A theory

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One reason why American politics can be so personally nasty and partisan in ways that seem beyond mindless, is because the two parties are so similar at a fundamental level. They are both politicised wings of the state (rather than 'proper' political parties) allied with (and funded by) Capital. Despite this they both rely on groups that do stand for something when it comes to fighting elections. Additionally, there is remarkably little difference between elected members of either party in sociological terms; the same basic set of professions (and they usually are professions) dominate each party to an unusual extent. Because of this set of fundamental similarities, political divisions at an elite level are often shaped by personal animosity to an extent that is, again, quite unusual. This spills down to lower levels of politics and a cycle develops.

Obviously, I exaggerate; cultural differences in particular should not be ignored. But it's worth a thought, I think.

[Phony Moderate]

I basically agree.

[dead0man]

Agreed.  We need more elected scientists and teachers, fewer lawyers and career politicos.

[Torie]

There is indeed some truth in what Al says imo, as the bourgeoisie special interests compete with one another for power and influence and money through the parities in a kind of inside game, but on the ground, there are real differences of opinion as to  1) what special interests are particularly toxic and which are not (on my side, we really hate teachers' unions as an example in general), and 2) over a series of hot button issues, of which we are all too familiar, be it guns, gays, abortion, religion in the public square (depending sometimes on the religion, cf mosque near 9-11 site), militarism, illegals, et al.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nah, US parties are anything but "similar at a fundamental level". I've rarely seen a country with a so harsh ideological and cultural divides than the United States.

[Vepres]

What would be a "proper party", Al?

[Vepres]

Actually, it probably gets very personal and nasty because more people vote based on the individual candidates than the party they align closest with, which seems to be the case in Europe. You can't have a personal attack against a party

[Mint]

I somewhat agree. That was certainly true during the Clinton years. On the other hand a lot of the 'conflict' we see between say, the President and certain interests (e.g. Banks; HMOs) or between both parties is exaggerated if not staged. Jesse Ventura had that much right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What would be a "proper party", Al?

Putting things as simply as possible, a 'proper' political party is a voluntary organisation with subscription-paying members that fights elections on a common platform. Note that, strictly speaking, none of those things are true of the Democratic or Republican parties.

[Vepres]

What would be a "proper party", Al?

Putting things as simply as possible, a 'proper' political party is a voluntary organisation with subscription-paying members that fights elections on a common platform. Note that, strictly speaking, none of those things are true of the Democratic or Republican parties.

There's one of those in the US, the Libertarian party. Doesn't seem like a good model

The Democrats and Republicans have platforms, though.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

They are both politicised wings of the state (rather than 'proper' political parties) allied with (and funded by) Capital. Despite this they both rely on groups that do stand for something when it comes to fighting elections. Additionally, there is remarkably little difference between elected members of either party in sociological terms; the same basic set of professions (and they usually are professions) dominate each party to an unusual extent.

While the 2 first points are different in France, the bold one is kinda similar I'd say, and that alone isn't a factor of personal attack and hatred here. There are flaws here, but at least that one is quasi not present I'd say.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Though, I would say that more the time goes, more the personal attacks ambiance would grow in France, to a rather very low extent compared to USA certainly, but a trend would be to that, with people like Sarkozy and Royal exciting tensions, some people usually more calm like Aubry would follow that trend too.

I mean, maybe an historical perspective is needed to valid, or not, this theory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's one of those in the US, the Libertarian party. Doesn't seem like a good model

It is just about possible that you're missing the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in the sense that political parties in other countries do; they're just vague non-binding statements of general intent. But in other 'western' countries platforms are typically binding to an extent. Every two years at least a hundred Democratic candidates for the national legislature run on personal platforms that directly and openly contradict that of the national party. Do that in almost any other 'western' country and you're dropped as a candidate and probably expelled from the party.

[Vepres]

There's one of those in the US, the Libertarian party. Doesn't seem like a good model

It is just about possible that you're missing the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in the sense that political parties in other countries do; they're just vague non-binding statements of general intent. But in other 'western' countries platforms are typically binding to an extent. Every two years at least a hundred Democratic candidates for the national legislature run on personal platforms that directly and openly contradict that of the national party. Do that in almost any other 'western' country and you're dropped as a candidate and probably expelled from the party.

Weird.

[minionofmidas]

Which is pretty much the same thing you see in extended primary campaigns.

[feeblepizza]

I pretty much agree

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The U.S. is essentially a one-party state under the Republocrat party, which is an outgrowth of the State. Of course the Democratic and Republican parties are not real parties, considering they are merely artificial entities created for marketing purposes.

[Gustaf]

I would actually argue the opposite - one of the reasons it gets so nasty is that the difference is so large between the parties, at least when it comes to ideology. In a country like Sweden there is broad agreement on the basic principles of how society should function. In the US there is a huge gap when it comes to the fundamentals (one nation under God versus socialist welfare state).

Another thing might be the scale of American elections. They get viewed as more important, I think, with much more pumped up rethoric due to the super power status.

[k-onmmunist]

The U.S. is essentially a one-party state under the Republocrat party, which is an outgrowth of the State. Of course the Democratic and Republican parties are not real parties, considering they are merely artificial entities created for marketing purposes.

Believe it or not, I agree.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would actually argue the opposite - one of the reasons it gets so nasty is that the difference is so large between the parties, at least when it comes to ideology.

Rhetoric is not reality. The Democrats talk a good game*, of course. Senior Democrats often use language about elements of capitalism (especially large companies and financial interests) that mainstream Socialist politicians in Europe have not dared to use since the 1950s. But this is all a facade. Those same politicians that denounce the power of Capital take in money hand over fist from the same people that they condemn in carefully orchestrated press conferences and the laughable committee show-trials. Obama hailed his healthcare legislation as a massive breakthrough and as a radical change in American social policy. The international media largely followed suite. But it was a lie. The legislation was, in reality, significantly less radical than the limited social reforms passed in most European countries a century earlier. The Republicans opposed it with such fury not for ideological reasons, but because that is what they exist to do; to oppose the Democratic Party.
Of course it's quite likely that much of the bitterness of American politics stems from the gap between what American politicians say and what American politicians do (it is true such gaps exist in all countries, but it's hard to think of many where the chasm is so vast and so perverse), because it is in the interests of both parties to make the difference between each other to appear as big as possible so as to distract from the fundamental similarities.

*So do the Republicans, of course, but the Democrats make for a better example.

[Gustaf]

I would actually argue the opposite - one of the reasons it gets so nasty is that the difference is so large between the parties, at least when it comes to ideology.

Rhetoric is not reality. The Democrats talk a good game*, of course. Senior Democrats often use language about elements of capitalism (especially large companies and financial interests) that mainstream Socialist politicians in Europe have not dared to use since the 1950s. But this is all a facade. Those same politicians that denounce the power of Capital take in money hand over fist from the same people that they condemn in carefully orchestrated press conferences and the laughable committee show-trials. Obama hailed his healthcare legislation as a massive breakthrough and as a radical change in American social policy. The international media largely followed suite. But it was a lie. The legislation was, in reality, significantly less radical than the limited social reforms passed in most European countries a century earlier. The Republicans opposed it with such fury not for ideological reasons, but because that is what they exist to do; to oppose the Democratic Party.
Of course it's quite likely that much of the bitterness of American politics stems from the gap between what American politicians say and what American politicians do (it is true such gaps exist in all countries, but it's hard to think of many where the chasm is so vast and so perverse), because it is in the interests of both parties to make the difference between each other to appear as big as possible so as to distract from the fundamental similarities.

*So do the Republicans, of course, but the Democrats make for a better example.

I was thinking more about activists than about political representatives. But I'm not quite as cynical as you are. While some are undoubtedly corrupt I would think that a lot of Democratic politicians are simply constrained by the reality of a) lobbyism and campaign money in the American system and b) the centre of gravity within American politics which pulls them to certain positions they might not personally agree with. Obviously, on the issues of the day, the difference between two competitive political parties in a democracy is seldom that big. It can't be, since both have to win the median voter. But in terms of visions and long-term goals, I think there is a huge chasm between the society envisioned by Democratic politicians and the one envisioned by Republican politicians. There is basically no room for the other side in their respective societies, so they are sort of fighting for their existence.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I was thinking more about activists than about political representatives.

Ah, but in no democratic country are political activists (as I would understand the term) less powerful than in the U.S. Which seems paradoxical when you consider the unusual cultural significance of political activists in the U.S (past and present). But it is true, nonetheless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it's a case of cynicism or not as different ways of looking at politics and the relative importance of different aspects of politics. I'm mostly interested in structures. From that point of view, the basic oddness of American political life is hard not to notice. The setup of American political parties (which, as I've often argued, are not really political parties in the sense that we are used to in other countries) obviously explains a lot, as does the unusual setup of governmental institutions, but does not (can not) explain everything.

I'm not even really arguing that both parties are essentially the same, fwiw. They aren't. But what divides them is weirdly insubstantial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Undeniably true in certain cases. But I don't think that the private doubts and worries of a few politicians are especially important. What matters is what they do. And, of course, most of them come from the same sort of background (would you believe how many estate agents get elected to Congress? That's one thing I can never get my head around. Here, estate agents are viewed as scum; lower even than journalists, lawyers or (haha) professional politicians) and talk the same dialect of political language, which is a point that I've just realised and not previously considered. Hmm...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither party has a long-term goal or anything that can be accurately described as a vision.