Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Sixth Party System

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:13:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've recently found out about the different "Party Systems" in the United States, of which I don't think most are aware of.

To put it in a nutshell, what a "Party System" entails is a major political alignment, different from what proceeded it. You can also call it a "political era," which makes it easier to understand in some cases. And to my surprise, there has so far been five different Party Systems, five different eras, or five different political alignments.

Right now, most believe that the US is in the Fifth Party System (which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org...), which was brought about by the Great Depression, the rise of FDR and the 'New Deal Coalition' and Democratic (presidential) domination until 1964, as well as GOP (presidential) domination from then 'til now. The reason why the US hasn't left the Fifth Party System behind yet is because there hasn't been any major realignment of politics since 1933, or at least none that any political scientists can agree on.

Now, apparently there is one thing that supposedly characterized the end of a Party System, and that is "... the dominant party losing two consecutive House elections by large margins, with a presidential election coinciding with or immediately following... the second house election—decisive electoral evidence of political realignment" - stolen from Wiki.

If so, that would mean that has recently just occurred - with Democrats winning by large margins in 2006 and 2008, coinciding with a Presidential victory, mainly that of Barack Obama. But as Wiki noted as well, it begs the question of which party has been the more "dominant" one, which is probably difficult to tell, given that the GOP hasn't always dominated all levels.

However, I could easily buy the argument that because of the recent and obvious GOP domination of most levels since essentially 1994, up to their recent losses, and as well given the major social and political storms in this decade, this has been the tail end of the Fifth System, with GOP dominance, and Democratic resurgence. Also given that the GOP is severely threatened by a hypothetical political "Tea Party," where the latter leads the GOP something like 4-5 points in Congressional polling, there could be a new party on the horizon, which is a telltale sign of a realignment.

Now, I'm not making claims, because it would be foolish of me to predict what will happen. But, I do feel that there is a strong possibility of a Sixth Party System on the horizon, and the electorate seems to be leaning that way as well. It might not be with Obama, the Democrats, or anyone we can think of right now, but there is just that feeling I can't shake.

Anyways, I'm simply throwing it out there for discussion. I find this classification of different alignments interesting, and plan on applying it to Canadian politics soon enough. I want to hear your thoughts, however, in regards to the US. Is a new Party System on the horizon? Is it already here with Obama? What do you think it will be made up of? All that stuff.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:24:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hmm Green? Granted I know next to nothing of any U.S. history or current status of Green related parties (if any) or advocates that favour it. Here in Australia, and I presume other Commonwealth based systems, running as 'Green' has more history than what would be found in America. Still, there is a strong international push in the area.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:10:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 12:24:04 AM, Puck wrote:
Hmm Green? Granted I know next to nothing of any U.S. history or current status of Green related parties (if any) or advocates that favour it. Here in Australia, and I presume other Commonwealth based systems, running as 'Green' has more history than what would be found in America. Still, there is a strong international push in the area.

Hm, I don't think so. Green issues are important, but they're easily taken up by more established parties, and tend to fair poorly during times of crises, case and point when the environment dropped to like, fifth place, when the economy tanked, in issues polls. It is an important issue, but fiscal/social stuff weighs far more heavily on the minds of voters.

As well, the Green Party in the US is weak, especially with Nader off doing whatever it is he does. They don't get enough votes on their own to count as any sort of force. None of the minor parties, currently as-is, do.

And to be sure, most Greens tend to not do well anywhere, since the environment isn't that major of an issue. The only Greens that do well are ones that fill another niche, such as the German Greens, who before Die Linke, filled the extreme leftist gap.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:15:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Fair enough. The only other 'system' I could think is the trend towards fudging political party boundaries where traditional hard line party rhetoric over positions is sacrificed to the altar of pragmatism.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 4:12:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
As far as green issues,obama apeared as a big champion for its cuase.however like everything else associated with obama he became a big disappointment...!
Yesterday the sanate rejected to extand bio fual tax credits...!
A green project funded by bush rejected by obama...!
Bush who was drunk with oil approved bio fual funding,but obama killed it funding...!

This issue and others like it ,will drain the trust dems have for their party leaders..!
Obama is doing a batter job for the repubs ,then bush did for the dems.!
Obama also was able to create a iraq situation in afgahanistan..!
We have here caos in our own backyard why worry about them.?

If you hate the pashtunes,send over wall street bankers there..!
Bankers will creat more destruction then any army could...!
This will help restore our banking system as well
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
deathdebater
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 4:19:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 4:12:41 AM, banker wrote:
Bankers will creat more destruction then any army could...!
This will help restore our banking system as well

You have no sense of loyalty do you?
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 4:40:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not all bankers are the same.
Some like mr. Diamond of chase is very conservative,and is privately helping honest people for free..!
Also mr. Mikels of fortres..!
But the others we need them sent to afgahanistan ,and save our selves from them..!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
deathdebater
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 4:45:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 4:40:25 AM, banker wrote:
Not all bankers are the same.

From your words they are, and you're one of them. Why would you be a banker and stand for such hatred...!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 10:53:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:15:23 AM, Puck wrote:
Fair enough. The only other 'system' I could think is the trend towards fudging political party boundaries where traditional hard line party rhetoric over positions is sacrificed to the altar of pragmatism.

I could see something like this, though I'd think that it how it is currently, given that there are no real "hardliners" in positions of power in any liberal democracy. You could say, however, that it is the reverse; that pragmatic, centrist parties are dying off due to continued apathy, and the far-right or far-left parties are gaining more traction. This would help explain the slow-but-steady rise of several European nationalist parties (BNP; German National Democrats; the LaPens of France, etc.), as well as how easily the "Tea Party" would be able to trump established parties in the US, and the shift of power in Alberta.

However, I don't really know if it is that large of an effect.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 11:15:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would argue that the Sixth Party System came into fruition with Reagan and the (ludicrously stupid) idea of supply-side economics. If the fifth party system can be defined with Keynesian demand-side economics a la New Deal, I would say the decades following Reagan have brought about a watered down, laissez-faire economy. I think it would then make sense to argue that we're now entering into a seventh era that may well be a renaissance of John Maynard Keynes.

But it's too early to tell.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 11:21:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 11:15:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
If the fifth party system can be defined with Keynesian demand-side economics a la New Deal, I would say the decades following Reagan have brought about a watered down, laissez-faire economy.

Hahaha, no.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 11:37:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 11:21:01 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/6/2010 11:15:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
If the fifth party system can be defined with Keynesian demand-side economics a la New Deal, I would say the decades following Reagan have brought about a watered down, laissez-faire economy.

Hahaha, no.

Maybe not to the extent that you libertarians would consider 'laissez-faire', but in real world application it's hard to ignore the systematic deregulation and reduction of income taxes that plagued Regan, Bush I, Clinton then Bush II's administrations.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:00:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 11:15:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
I would argue that the Sixth Party System came into fruition with Reagan and the (ludicrously stupid) idea of supply-side economics. If the fifth party system can be defined with Keynesian demand-side economics a la New Deal, I would say the decades following Reagan have brought about a watered down, laissez-faire economy. I think it would then make sense to argue that we're now entering into a seventh era that may well be a renaissance of John Maynard Keynes.

That is a distinct possibility, yes. There has been a major shift of fiscal policy since Reagan came in, and one that has continued more or less consistently throughout. However, I wouldn't propose that Keynes will be making a comeback with the Obama administration.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 1:47:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 11:37:59 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/6/2010 11:21:01 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/6/2010 11:15:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
If the fifth party system can be defined with Keynesian demand-side economics a la New Deal, I would say the decades following Reagan have brought about a watered down, laissez-faire economy.

Hahaha, no.

Maybe not to the extent that you libertarians would consider 'laissez-faire', but in real world application it's hard to ignore the systematic deregulation and reduction of income taxes that plagued Regan, Bush I, Clinton then Bush II's administrations.

I'll have to disagree with you. What we are looking at is not Presidential politics, but party alignment. The Democratic Party is still made up of New Deal-esque Democrats. Republicans, until recently, remained mostly the same as well.

The rise of the "Tea Baggers" does present an interesting potential for a new alignment. However, I think that the majority of "Tea Baggers" don't know all that much about what they really believe and want to see done. It seems to be mostly disaffected Republicans with a vague notion of "small government." The thing is, they think that the Republicans will give that to them (they won't). As soon as Republicans take over again, they will quiet down or completely disband. They will be shushed by the moderate Republicans.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 3:00:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:47:30 PM, JBlake wrote:
The rise of the "Tea Baggers" does present an interesting potential for a new alignment. However, I think that the majority of "Tea Baggers" don't know all that much about what they really believe and want to see done. It seems to be mostly disaffected Republicans with a vague notion of "small government." The thing is, they think that the Republicans will give that to them (they won't). As soon as Republicans take over again, they will quiet down or completely disband. They will be shushed by the moderate Republicans.

I don't know, JBlake. They apparently just took out a moderate voice in the Florida GOP: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com..., and lets not forget Dede Scozzafava.

Right-wing movements with as much support as this don't tend to go away, either. This was evident even in nice, liberal Canada, where the right-wing Reformers scalped, enveloped and digested the centre-right-but-moderate Progressive Conservatives. If the GOP doesn't make large gains in the next two elections, then the Tea Partiers become a big issue, because the problem with being in constant Opposition, is that if you are apart of a fractured coalition, that coalition will break apart.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 3:03:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 11:37:59 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/6/2010 11:21:01 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/6/2010 11:15:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
If the fifth party system can be defined with Keynesian demand-side economics a la New Deal, I would say the decades following Reagan have brought about a watered down, laissez-faire economy.

Hahaha, no.

Maybe not to the extent that you libertarians would consider 'laissez-faire', but in real world application it's hard to ignore the systematic deregulation and reduction of income taxes that plagued Regan, Bush I, Clinton then Bush II's administrations.

"No matter how much the government controls the economic system, any problem will be blamed on whatever small zone of freedom remains." - Richman's Law
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 3:29:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I personally think that the Republican party will at some point split along economic/religious lines, with the conservative economists joining more centrist libertarians in a larger structure that would probably still be called the GOP, or maybe the new GOP. The name recognition is too great for the party to fade completely for a long time to come, however.

That being said, Democrats need to be very careful to do a good job over the course of the next four years, or they will face a similar fate as the Republican party. Americans are angry at ineffective and non-representative parties generally right now, not just the Republican party ... and I mean legitimately angry, not apathetically angry the way the American public was during most of the 90s. Given another ten years of frustration and enough people might become dissatisfied as to vote for third party representatives despite common wisdom to the contrary.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 6:52:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 1:47:30 PM, JBlake wrote:
I'll have to disagree with you. What we are looking at is not Presidential politics, but party alignment. The Democratic Party is still made up of New Deal-esque Democrats. Republicans, until recently, remained mostly the same as well.

That's actually a very good point, and I would tend to agree. While my argument is true in terms of the presidential administrations, it's not so for congress and, arguably, the greater political landscape.

At 1/6/2010 3:03:54 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"No matter how much the government controls the economic system, any problem will be blamed on whatever small zone of freedom remains." - Richman's Law

I'm not pointing blame, I'm merely arguing that the American economy has, for better or worse, become more deregulated in the past two decades or so.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 7:03:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If you eliminate only those regulations that existed to mitigate the effect of other regulations, are you really deregulating? Or are you making the regulations that remain all the more prominent?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 9:31:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 7:03:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you eliminate only those regulations that existed to mitigate the effect of other regulations, are you really deregulating? Or are you making the regulations that remain all the more prominent?

Well I suppose the deregulation was certainly relative. Considering that those regulations had been in place since FDR, I think it's fair to say that the removal of those regulations marked the end of that era.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 10:06:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 3:00:27 PM, Volkov wrote:

I don't know, JBlake. They apparently just took out a moderate voice in the Florida GOP: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com..., and lets not forget Dede Scozzafava.

Right-wing movements with as much support as this don't tend to go away, either. This was evident even in nice, liberal Canada, where the right-wing Reformers scalped, enveloped and digested the centre-right-but-moderate Progressive Conservatives. If the GOP doesn't make large gains in the next two elections, then the Tea Partiers become a big issue, because the problem with being in constant Opposition, is that if you are apart of a fractured coalition, that coalition will break apart.

I'm sticking to my guns. I don't think the party will split. I think that some of the Republicans are using he radicals to drum up a loud opposition to the Obama Admin. They'll bring them back under control when he party takes back over. This happens often in American politics. The same happened with Democrats during Bush II. Everyone thought the party would split, but it came back together.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 12:06:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 9:31:03 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/7/2010 7:03:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you eliminate only those regulations that existed to mitigate the effect of other regulations, are you really deregulating? Or are you making the regulations that remain all the more prominent?

Well I suppose the deregulation was certainly relative. Considering that those regulations had been in place since FDR, I think it's fair to say that the removal of those regulations marked the end of that era.

The major regulations of that era were "Thou shalt send more money to the state for Social Security, and later Medicare/Medicaid."
As long as those are around has the era ended if a few minor bank rules are tweaked? :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 12:21:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 12:06:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/7/2010 9:31:03 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 1/7/2010 7:03:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you eliminate only those regulations that existed to mitigate the effect of other regulations, are you really deregulating? Or are you making the regulations that remain all the more prominent?

Well I suppose the deregulation was certainly relative. Considering that those regulations had been in place since FDR, I think it's fair to say that the removal of those regulations marked the end of that era.

The major regulations of that era were "Thou shalt send more money to the state for Social Security, and later Medicare/Medicaid."
As long as those are around has the era ended if a few minor bank rules are tweaked? :)

That's a gross oversimplification, but even in that respect, Reagan lowered the top-bracket income tax rate by 42%. I'd say that's a movement to smaller government.

And they were not 'minor bank rules', it was the largest shift in the American economy since FDR's administration.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 12:26:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Aren't taxes coming back up right now? :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 2:43:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Could it also not be said that Reagan was merely a dip in the FDR era? Unless there's a substantial difference between the current ideology and the ideology of that era.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 2:54:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well I would say that the dip lasted for about 30 years, which, by definition, is an era.

I would argue that the era was marked by Alan Greenspan's reign. His use of Milton Friedman's monetarist philosophy really did revolutionize the American economy (*cough*ForTheWorse*cough*)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 3:04:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 2:54:34 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Well I would say that the dip lasted for about 30 years, which, by definition, is an era.
Whose definition of political era is this?


I would argue that the era was marked by Alan Greenspan's reign. His use of Milton Friedman's monetarist philosophy really did revolutionize the American economy (*cough*ForTheWorse*cough*)
Agreed on that. Monetarism is a very interventionist economic philosophy. It's kind of funny that Milton Friedman, the so-called libertarian, primed the pump for a huge expansion in government spending with his area of expertise-- he was libertarian everywhere except the place it mattered :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 5:24:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/7/2010 3:04:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/7/2010 2:54:34 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Well I would say that the dip lasted for about 30 years, which, by definition, is an era.
Whose definition of political era is this?

Nevermind, pardon my tired brain for confusing 'generation' and 'era.' It's been a long few days.

Agreed on that. Monetarism is a very interventionist economic philosophy. It's kind of funny that Milton Friedman, the so-called libertarian, primed the pump for a huge expansion in government spending with his area of expertise-- he was libertarian everywhere except the place it mattered :).

While I agree that monetarism is interventionist, I would say that it's in a different and lesser way than neo-keynesian economics.