Excellent Research on Underlying Difference Between Parties (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Simple idea, well supported with existing data, and explains an awful lot about post-war US politics. Also exceptionally non-partisan and doesn't make any value judgments. Worth a few minutes...

What's remarkable is that held true even when Republicans controlled the White House. "Though they voiced strong disapproval of Bush, Democrats still expressed a preference for compromise in government a tendency that has carried over to the Obama era," write Grossmann and Hopkins. "Republicans have been consistent in their elevation of principle over moderation, regardless of which party is in power."

That is...extraordinary. Even when a Republican president was facing a Democratic Congress, Republicans did not choose the answer that would have helped their president get more done. And even when a Republican president was facing a Democratic Congress, Democrats did not choose the answer that would have stiffened their party's spine against passing Bush's bills.

I like the fact they found something that's a consistent thread throughout both R and D administrations -- namely that, on average, policy coming out of Congress tends to have a liberal tilt. So it's completely rationale for Dems to compromise with even with arch-enemies like Bush. And likewise, it's completely rational for Republicans to oppose even Obama's moderate compromise offerings.

And something that flows out of their research, but wasn't mentioned, is that generally speaking support for Republicans will be higher when people are more or less happy with less legislation, but Democrats will tend to do better during times when people expect government to produce policy. That's at the centrist margins of course -- partisans will partisan all the time.

And I think if you combine this with the research showing that the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals is the weight they put on different values (rather than choosing different values) you've gone a long way to understanding US politics and our major political parties.

 

[FlapJacks]

What you call "compromise" others would call "incrementalism"

Compromise is a progressive myth

If they want a dollar, they'll compromise for .25 during one administration and 15 cents in another and the next year another 30 cents etc

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This thread would have gotten a lot more replies if the word "parties" was replaced with the word "panties".

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I don't like looking at Boehner...not that there is anything wrong with it.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Oh, that kind of party.

 

[Fennis]

This thread would have gotten a lot more replies if the word "parties" was replaced with the word "panties".

Oh, that kind of party panty.

 

[rockaction]

Simple idea, well supported with existing data, and explains an awful lot about post-war US politics. Also exceptionally non-partisan and doesn't make any value judgments. Worth a few minutes...

What's remarkable is that held true even when Republicans controlled the White House. "Though they voiced strong disapproval of Bush, Democrats still expressed a preference for compromise in government a tendency that has carried over to the Obama era," write Grossmann and Hopkins. "Republicans have been consistent in their elevation of principle over moderation, regardless of which party is in power."

That is...extraordinary. Even when a Republican president was facing a Democratic Congress, Republicans did not choose the answer that would have helped their president get more done. And even when a Republican president was facing a Democratic Congress, Democrats did not choose the answer that would have stiffened their party's spine against passing Bush's bills.

I like the fact they found something that's a consistent thread throughout both R and D administrations -- namely that, on average, policy coming out of Congress tends to have a liberal tilt. So it's completely rationale for Dems to compromise with even with arch-enemies like Bush. And likewise, it's completely rational for Republicans to oppose even Obama's moderate compromise offerings.

And something that flows out of their research, but wasn't mentioned, is that generally speaking support for Republicans will be higher when people are more or less happy with less legislation, but Democrats will tend to do better during times when people expect government to produce policy. That's at the centrist margins of course -- partisans will partisan all the time.

And I think if you combine this with the research showing that the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals is the weight they put on different values (rather than choosing different values) you've gone a long way to understanding US politics and our major political parties.

I appreciated your link. Thanks for that. It sort of confirms what I've argued with many people for a long time. One quibble: I'm not sure the authors' take on the policy coming out of Congress is merely that policy "tends" to have a liberal tilt. If I saw the graph correctly, it is a lot more than just "tends."

In fact, the subheading bluntly declared:

4) Policymaking has a liberal bias

 

[SlimShady]

Its all Bush's fault

 

[Josie Maran]

What you call "compromise" others would call "incrementalism"

Compromise is a progressive myth

If they want a dollar, they'll compromise for .25 during one administration and 15 cents in another and the next year another 30 cents etc

Were you intending to prove the author's point? If so, good work.

 

[jon_mx]

My ideal Congress would cut $2 for every $1 of new spending they want to approve, or eliminate 2 regulations for every new one passed. A do-nothing Congress is I can not fathom why the government needs more than 1/3rd of every penny spent. They just do not give that much back, the overhead, waste, and abuse is just way way too large. The feds should be limited to about 15% and state/local about 10%.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Congress has always been a sham. It's the dumbest thing the founding fathers put in the Constitution, and the reason they put it there was so that they would have jobs in the new nation.

Since it isn't going anywhere the way to make it manageable is to cut the number of Congressmen to about 200. 500+ people are never going to make progress fixing anything. Then they should be required to create a positive cash flow budget. I've worked in DC for 25 years and lived here for 45. There is more wasted money and oxygen by Congress than any other group. Presidents would have little problem cutting funding to their departments, especially ones that should have been run at state levels in the first place (education, transportation, etc.), but it will never happen with 500+ Congressment pushing for pet projects so they can get re-elected.

The second big problem is the government employees union, which has led to the hiring and forced keeping of poor employees throughout the govt. For every great govt employee there are 5 other useless people with a job. Congrats American public, we are paying for govt people to come in to work 3 days a week for 3 hours of productive time per day, then pretend they work from home the other days. After 10+ years working on consulting projects at DOEd, DOE, DOT, State, and Treas, I'm pretty sure all but Treas could disappear tomorrow and nobody would care.