Party Loyalty from Politicians

Chapter nine discusses the importance and effect the two party system has on American governance and American politics. The role of party identification is also discussed at length, and I find it interesting to not only consider party loyalty from the general populous, but from within the party itself. For a political candidate there seems to be a delicate line between condemning a member of their own party for an inexcusable action, and staying loyal to their colleagues and the party that helped elect them to power. The American people may tend to remain quite loyal to whichever party they voted for on their first election, but there aren’t anywhere close to the ramifications for a citizen switching parties that there are for an elected official. While democrats and republicans become more and more ideologically divided (as shown below in an image from the Pew Research Center) are party members forced to support their parties and all of its members no matter what happens, keeping in mind that not only are parties becoming more idealized they are increasingly showing dislike for the opposing party?

First, looking at the Democratic party, I believe the greatest divide recently was between what was commonly referred to as the “Bernie Bros” and the “I’m still with her” voting populations. Recently, Hillary Clinton released her book “What Happened” once again bringing the conversation about the division of the Democratic party during the election to the light. Dedicating a whole chapter to Bernie, let the American people see what Clinton really thought of Bernie during the election. She controversially states that “(Bernie) certainly shared my horror at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President, and I appreciate that he campaigned for me in the general election. But he isn’t a Democrat — that’s not a smear, that’s what he says. He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party… I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were too.” She later discusses in many interviews Bernie’s refusal to say “I’m with her” in any campaign ads, and allows herself to respond more emotionally to his attacks versus keeping up her more logical approach to conflict as seen previously. Whether or not Clinton’s accusations on Bernie costing her the election are true or not, this divide will be interesting to watch as the Democratic party rebrands itself after the 2016 election.

On the other hand, you see the Republican party splintering a lot more openly. Unlike Bernie’s race to point out that the Democratic party doesn’t truly represent the young, more liberal voters in America and to disrupt the DNC, the Republican party was taken over by the Tea Party when they began to push the Republican party’s base to a more conservative ideology. Once again the Republican party seems to be diverging, this time under their support of Trump. Paul Ryan famously stated he wouldn’t defend Trump during the election, yet quickly reversed his stance on the issue once he began to receive personal attacks from the President. Most recently Ryan condemned Moore, going against the White House’s official statement, yet when asked about Trump’s sexual assault allegations he refused to comment. As Republicans grapple with the falling approval ratings for Trump, they also realize they cannot completely condemn him in risk of losing votes they need to maintain Congress majority.

The reshaping of both parties makes for what I can only assume to be an interesting upcoming years for American voters and may bring a rise to challengers of incumbents holding political office that are seeing the side effects of a shift in party ideologies, and a shift in the way Americans view their political parties.

6 Responses to "Party Loyalty from Politicians"

Jackson Krase says:

December 4, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Your blog post does an excellent job of examining the structure of the two-party system and political ideologies while framing it within the context of the most recent election. In a modern-day political climate where scandals are not only frequent but also in a way expected, the salience of this topic couldn’t be greater. One of the leading questions that political pundits and average citizens alike are grappling with is if the congressional Republicans will turn on President Trump. However, given the historical track record of the president’s relationship with their party, the notion of Trump being pushed out by his own party is extremely unlikely. During the fallout of the Watergate Scandal, many congressional Republicans voiced their disapproval at the encroaching investigations against President Nixon, with the chairman of the Republican National Committee George H.W. Bush even calling Nixon to tell him that he would ride out the scandal. Furthermore, President Clinton was saved from impeachment due to party loyalty within the Senate during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Because you framed your analysis within contemporary politics, there is no surprise that you mention President Trump and the impact he has had on political party loyalty. The rise of Trump in the political arena has resulted in a realignment of the Republican party with the President often times going after his own party members. As Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich stated, “The real opponents of conservative goals are liberal Democrats. Yet the current conservative anger (including the president’s anger) is targeted at Republicans, rather than Democrats.” According to data from President Trumps Twitter Archive and the Washington Post, Trump actually prefers to target Republicans in his twitter assaults on Democrats.

As Trump continues to fire off tweets condemning congressional Republicans for a wide range of issues, party loyalty will be strained and ultimately tested as Republican’s and Trump tries to push legislation through Congress. Moreover, with recent sexual assault allegations engulfing Congress, party loyalty will further be put challenged as politicians will have to decide between a doing the morally correct thing, or following along party lines. Lamentably, issues such as sexual assault bring out the worst in political parties, but at the same time serve as important markers of how strong party loyalty is throughout the political system.
Katherine Fell says:

December 4, 2017 at 5:13 pm

This post is incredibly accurate in describing the diverging party politics of today’s government. Not only are Democrats and Republicans polarized against each other, but there is growing division within the two parties as extreme ideologies on both sides become more mainstream. The 2016 election has highlighted these party differences for both democrats and republicans, as the primaries on both sides included politicians whose ideologies were on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
As you already highlighted in your first post, the divisions within the Republican Party have been especially evident and divisive since the election of Donald Trump. As of today, he publicly endorsed Roy Moore for the Senate race in Alabama. Moore has been a source of division and contention amongst Republicans, as he has been repeatedly accused of predatory sexual behavior, which has prompted multiple members of the party to condemn his actions, and have called to party leadership do denounce Moore due to his disgusting criminal behavior. This has not stopped Trump, though. Today Moore received an endorsement from the President. Trump has argued that the Republicans cannot risk losing a crucial Senate seat to one of “Chuck Schumer’s puppets,” given the margin of the republican majority in the Senate is so slim. These actions can cause major moral consequences for the Republicans, though, because now that the President has taken an official stance on this controversial issue, members with less political capital are less inclined to speak out against the leader of their party, therefore bringing down the standards of the party and our government as a whole. If our government is tolerating and rewarding the actions of Roy Moore by potentially giving him a seat in the Senate, and therefore having influence in the legislature, how can we expect our leaders to protect the interests of the American people from people like Moore who pray on those who who may not be able to protect themselves?
Montgomery Thornburn says:

December 4, 2017 at 10:32 pm

It’s scary to think that about a third of the members of each party believes that the opposing party is a threat to the well-being of the nation and perhaps the diversity in beliefs of the American people demands a system with more than two parties. Party polarization is a result in part because of the monetization of elections and politicians rely on party funds to fund their next campaign. Politicians feel more inclined than ever to vote on party lines to help ensure they will receive support when they inevitably run for reelection. I do think that we will see more splintering of the two major parties as different groups look to elect more candidates that focus on their specific interests. Ultimately, I can see an America that unites on some common issue and the political divide will lessen or we will see it grow until inevitably we change to a multi-party system that is present in other countries. It is a shame that the people of the United States can’t agree on so many issues but it comes from a good place. Everyone involved in the political process wants to do what they think helps the country the most, but the differences on how we as a nation serve each other split us dramatically.
Allison McLaughlin says:

December 4, 2017 at 11:53 pm

I really like your discussion of this issue, because I believe that the deep political polarization that currently dominates our country right now is a huge problem. Such hostility is extremely dangerous and unproductive, turning politics into an extremely negative sphere that threatens the sanctity of true democracy. Recently, particularly with the election of Trump, each political political largely has been defining the other party by the most radical views/leaders of the opposite side. This fixation on radical views is increasing political tension within the country and lessening productive, critical discussion from opposite sides that can actually create effective change that will please both sides. A lack of discussion and open-mindedness hurts democracy and creates an environment where no positive change can happen. For example, on the recent issue of immigration and DACA, studies find that most Democrats AND Republicans want there to be significant reform and relief for undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. I think that without knowing details and statistics, most Americans would assume that the parties stand on completely opposite ends of this issue. In the end, the majority of Republicans and Democrats hold moderate views on many issues and even overlap on many points, yet these similarities and points of discussion are silenced by the hostility between the parties that is portrayed in the media. Further, I believe that Trump’s election will cause the Republican party to largely reevaluate and reconstruct internally, as I think it is safe to say that most Republicans do not regard Trump as a true representation of the Republican party. If Clinton had won in 2016, her win may have had the same effect on the Democratic party, as she was very polarizing for many Democrats.
Jackson Puckey says:

December 5, 2017 at 4:38 pm

You point out how both parties are facing serious divisions: Berniecrat vs. Moderate and Trumpist vs. Moderate. Something which I have been wondering for the past few months is whether these divisions persist beyond the individuals who lead them. Obviously, there are a wide variety of socioeconomic and political factors which determine which politicians come to prominence, however it would be interesting to see if these movements could be politically viable under any different leadership. As a society which enshrines individualism, we tend to feel that our political beliefs are our own and are not influenced by those in power. Despite this, the social democratic populist and nationalist populist undercurrents of the Democratic and Republican parties (respectively) were only able to come to prominence under very specific circumstances, and under very specific leadership.
During the early stages of the 2016 election, it seemed a foregone conclusion that the election would be a Republican sweep. Everything seemed to be on track: there would be a few major candidates, some moderate and some conservative, who would feign conflict for a few months and, eventually, the party would coalesce around the most electable candidate (probably Jeb Bush, though Marco Rubio was also possible). On the Democratic side, the party had taken steps years in advance, through their use of superdelegates and conversations with most contenders, to ensure that Hillary Clinton would receive a relatively challenge-free ride to a coronation at the convention. Both parties massively underestimated the anger which their bases felt both at the opposition party and at the state of the nation as a whole. Both President Trump and Senator Sanders, through their unique personalities, were able to channel this sense of populism and dissent to rock the party establishment. For Trump, this was much easier. 8 years of dissatisfaction with the Obama presidency led to high Republican turnout both in primary and general elections, leading to the hijacking of the Republican party by Trump’s unique brand of populism. Senator Sanders, on the other hand, faced a far more centralized and obdurate DNC as well as a seasoned national campaigner with an overflowing war chest. Following the nomination, Sanders’ supporters failed to show any enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton, the embodiment of the centrist New Democrats, and continue to agitate for reform within the DNC.
Camryn Travis says:

December 5, 2017 at 11:43 pm

I think the separation you describe within the democratic and republican party is a direct result of the two-party system in American democracy. The lack of a multi-party system forces the two parties to include a wide scope of political ideology. With a multi-party system, Bernie Sanders would be in a completely different party than Hillary Clinton. Similarly, Trump would not represent the same party as moderate Republicans. I think in American politics today, party allegiance does not stem from true loyalty, but rather a means of survival. Since the establishment of the modern Democrat and Republican parties, no President has been elected outside of those two parties. Politicians have more campaign resources and a general base of voters with the backing of either of the two parties. Although politicians may express their distain or disapproval for particular members of their party, it is rare that they reject the establishment as a whole. I think this method of self-preservation has the potential to restrict politicians from speaking openly or voting for what their voters want rather than what their party specifically wants.

Comments are closed.