative is not going to vote for Clinton or Obama. I think that both the parties are as a whole moving more towards independent or middle of the road candidates. So I think that sometime in our lifetime we could see the emergence of a third party. This would be really interesting to see because then not one candidate would win with a majority. No one can tell for sure, but I’m excited to see what happens.