In this last of the series discussing political parties, I will explain the difference between parties of inclusion and parties of exclusion In the past American parties that succeeded in winning office tended to be broadly-based parties with little ideological content. At one time the Democratic Party included northern liberals and southern conservatives; the Republican Party included midwest farmers and Wall Street tycoons.
Parties of exclusion impose litmus tests on their candidates. The Greens, for example, expect their members to agree with the Ten Key Points of Green Party principles. As a result, parties of exclusion, while ideologically pure, seldom won elections.
What has happened for reasons too complicated to enumerate here (although I’ll be happy to if there is a demand for it), both the Democratic and Republican Parties are becoming parties of exclusion. How many Republican candidates do you know who are pro-choice? How many Democratic candidates do you know who are opposed to gay marriage?
When you have parties of exclusion, ideology becomes more important than winning elections. As the electorate becomes more polarized, voters impose their own litmus tests on candidates, refusing to vote for anyone who disagrees with them.
Our political system has grown increasingly polarized and increasingly ugly. The whole fight over the Supreme Court vacancy shows that Republican Senators are willing to put partisan advantage above their Constitutional duties. These are scary times.
No comments:
Post a Comment