There is no shortage of political observers who profess shock over the fact that Congress’ approval ratings have barely moved now that a new Democratic majority has been swept into power. The AP approval ratings, hovering around a third, are essentially identical to what they were under Republican leadership. The lesson here has been learned many times, but, for whatever reason, just does not seem to stick in the American political discourse – the public is not necessarily enamored with Democrats, nor does it really have an easy time understanding what they are about. A vote for the Democrats was more appropriately a vote against Republicans, as opposed to some public profession of love for the nebulous Democratic platform.
That’s a crazy political process when you consider it, especially because Republicans historically have not offered a “one size fits all” political platform, and their platform, in fact, even turns off large blocs of voters. But the difference with the Democrats, at least historically, is that the Republicans actually have an identifiable platform. By contrast, the Democrats’ role in the political process has been purely antagonistic. This total dilution – and dissolution – of the Democratic platform may now be occurring within the Republican party, and the results could be drastic.
When you consider the various constituent groups of the Democratic party, it is immediately clear that they have nothing in common accept they do not agree with the Republican platform, which is more clearly defined. Groups such as urban people of color, unionists, homosexuals who feel isolated by conservatism, environmentalists, pro-choice activists, and feminists are all under the Democrat umbrella, and there is no discernable ideological thread whatsoever that unites them – except they know they are not Republicans.
Consider some of the tenets of conservatism and how the Democrats shape up by comparison. Republicans tend to be pro-business and support lowering taxes; the Democrats, by contrast, are not anti-business, nor in favor of raising taxes, even though conservatives paint them with that brush. So what are they? They just aren’t Republicans. They know that for sure.
There is some inherent nobility in what the Democrats are trying to do – to be an inclusive party – but there is also some inherent foolishness to it. It’s easy to round up all the people who don’t like the color green and put them under the same tent; it’s much harder to get them all to agree on what color they do like.
In short, the history of the Democratic party has been one of appeasement in the name of consensus, and all that’s left of the party is a group of loosely defined people who aren’t Republicans.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, they have started modifying their platform in the name of appearing more moderate, which is understandable given their recent losses, but the history of the Democrats has shown that, ideologically, it’s a one-way trip to nowhere. It used to be that you understood what you were getting with a Republican, whether you agreed with it or not. A Republican candidate, you could more or less assume, would be pro-business, anti-tax, pro-life, and pro-death penalty.
Now, you can be just one of those four things, and maybe in only the most limited manner, and still claim to be a Republican. Two Republican front-runners for the next presidential nomination – Rudy Giuliani and John McCain – have serious disagreements with historic pillars of the Republican platform. If one of those men wins the nomination – which seems probable – and becomes the head of the party, what will be its ideological rallying points? In the particular case of Giuliani, there are Democrats who are arguably more conservative than he is. What happens when he becomes the flag bearer of conservatism? It’s easy to see how the Republican party would become a bunch of people who simply aren’t ready to call themselves Democrats.
The genuine conservatives and liberals, of course, will fight this great centering of the political dialogue. The problem that people like Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman always face is that there are only two party hats you can wear in American politics, so they have to choose one of them. These people are centrists, not conservatives or liberals. And as these centrists continue to steer their parties toward the center, diluting their party platforms and making Republicans and Democrats indistinguishable from each other, there are extremist elements on both sides who will be forced to move. We’re seeing that now as conservatives drag more right-wing candidates into the presidential race.
If Rudy Giuliani is elected president, don’t expect evangelical Christians to accept that abortion is now on the back burner. This is more than a political issue for this group. If a pro-business Democrat is elected, don’t expect environmental activists to sit on their hands while more Arctic oil is drilled.
What we may be looking at is a long process that leads to more extremist parties in the United States, similar to the parliamentary factions we see in other nations. As centrists refuse to allow the extreme elements of their party to define them, these more extreme elements may form and/or bulk up their own parties. They would create small fiefdoms in politics that have the power to be kingmakers and provide swing votes on key issues. As the Republican and Democratic party agendas are further diluted, expect conservative, union-backed, and environmental parties, for example, to grow stronger.
The end result will be more political parties in the United States – and certainly more limited-issue parties – but the centrists won’t be able to ignore them. They’ll need their votes. This could result in temporary alliances between evangelicals and environmentalists, abortion activists and urban people of color, and other groups historically under different umbrellas. Whether this will mean progress remains to be seen; but it will certainly be different from anything we currently know.