Karteikarten
Unit 2 - US Politics - Political Parties
Karten in diesem Stapel (42)
- 1Organisation and role of political parties- organisation, fundraising, communication, policy formulation
- National Committees importance - DNC and RNC
- "one size fits all" = meaningless due to size/diversity of America?
- Party role/ideology differ between states
- State-level = issue/candidate activists - 2What is the role of party national committees?- DNC and RNC
- Organize conference for party nomination
- set out 'ground rules' for primaries/caucuses timetabling
- Formalise Pres and VP nomination
- Delegates
- BUT little control over state level party organisation
- timetabled previously ignored by states e.g. 2008 Florida+Michigan punished for ignoring DNC rules = delegates vote halfed - 3Parties relationship with states- Traditionally parties more evident at state/local levels
- result of varied ideology across country
- 'bottom-up' organisation
- BUT modern parties have very powerful national image
- TV/media/internet = broad campaign to target variation of voters
- New finance laws = more money to candidates rather than locally raised
- Party policies = more partisan creating a clearer division
- 'top-down' organisation - 4Define ideology- the set of beliefs held by group or an individual
- a party direction/mandate
- the explanation of how society works or how society ought to work
- Conservative = restrict Gov intervention, oppose changes to society
- Liberal = higher concern for social policy/treatment of others, high responsibility of the Gov
- Crossover between two US parties - Democrat/Republican = not exclusive label
- Geography = ideology division
- not all agree on ideology - 5Typical Democrat policies- Mandatory healthcare
- Same sex marriage
- Pro-choice
- Affirmative action to help minorities
- Gun restrictions
- Federal Gov involvement
- Typically MORE LIBERAL - 6Typical Republican policies- Tough on immigration
- Cut taxes
- Pro-life
- Limited federal involvement
- Pro-guns
- Capitol punishment protectors
- Typically MORE CONSERVATIVE - 7Does ideology define party alliance?- Liberal ideology more likely to support Democrat policies
- Conservative ideology = Rep
- 2012 election = 85% of electorate with liberal ideology = OBAMA
- HOWEVER geographical crossover = a Southern Democrat have similar ideology to a Northern Republican - 8Define Liberalism- an ideology on centre left of spectrum in US politics
- Term first used in 1930s after New Deal
- more politically progressive, support change, gov intervention and greater social/economic equality
- Associated with Democrats
- 2008 Obama = most 'liberal' member of Senate
- Typically attract support of minorities, intellectuals, females, Blue-collar workers - 9The New Democrats- Liberal on social issues
- BUT more fiscally conservative
- Move away from decisive policies of tax and Gov intervention
- Bill Clinton 1992 - "the era of Big Government is over"
- wanted to win more conservative blue-collar/southern voters
- Success of Southern candidates Clinton and Al Gore (1996 - BUT didn't win)
- Faction emerged after failure of Carter in 1976 = liberal Demo = too socialist?
- LINK New Labour = gain centre ground - 10The Liberal Democrats- socially/fiscally liberal
- tax, welfare, LGBTQ rights
- 2008 Obama = "most liberal" Senator
- 2004 Kerry = Northern Liberal
- 2016 Sanders = Northern Liberal - BUT exit polls showed 53% liberal support for Clinton
- Nancy Pelosi
- Congressional progressive caucus - 11Blue Dog Democrats- fiscally and socially conservative
- DINOs = Democrats in name only
- Found in south/north-west
- ideological crossover with Republicans
- against Obamacare
- Ben Nelson, Nebraska = far right Demo
- struggle to agree with Liberal Democrats - 12Define Conservatism- ideology on the far right of US spectrum
- accept social status quo, against changes to society, against gov. intervention
- alliance with the Republican party
- 1980 Reagan = Conservative Republican - won 2 terms, large win, popular
- Extremes of conservatism = encourage divisions within Demo party
- attract support of white, high income, business voters - 13The Moderate Republicans- the "Wall Street" wing
- mostly from N. Eastern States
- fiscally conservative = low tax, public spending and gov. intervention
- Socially liberal
- Represent business/corporate interests
- RINOs = Demo ideology crossover
- 2000 Bush = compassionate conservatism - 14Conservative Republican- the "Main Street" wing
- mostly rural/small town supporters
- Fiscally conservative = support traditionally family values
- 2004 campaign slogan "Faith, Flag, Family"
- 1988 Bush Senior = moderate, only 1 term
1976 Ford = lost election - 15Religious/New Right Republican- "Neo-conservatism"
- White southerns + Northern blue-collar
- Fiscal conservatism = pro-defence $$
- Socially conservative = pro-life, pro-guns
- 1980 Reagan = "Gov is the problem, not the solution"
- Religious right grown since the 1973 RvW
- Considered to be core of party
- Growth of the Tea Party
- Palin as McCains 2008 running mate - 16Explain parties as "Internal Coalitions"- Within Demo/Rep = ideology factions
- DINOs, New Demo, Liberal Demo
- RINOs, Conservative Rep, Moderate Rep
- Difficult for factions to agree within own party
- Geographical differences
- Views of Southern Rep = different to Northern Rep.
- South form the far right Rep caucus and Tea Party
- BUT growing partisanship ideology becomes more decisive
- 2013 Tax Payer Act = rejected by Rep
- 2017 Trump attempt at repealing Obamacare = rejected by Democrats
- Tea Party forced Republican party to move further right wing
- 2011 Congress = no ideological crossover - 17Party divisions in UK- divisions amongst parties over issues
- BREXIT caused significant divisions
- 2016 referendum initially called to stop the growing Eurosceptic Conservative faction
- Blue/Red/Purple Labour - 18What are the 6 big party issues?1) Form of Government = Federalists want more centralised form of Gov
2) Federal Gov (1970s) = Nixon and Reagan
3) Economy = 1920s Great Depression benefit Democrat policies
4) Civil Rights = clear split between R/D, emergence of 1960s Dixiecrats, 2008 election racial undertones
5) Slavery = 'Solid South' for Democrats
6) Democracy = move towards greater democracy with direct Senate election - 19Ideology crossover in 1993 Senate- Most conservative Democrat was more conservative than 6 Republicans
- CONTRAST 2011 + = no crossover - 20Is America a 50/50 nation?YES = late 1990s+2000s even seat split, only few seats 'tipping the balance', a Red/Blue split, from 2000-2008 only 8 changing states, increasing polarisation, decisive issues
NO = too simplistic, swing states not definitive ideology, some states = divided districts - 21The 'Solid South'- Democrats traditionally had complete control of the South
- 1960 = all 11 Governors and 22 Senators Democrat
- But Johnson Civil rights = move towards Republicans
- 1994 = 9-13 Republican Senators
- 2012 = all 11 Senators Republican - 22Theory of Party Decline- David Broder 1972
- "like two bottles with different labels, both empty"
- political parties in decline in terms of membership, functions and importance
- followed a period of criticism 1970s/1980s
- a sense of dominance over the two main parties? - 23Evidence for party decline x51) Candidate selection = primaries/caucuses give power to electorate - no 'smoke filled rooms'
2) Voter Communication = TV, internet etc mean easily contact voters - no longer party organised rallies
3) Candidate/issue centered voting = use of TV/media becomes less party centered e.g. split-ticket voting
4) Electoral finance = candidates receive money from PACs, public, fed $
5) Emergence of movements = Tea Party, Occupy movement = more popular than traditional parties? - 24Evidence for party decline in 2016 Presidential election- Unexpected popularity of Sanders = uncertainty in Clinton's nomination?
- Trump's Rep takeover
- Clinton largely modernized self and campaign with use of social media
- Trump practically ran his campaign through twitter
- Ted Cruz high profile Tea Party supporter = movement domination
- Trump spoke of his campaign as a movement to avoid politicians -'drain the swamp'
- Large theme of issue/candidate voting
- 39% electorate = independent voters - 25Define split-ticket votingWhen candidate vote for candidates of different party affiliation on the same ticket.
- Decreasing partisanship?
- 1972 = 30% split their ticket
- 1980 = 28% "
- BUT only 8% in 2008
- Link with the growing number of independent candidates/voters - 26Theory of party renewal- parties far from being in decline
-argument emerged 1970s/80s
- Party involvement in funding
- Congressional status
- Decline theories just exaggerate any party weakness - 27Evidence for party renewal x51) Decline exaggerated =Watergate did not end the Republicans - Reagan and Bush imperial presidency
2) Nomination process = Demo 'super-delegates' make up 20% on DNC Pres nomination
3) Party modernisation = shift in appeal to center grounds, $ manipulation
4) Nationalisation of Campaign = developments of party 'manifesto'
e.g. 2010 Rep 'Pledge to the US'
5) Congressional partisanship = decisive issues and party votes, gridlock. - 28Evidence for renewal in 2016- Only 2 seats in congress = not from either Demo/Rep
- Super-delegates support for Clinton - contrast 2008 where picked Obama
- Obama failure to appointed Garland to SC due to Republican Congress
- Partisanship = total Demo rejection of Trump Obamacare rejection attempt
- lack of bipartisanship - 36% of Rep. voters see Demo as a threat to US - 29Evidence for US two party system- FPTP = "winner-takes-all" = difficult for 3rd party success
- D/R typically win over 95% of total vote
- 2012 = 99% votes for D/R
- 2017 = all HOR members of D or R
- Only 2 independent Senators in 2017
- Sanders caucus with Democrats and ran as Demo candidate 2016
- 2017 = 1 independent Governor = former Republican candidate (WALKER) - 30Why is there a two party system?- FPTP = winner takes all
- Third party support = wide geographical spread across states - no reward for consistent support
- Too low % vote to have big impact
- 'spoiler effect' as Independents/third parties just damage closest ideological party e.g. 1968 Wallace + Demo
- Main parties = 'Big Tent coalitions'
- Wide ideological reach = no more room
- Third parties typically few issues = difficult to appeal to all - 31Evidence against a US two party system- Actually a 50-party system as each state party organisation = different
- Only national policy programme in Pres election lead up = state variation
- Difference between Texan and Maine Republican party
- Some states = one-party states due to their domination - local, state, federal
- No-party system as focus on candidates
- Third party importance in 1992, 1996, 2000 - 32Impact of third parties - examples- until 2012 all third parties = less than 2% of popular vote
- 1968, George Wallace = 13.5% vote = split Demo vote = Rep victory
- 1992, Ross Perot = 19% = took Republican votes for a Demo victory
- 2000, Ralph Nader = 2.7% but controversial election result - Florida = Nader 1000 votes - Gore need 537 to win
- 2016, Gary Johnson = on ballot in all 50 states
- Libertarian party and Green party = permanent third parties - 33Where are third parties more successful?- State level
- 2014 Bill Walker = Gov of Alaska
- Number of independent representatives in Alabama, NY, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Utah ......
- Little success in Senate = Sanders 2006 Connecticut and Angus King 2012 Maine - 34What is holding back third parties?- Electoral system (FPTP)
- Finance
- Ballot Laws
- Media coverage
- Lack of suitable candidates
- Extremism?
- Co-optation - 35Limitation of finance on third parties- Matching funds
- Federal Election Committee
- Major parties qualify for this through raising $5000 in 20 states = easy
- BUT third parties only if 5% of popular vote in previous election
- e.g. Ross Perot 1996
- a 'handicap' - 36Co-optation- 3rd party/candidates policies being used by major parties
- 1992 Perot key policy = smaller federal budget BUT both Clinton and Rep congressmen adopt policy
- reduce third party vote % - 37Third party extremism?- Libertarians and Socialists
- outside to the political mainstream
- Many accused Sanders of socialism in 2016 due to left wing policies
- easy targets
- create fear around candidates? - 38What is the Tea Party?- not a party or a PG
- a GRASS-ROOTS MOVEMENT
- individuals without any clear leadership
- parallel Boston Tea Party = "Taxed Enough Already"
- emerged due to opposition to 2008 Bank bailout scheme + 2009 Reinvestment Act
- No HQ or offices = grown from the homes of activists
- Limited gov, low tax and spending, originalists, 2012 Contract with America to repeal healthcare
- largely opposed Obama's gov/reforms - 39Impact of Tea Party on 2016 election- Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio = Tea Party supported candidates
- Ted Cruz = previous 21 hour filibuster against Obamacare 2013
- Trump a favoured candidate? - 40Impact of Tea Party on congress- pushed Republican party to right = fear lose of right wing voters
- 2011, 2013, 2018 government shutdown over federal budget debate
- Tea Party Representatives = remove Boehner as speaker despite Republican
- 2010 mid-terms = TP candidates on ballots but most lost
- Marco Rubio = Florida
- Freedom Caucus = influential in defining Rep policy direction - 41Define Neo-Liberalism- shaped by free-market
- Business/corporation involvement in private sector
- no partisan definition - left/right
- Influence of money - 42Define Neo-Conservatism- movement from left to right
- Influence of Reagan administration
- Hardline stance during 1980s against USSR
- Belief in US foreign authority
- encouraged US invasion of Iraq
- alliance with DINOs and Republican party
- Aggressive foreign policy approach
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- - Government & Politics Karteikarten am Unit 2 - US Politics - Political Parties, erstellt von Emily Bevis am 12/04/2018.
- Erstellt von
- Emily Bevis
- Aufrufe
- 14
- Bewertung