Yes, that was outstanding, particularly because the pseudo-conservatives had deliberately scheduled it for the primary in the expectation that hardy anyone would show up to vote. (Bets on whether or not the Me-First conservatives will try to find a way around it?)
yeah, yeah. Don't rub it in. It's really not my fault I live in a state of insanity (pun intended).
The last few years in the UK have not been marked by much sanity. I suspect that in decades to come people will look back fondly on the spring of 2016 the way they once looked back on the spring of 1914.
I'm resurrecting this thread because I've wanted to ask something for a while and have been wrestling with a way to phrase this that's not completely insulting. I'm not sure I have, but I'm going to plow ahead anyway.
Why didn't you listen?
For years (decades, really) the American left has been warning that American conservatism's use of racist dog whistles and active courting of white supremacists would lead to an increasingly racist conservative movement. That making sure there was always a place of honor within the Republican party for the likes of Strom Thurmond, or Jesse Helms, or Trent Lott, or . . . would make sure that there was a fervent, racist core within the conservative movement, until finally it became clear that an open racist would be more appealing to American conservatives than one using subtext and dog whistles.
For years (decades, really) the American left has been warning that American conservatism's appeal to sexism, it's opposition to women's equality in the workplace and society, it's courting of patriarchal theocrats would eventually lead to a time when American conservatives wouldn't do much more than bat an eyelash at a presidential candidate who openly brags about being a sexual predator.
For years (decades, really) the American left has been warning that American conservatism's contempt for democracy and win-by-any-means attitude would foster authoritarianism. That open contempt for the Voting Rights Act would lead to a conviction that certain Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote. That subverting the 2000 election, or the 1972 election, or the 1968 election, would eventually come to an end point where electoral cheating is not just necessary but laudable. That eventually the conservative movement would embrace a would-be dictator who recognizes no limits but his own will.
Why is it that after years (decades, really) of consistent warnings from the American left about the trajectory of American conservatism being likely to produce and embrace a racist, sexist demagogue with no respect for law, so many people look at Donald Trump and say "Wow, who could have seen that coming?"
Seriously, I want to know why it was so easy to dismiss the many warnings from people like me? It's not like any of the things we were pointing out things weren't public knowledge.
First of all, how do you know we weren't listening? I voted for Hillary. I started shit in my family re some of the issues you mention, and paid the price. I am not the only one--I know others.
It seems to me that what you're really asking is "Why didn't you succeed?" Or at least, "Why didn't you gain international visibility in these efforts?"
Phrase it that way, and maybe you can begin to see why. Who controls the media, pray tell? It's not this underpaid, middle-aged female nobody in fly-over country. I don't get mikes, I get slaps. From my neighbors, from my extended family, from my workmates (in the bad old days, my work now is a helluva lot better).
Second question: When, precisely, did you expect me and those like me to reform the Republican Party? With what money, and what influence? We're the people working two jobs. We're the ones raising children, taking care of the elderly and chronically ill, keeping the workplace/family/church/community afloat. Along with our Democratic counterparts, who are our friends and fellow workers.
Was I to leave the refugees of my metro area to sink or swim while I fought a fruitless war in Jefferson City? God knows, they are under-served as it is. And where, pray tell, am I to find a Vietnamese speaker (even to the low level I can) to replace me?
If you won't take me as an example, take my closest friend (who is also a Republican (possibly "was" now), who voted for Hillary). She was working a sucky low-paid legal job for long hours while providing after-hours help to various people in crisis, including the poor, the mentally ill, the addicted, and so forth. Her husband was dividing his time between the Red Cross and the local food pantry--when he wasn't working double shifts trying to keep his job in IT, while his company attempted to reinvent itself. But they never hit the media--how should they? Stories like that aren't sexy. They don't feed the outrage cycle. And non-sexy, non-outrage stories have trouble getting traction, unless there's a big name attached.
You'll doubtless say to me, "But not all Republicans..." Not all Republicans are doing worthwhile crap. No shit, Sherlock. Because if "all Republicans," then we wouldn't have a problem, would we?
I'll tell you what. We have a fucking BIG problem with rich, powerful, influential people making FUCKING stupid choices, choices that are downright evil and wicked and crappy, and what they can do with a damn tweet takes hundreds of us little people to counteract. And sometimes we just.don't.have. the numbers. Or the money. Or the time.
Tell me, have you no difficulties among your own people that you find impossible to correct?
My reaction to that, if I am honest, is to say - why are you (were you) defining yourself as Republican if you voted Democrat ?
I am now very confused.
Because plenty of people in the U.S. choose candidates based on, well, the person--and the situation--and the current hot issues--right now we'd vote for a gummy bear instead of Trump. Not everybody votes a straight ticket. That's how it's possible for states to switch sides from election to election, and for the whole country to do so as well. In fact (let me whisper in your ear) many of us consider straight-ticket voters to be, uh, not so bright? Because no party is going to avoid having weaknesses, bad apples, and downright assholes. And the policies that such people make/enforce/fail to make/enforce. Which means that you need to examine the people and issues you vote for, rather than just ticking Republican (or Democrat) and being done with the whole thing.
I explained above why, in terms of personality etc. I have spent 90% of my life publicly identified as a Republican. But my party done gone away and LEFT ME, and a bunch of others, and I can't sign up whole-heartedly to the Democrats, though I'll vote for them or a grilled cheese sandwich before I'll vote for Trump or Pence. Nothing has changed in my voting, my values (how I hate that word) or my opinions. But a helluva lot has changed in politics since I first registered to vote.
That reminds me of my dad, who always references the fact that technically, in the U.K., you are voting for the candidate not the party.
Whilst I understand that point of view, bipartisanship in the U.K. parliament has been rare as hens teeth in the U.K. for a very long time (possible more the case than USA) - and it is rare that a candidate will vote against the party line on anything of substantial importance.
But we’d generally describe people voting in the way you recount as swing voters.
I've no idea whether if I lived in the US I would predominantly sympathies with one party or the other. Other peoples' politics are often a bit mystifying and until the Republicans self-identified as the party of Trump, it was difficult from elsewhere to see what the difference was between the two US parties.
However, I've not much sympathy - or charity - for those, whether members, candidates or voters, who take a position, 'my party right or wrong' - or, for that matter for people who are prepared to put ideology before moral integrity, and vote for a scoundrel because he or she is 'our scoundrel'.
There are people I wouldn’t vote for if they stood for Labour, George Galloway springs to mind. Also, if I had been in Neil Hamilton’s constituency when Martin Bell stood for election, I would definitely have voted for Bell.
That said, I also understand how our parliamentary system works in practice as well as theory, I try not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I disagree with various of my Labour mps opinions, not least his resigning from the shadow cabinet. But I still campaigned for him.
Well, "you pays your money and you takes your choice." There usually IS no perfect candidate, and you make the best choice you can with the data you have. I filled out my ballot last night, and wound up splitting between the parties, as usual. (Note: NOT ON TRUMP ETC--Eeewwwww! but there are local races and issues as well.)
First of all, how do you know we weren't listening? I voted for Hillary.
By your own self-admission you gave your voice and your vote to the party of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh over the course of decades. One of the things in vogue with American conservatives is to pretend that any and all problems with American conservatism started on June 16, 2015 when Donald Trump descended his golden escalator and before that the conservative movement (and the Republican party which is its main vehicle) was perfectly fine and without any problems whatsoever.
In my estimation we're not in the fourth year of Donald Trump's presidency*, we're in the fortieth year of the Reagan Revolution. The current Republican party and conservative movement is what it's been for decades.
It seems to me that what you're really asking is "Why didn't you succeed?" Or at least, "Why didn't you gain international visibility in these efforts?"
No, I'm asking why now? I framed enough background to illustrate that Donald Trump is just a crasser, cruder, oranger version of what the Republican party and American conservatism as a movement have been about for decades. They've been the go-to political home for racists (Trent Lott), sexists (Phyllis Schlafly), demagogues (Newt Gingrich), blood-drunk thugs (George W. Bush), con men (Paul Ryan), the ignorant (Dan Quayle & Sarah Palin), and self-serving grifters (Dick Cheney) for a long time now and none of that has been any big secret. What is it about seeing all these things in one spray-tanned package that finally pushed you over the edge after years (decades?) of support?
Pray tell, what sort of support do you think I've been giving? My vote--well, yes, if the Democratic candidate wasn't better. (sometimes it's "a plague on both your houses" and I wind up trying to decide which devil is worse.) My money? Nope, none of that--I haven't got any, anyway. My effort? None of that. I just told you what I do with my money and effort, and it's not propping up the Republican Party.
I have had issues with the Republican Party since I was a teen in the days of the damnable "Moral Majority," which I despised. I have had other issues with the Democratic Party, which prevented me from simply leaping the fence. And no, I'm not going to give you a laundry list here, so you can pick them apart and tell me I made the wrong decision. That's forty years of crap, and I have work to do today.
You say:
One of the things in vogue with American conservatives is to pretend that any and all problems with American conservatism started on June 16, 2015 when Donald Trump descended his golden escalator and before that the conservative movement (and the Republican party which is its main vehicle) was perfectly fine and without any problems whatsoever.
Go talk to those conservatives if you want an answer. I have never done this, and I will not set up as your whipping girl because you are mad at others.
Several thoughts on this Thanksgiving Day (12 Oct), when it is just below freezing and the wind is strong, and snow is coming....
I have a little trouble understanding life-long political allegiances. Why would anyone decide at a early age, or because their family tradition is in support of, to identify strongly and consistently with any one party? It doesn't sound to me like a thinking voter.
"Conservative" contains a lot. In my mind, it includes liking and adhering to traditional/long standing social values, such as family, marriage, nature of social relations among various groups in societies. But it also contains economic ideology of low taxes, limited support services provided by governments, the ideas that everyone must make their own way without "big gov't" supporting them. The term (epithet?) "nanny state" is used to denigrate the social safety net, civil services, and promote the idea that private interest should run services on a user-pay basis. This often translates into pure greed in practice. Thus, to me "conservative" appears to be rather a dog's breakfast of social and economic ideas.
And then we have what may be "one issue" conservatism, which centres on abortion, it seems, in the USA, and a completely non-nuanced understanding of the human condition. I'm not sure this occurs anywhere else.
---
We have two election campaigns underway here, relatively important to us, unimportant to the world: provincial and civic (city council, mayor, school board). In reviewing my voting tendencies, it is first to try not to vote for an incumbent regardless of political affiliation, try not to vote for an older (grumpy) white male, try to vote for an educated person. Certainly would never, and think it totally irresponsible to vote based on one issue. Though if kindness and human decency to others can be represented in politics, I'd vote that way for certain. Though at times the cruelty of a party's policies will have me avoid voting for an individual candidate who seems best. Which is why I find, at least in how they're represented, it incredible that any person thinking of others could possibly vote for some brands of conservatism. Particularly the privatisation and low taxes variety, and the anti-abortion single issue group. I find myself not admitting to religious faith in some contexts because of how denigrated these groups have made it.
Well, (attempting to keep the thread focused to its origins), I think it's clear by now that my personal state is not one of unthinking strong allegiance to a party of any sort, and there are others like me. As for why people might keep a link to the party they grew up with--well, people are like that. They fry eggs the way they were brought up, they follow the sports their parents did, they have habits and traditions. Which is not a bad thing, provided they think about those habits and traditions and are willing to change or adapt if something better comes along.
I gather that many of you thought it more usual for people like me to have ironclad political commitments that are inherited, unexamined and all-inclusive. There doubtless are such people, but they are not the bulk of the people I know.
I have a little trouble understanding life-long political allegiances. Why would anyone decide at a early age, or because their family tradition is in support of, to identify strongly and consistently with any one party? It doesn't sound to me like a thinking voter.
Lots of people do it with faith. They're Christian, or Muslim, or whatever else, because their parents are, their family is, and that's how they're brought up - they don't really give it much consideration. If you ask how many Christians have seriously considered whether Islam might be right, or how many Muslims have seriously considered Christianity, I thin you'll get a small answer. I don't think politics works differently in these cases.
Partly it's tribal identity politics - right-of-centre parties are seen as in favour of a certain kind of person, and left-of-centre ones in favour of another kind of person, and you identify as one of those people, so ...
I can understand reasonable people disagreeing about tax distribution, or how welfare should work, and if someone disagrees with me about those things, I can still think them a decent, honourable, well-intentioned person. It's much harder to accept disagreement over things I think of as basic rights (such as the rights of gay and black people to be treated like people) in the same way.
Could somebody clarify for those of us outside the USA what exactly it means to be a Republican or Democrat?
In the UK, it's mostly only people with a distinct interest in politics who would join a political party. Usually a party member would be paying a membership subscription. I'm open to correction from people who are or have been members of a party, but I would assume that members would be given the opportunity to vote on policies or candidates at least at the local level (I don't know how many take up this opportunity, but if you're not interested, why join?), and that publicly announcing your intention to vote for another party's candidate, unless your party didn't have one, would be frowned on (anyone in the habit of doing so would likely leave the party if they didn't get expelled). Some parties have talked about or experimented with affiliate membership schemes of some kind, but I think even these involve payment.
In the USA, my impression is that it's normal to express a party affiliation as part of the voter registration process, that choosing not to is something that requires a positive decision rather than being the default, and that such affiliation gets you a say in the choosing of candidates, but that the only commitment involved is a willingness to be vaguely associated with that party. (It seems to me that there might be an incentive for people to register with the party they dislike in order to sabotage it). Is any of this accurate?
I suppose here many trade unions are affiliated to the Labour party, so their members might be Labour-associated without being committed party members, but there are other reasons besides politics for joining a union, so it's not an exact analogy.
Pray tell, what sort of support do you think I've been giving? My vote--well, yes, if the Democratic candidate wasn't better. (sometimes it's "a plague on both your houses" and I wind up trying to decide which devil is worse.)
By your own admission you were AWOL in the 2012 presidential election. You said you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the guy who made possible the Medicaid expansion you're so happy about now. You considered him just as plague-worthy a devil as the party pledging to fight tooth-and-nail against such a thing ever coming to pass. I'm just wondering why the change, given that presidential candidate Mitt Romney had policy proposals very similar to Donald Trump's (draconian immigration policy, trade war with China, re-criminalize abortion, tax cuts for himself and other rich Americans, repeal the ACA, etc.) and Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were very similar policywise? Why the shift? Is it just because Romney can act like a decent human being (at least in public) and Trump can't?
In the USA, my impression is that it's normal to express a party affiliation as part of the voter registration process, that choosing not to is something that requires a positive decision rather than being the default, and that such affiliation gets you a say in the choosing of candidates, but that the only commitment involved is a willingness to be vaguely associated with that party. (It seems to me that there might be an incentive for people to register with the party they dislike in order to sabotage it). Is any of this accurate?
As with a lot of American things, it's a patchwork quilt with different rules for different states. Neither of the major political parties requires membership dues, though they're very glad to accept voluntary contributions. Whether you register a party affiliation when you register to vote depends on a lot of things and mostly depends on whether your state parties have open or closed primaries. In an open primary any registered voter can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary election (but not both) to determine that party's candidates. For the most part those states don't track party membership. You can sign up as a member with those state parties but that's mostly so you get mailings and asked to volunteer for stuff.
In states that hold closed primaries, only registered members of each party can vote in their party's primary so this is tracked by the state (which runs the major party primaries). These states will ask people to declare a party affiliation when registering to vote, though "Independent", "Unaffiliated", or some other non-partisan designation is also available. (Exact term depends on the state).
It should be noted that casting a ballot in an election is a public record (i.e. everyone can see that you voted, but not who you voted for) so even in states that have open primaries you can often figure out someone's usual partisan affiliation. If they've voted in the last three Republican (or Democratic) primaries, you can make the educated guess that they're a Republican (or a Democrat). If they've never voted in a primary election, then they're not particularly partisan.
Basically, if you say you are an X, then you are an X. In my state (and I imagine many states) the only real effect such self-identification has is to get you the correct primary ballot--so you're voting between a handful of X's for the X party nomination, and not a handful of Y's for the Y party nomination.
It is in fact possible to falsely claim to be a Y and get their ballot, at least in my state, though I've only once seen it half-jokingly mentioned as a strategy for trying to get a lous(ier) candidate in the Republican seat. (Pauses to contemplate that, shudders, hurries quickly away) There is certainly no legal penalty for doing so--or for switching parties every freaking election. Nobody knows and nobody much cares (except Uncle Ed at Thanksgiving, who will give you a piece of his mind when you are fool enough to mention it). The last time I rocked up to the poll table, they just asked me, "Which ballot do you want?" Theoretically someone could abuse this situation ("let's get zillions of Democrats to vote in the Republican primaries!") but as that would involve forfeiting your ability to vote for candidates in the party you really care about (since nobody gets two ballots), it's not likely to catch on.
If you claim no party affiliation, the primaries (devoted to choosing party candidates) will be basically no use to you, unless local authorities have tacked on some local race (e.g. mayor or county exec) or some referendum or initiative. Otherwise, you might as well stay home.
In my experience, you never pay money (what for?) and you don't get a card or whatever, UNLESS you are one of those freaky dedicated people who is intent on climbing their way through the party and ending up in some chairmanship or candidacy some day. Those people probably have meetings and mailings and who knows what. Your average American has and does none of that. However, Party X will certainly send you gobs and gobs and GOBS of spam, and mailers aimed at getting you to donate, and phone calls, and requests to put a candidate's sign in your yard... Party Y will probably do so also, if you behave as confusingly as I do on the Internet, and the analytics people can't tag you accurately.
When I ceased to be a Republican, there was no "de-registration" or other steps to take. It was an internal decision. I spoke to certain interested friends and family, but other than that, they'll find out the only way that matters--by the vote results.
That means I pay a fee, I have to abide by party rules to remain a member, I can attend regular local meetings (I mostly don’t) that discuss policy and feed back up - which is more pertinent in discussions with local councillors than nationally.
I receive regular email updates, every so often there can be national policy consultations done by email. The local constituency are involved in selection of the parliamentary candidate, and it is through the party that people asked to apply to stand for political office locally and nationally. Campaigning is organised through the local party, and carried out by local party members,
Local ward meetings pass information, recommendations, resolutions to the constituency party, which may pass them onto the national conference. Every year the conference votes on resolutions about the direction of policy, which influences what the party policy platform / manifesto actually is. Membership also entitles me to vote in the elections for party officers such as the national executive council and the leader and deputy leader (the equivalent of a vote in the primaries I guess.)
The point of paying for membership is to fund the party, instead of relying solely on millionaire donors. The purpose of membership is to have a say in what the party does, and what it’s values are.
The party carries out active scrutiny processes to try to avoid being infiltrated by members of other parties - though I think this is more recent. After there were accusations claiming that some sort of shadowy cabal were trying to take over the party when many people joined in support of Jeremy Corbyn.
Though in fact, these were often young people who had become enthused by his platform and others who had previously left the party over Tony Blair’s leadership.
(The communist party of Great Britain had 300 members at the last count, it can’t have leant a quarter of a million people to the Labour Party.)
Pray tell, what sort of support do you think I've been giving? My vote--well, yes, if the Democratic candidate wasn't better. (sometimes it's "a plague on both your houses" and I wind up trying to decide which devil is worse.)
By your own admission you were AWOL in the 2012 presidential election. You said you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the guy who made possible the Medicaid expansion you're so happy about now. You considered him just as plague-worthy a devil as the party pledging to fight tooth-and-nail against such a thing ever coming to pass. I'm just wondering why the change, given that presidential candidate Mitt Romney had policy proposals very similar to Donald Trump's (draconian immigration policy, trade war with China, re-criminalize abortion, tax cuts for himself and other rich Americans, repeal the ACA, etc.) and Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were very similar policywise? Why the shift? Is it just because Romney can act like a decent human being (at least in public) and Trump can't?
Can you not read? It was a character issue I was concerned with re Romney--though to be sure, at second hand. My experience with Mormonism (sorry, folks, I know this is offensive, but there it is) is that the church itself is power hungry and duplicitous, and does NOT keep daylight between itself and temporal power. Which makes me worried about any candidate that comes out of that background. (And before anybody says it, I am aware that other religious organizations have similar issues. This particular one seems to me extreme.)
With Trump it is DEFINITELY a character issue, and always has been, and it's not a "maybe"--it's a "Hell no." As in, "no character whatsoever, as proven by his actual life and behavior." I'd vote for basically any of the candidates from any major party we've had in the last 40 years before him--I'd certainly vote for Romney--and it has nothing to do with his alleged policies. Character matters, because a liar like Trump effectively HAS no policies--he goes after what benefits Trump, and no amount of fine talk can hide that.
Upon re-reading that--perhaps you meant to inquire why I did not vote for Obama. I'll tell you the truth in spite of your incivility. Before I cross party lines (well, they existed for me then; not now), I do my damn homework. I study up on people. And during 2012 I was in one of the worst damned personal crises of my life with a job-situation-from-Hell that was so bad it was destroying my health. I was on the receiving end of major abuse daily. I couldn't leave, and I couldn't live, and I couldn't concentrate on a damn thing other than getting through the day. Do you think that's the time I'm going to go off and do a bunch of political study to make sure I vote correctly?
If you are that interested in digging up my past, you can go off and see what was going on in my life at that point. Two major diseases, one brush with death, and the daily asshole boss. I did what I thought was the responsible thing--since I couldn't study up on the issues and candidates, I stayed the hell away.
That means I pay a fee, I have to abide by party rules to remain a member, I can attend regular local meetings (I mostly don’t) that discuss policy and feed back up - which is more pertinent in discussions with local councillors than nationally.
I receive regular email updates, every so often there can be national policy consultations done by email. The local constituency are involved in selection of the parliamentary candidate, and it is through the party that people asked to apply to stand for political office locally and nationally. Campaigning is organised through the local party, and carried out by local party members,
Local ward meetings pass information, recommendations, resolutions to the constituency party, which may pass them onto the national conference. Every year the conference votes on resolutions about the direction of policy, which influences what the party policy platform / manifesto actually is. Membership also entitles me to vote in the elections for party officers such as the national executive council and the leader and deputy leader (the equivalent of a vote in the primaries I guess.)
The point of paying for membership is to fund the party, instead of relying solely on millionaire donors. The purpose of membership is to have a say in what the party does, and what it’s values are.
The party carries out active scrutiny processes to try to avoid being infiltrated by members of other parties - though I think this is more recent. After there were accusations claiming that some sort of shadowy cabal were trying to take over the party when many people joined in support of Jeremy Corbyn.
Though in fact, these were often young people who had become enthused by his platform and others who had previously left the party over Tony Blair’s leadership.
(The communist party of Great Britain had 300 members at the last count, it can’t have leant a quarter of a million people to the Labour Party.)
In so many ways, this sounds more sensible (particularly the bit about excluding millionaire donors). It's just not what we have, and not what we're likely to have.
If you claim no party affiliation, the primaries (devoted to choosing party candidates) will be basically no use to you, unless local authorities have tacked on some local race (e.g. mayor or county exec) or some referendum or initiative. Otherwise, you might as well stay home.
As noted, maybe or maybe not. In the state where I live, if you are registered to vote as affiliated with a party—and fwiw anyone can look up my registration and see how I’m registered—then you can only vote in that party’s primaries. But those who are registered as unaffiliated (aka “independent”) can vote in the primaries of any party as they choose. So someone who is registered as unaffiliated can choose to vote in a Democratic primary or a Republican primary, or Libertarian or some other party. And they get to make that choice every election cycle.
The percentage of unaffiliated voters has been consistently growing in this state over the last few decades, and younger voters in particular are increasingly likely to register as unaffiliated. Unaffiliated are the second largest group here now, after Democrats and ahead of Republicans.
We have this weird open primary system where everybody votes for their favorite candidate from whatever party, and then in the general the top two vote getters run opposite, even if they're from the same party.
Lamb Chopped: "It is in fact possible to falsely claim to be a Y and get their ballot, at least in my state, though I've only once seen it half-jokingly mentioned as a strategy for trying to get a lous(ier) candidate in the Republican seat."
In California a couple of times I switched parties for a primary. It was sort of the opposite reason you cited. I wanted on the ballot a candidate I could stand living under if my candidate lost. (In this it was only if my favorite candidate looked safe.) You can't just ask for any old ballot here. When the poll workers check you in, they look at your affiliation and hand you that ballot.
We have this weird open primary system where everybody votes for their favorite candidate from whatever party, and then in the general the top two vote getters run opposite, even if they're from the same party.
Sometimes called a “jungle primary” or a “blanket primary.”
For those who are interested, here is a description of various styles of U.S. primaries, who can participate in each system, and which states use which method.
We do have rich donors as well, but unsurprisingly - not as many as the conservatives. One of the phenomena that led to Corbyn’s election - was allowing people to take up affiliate membership for a low price than standard membership, that gave them a vote in the leadership. This rule change was brought in under the previous leader, Ed Milliband, but it caused 100,000s of people to join in an extremely short period of time - and the party administration system creaked under the strain of the expansion for a while. Though they have expanded the infrastructure now,
I think the initiative was loosely based on the idea of American primaries - and the hope that people joining to vote for the leadership would then get interested and stay.
(Since this, the Conservative party has dropped its fees significantly - but they have not managed to capture the youth vote as effectively. Problem is, older people tend to be more likely to vote.)
(Forgot to add there are rules about who can donate to political parties, donations over a certain size have to be publicly declared and there are central spending limits for political parties during elections. There are also balance rules for airtime for different parties on mainstream broadcast media during the formally declared election campaigns.)
We do have rich donors as well, but unsurprisingly - not as many as the conservatives. One of the phenomena that led to Corbyn’s election - was allowing people to take up affiliate membership for a low price than standard membership, that gave them a vote in the leadership.
Always worth mentioning that Corbyn won a clear majority of the vote in both "traditional" voter groups - normal Labour party members, and the affiliates. You're right, of course, that the three-quid specials voted overwhelmingly for Corbyn, but he'd have won the vote even without them.
I understand the idea of voting either way depending on the personal character of the candidate, but I find it very hard to imagine how bad a Labour/SNP/Lib dem candidate would have to be to make voting tory look like the more moral option (bearing in mind that they'd have been deselected for anything on the scale of Trump). Maybe a difference due to the extent to which backbench MPs are lobby-fodder for the party line under most circumstances, and when they're not the way they vote seems to largely cut across matters of personal character. In the worst cases an independent candidate may be the way out.
I understand the idea of voting either way depending on the personal character of the candidate, but I find it very hard to imagine how bad a Labour/SNP/Lib dem candidate would have to be to make voting tory look like the more moral option
But isn't that because you can't imagine how supporting Tory policies could ever be the moral option? If you like some Labour policies and some Tory policies, then "character of the candidate" could easily be the deciding factor.
I understand the idea of voting either way depending on the personal character of the candidate, but I find it very hard to imagine how bad a Labour/SNP/Lib dem candidate would have to be to make voting tory look like the more moral option
But isn't that because you can't imagine how supporting Tory policies could ever be the moral option? If you like some Labour policies and some Tory policies, then "character of the candidate" could easily be the deciding factor.
Yes, that's rather my point. I can't understand how anyone can look at the tories and think that putting them in power would be a good thing.
Thankyou for the answers about how things work in the USA -- interesting. Do people in areas where the same party always wins ever vote in that party's primary even if they don't support it, as a way of influencing who the eventual winner is? (Like Lyda said a few posts above, but in a hypothetical opposite situation where her preferred party had no hope of winning). Where I live, the most effective way to influence who my Member of Parliament is would be to join the local branch of the Conservative party, although I don't know how much influence you could have without passing yourself off as a dedicated member.
Thankyou for the answers about how things work in the USA -- interesting. Do people in areas where the same party always wins ever vote in that party's primary even if they don't support it, as a way of influencing who the eventual winner is?
Most likely. I recall there was a half-hearted effort by some Republicans in 2004 to change their registration to Democratic so they could vote in their states' Democratic primary. (Incumbent Republican President George W. Bush was not facing a serious primary challenge, though this could potentially have hurt any downballot primary races.) It can also lead to some distorting effects, where anyone with political ambitions joins the party that always wins regardless of ideological affinity. Blogger and Rhode Island resident Erik Loomis describes such a situation in his home state:
As I’ve written on occasion in the past, the Rhode Island Democratic Party is a grotesque hive of scum and villainy. There are some good people in there, but the leadership in the state party are basically Republicans. But in Rhode Island, all it means to be a Democrat is “I want power.” The closest analogy I have for it is the PRI in Mexico, where any claims to original beliefs are lost and it’s all about protecting the elites. It’s really awful. Progressives have won some victories in the last couple of election cycle, but that has led to them being openly ostracized by the leadership in both houses.
The other thing you have to remember is that American political parties are decentralized to a much larger extent than political parties in other countries, with a lot of power in the hands of state-level parties.
Pretty much exactly where C. S. Lewis did. It is right and normal and human to love one's home and the things that go with it, and to feel a certain sense of pride and admiration for those things ("How 'bout those Cardinals, eh?"). And as long as we remember that everyone else feels the same way about their home, it's no problem and can even lead to friendship and good-wishing one another--along the lines of, "Hey, lutefisk doesn't work for me, but you do you."
The problem comes in when idiots attempt to transform this warm, fuzzy, largely-irrational feeling into a faux-logical proposition: "My things are really and truly objectively better than your things" and then build a racist, imperialist superstructure on that. In Christian terms, that is a form of idolatry, and leads to the same ends that idolatry usually does--death, disaster, that sort of thing.
Comments
Wouldn't it be astonishing if they hadn't?
Oh, and happy for you
The last few years in the UK have not been marked by much sanity. I suspect that in decades to come people will look back fondly on the spring of 2016 the way they once looked back on the spring of 1914.
Why didn't you listen?
For years (decades, really) the American left has been warning that American conservatism's use of racist dog whistles and active courting of white supremacists would lead to an increasingly racist conservative movement. That making sure there was always a place of honor within the Republican party for the likes of Strom Thurmond, or Jesse Helms, or Trent Lott, or . . . would make sure that there was a fervent, racist core within the conservative movement, until finally it became clear that an open racist would be more appealing to American conservatives than one using subtext and dog whistles.
For years (decades, really) the American left has been warning that American conservatism's appeal to sexism, it's opposition to women's equality in the workplace and society, it's courting of patriarchal theocrats would eventually lead to a time when American conservatives wouldn't do much more than bat an eyelash at a presidential candidate who openly brags about being a sexual predator.
For years (decades, really) the American left has been warning that American conservatism's contempt for democracy and win-by-any-means attitude would foster authoritarianism. That open contempt for the Voting Rights Act would lead to a conviction that certain Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote. That subverting the 2000 election, or the 1972 election, or the 1968 election, would eventually come to an end point where electoral cheating is not just necessary but laudable. That eventually the conservative movement would embrace a would-be dictator who recognizes no limits but his own will.
Why is it that after years (decades, really) of consistent warnings from the American left about the trajectory of American conservatism being likely to produce and embrace a racist, sexist demagogue with no respect for law, so many people look at Donald Trump and say "Wow, who could have seen that coming?"
Seriously, I want to know why it was so easy to dismiss the many warnings from people like me? It's not like any of the things we were pointing out things weren't public knowledge.
It seems to me that what you're really asking is "Why didn't you succeed?" Or at least, "Why didn't you gain international visibility in these efforts?"
Phrase it that way, and maybe you can begin to see why. Who controls the media, pray tell? It's not this underpaid, middle-aged female nobody in fly-over country. I don't get mikes, I get slaps. From my neighbors, from my extended family, from my workmates (in the bad old days, my work now is a helluva lot better).
Second question: When, precisely, did you expect me and those like me to reform the Republican Party? With what money, and what influence? We're the people working two jobs. We're the ones raising children, taking care of the elderly and chronically ill, keeping the workplace/family/church/community afloat. Along with our Democratic counterparts, who are our friends and fellow workers.
Was I to leave the refugees of my metro area to sink or swim while I fought a fruitless war in Jefferson City? God knows, they are under-served as it is. And where, pray tell, am I to find a Vietnamese speaker (even to the low level I can) to replace me?
If you won't take me as an example, take my closest friend (who is also a Republican (possibly "was" now), who voted for Hillary). She was working a sucky low-paid legal job for long hours while providing after-hours help to various people in crisis, including the poor, the mentally ill, the addicted, and so forth. Her husband was dividing his time between the Red Cross and the local food pantry--when he wasn't working double shifts trying to keep his job in IT, while his company attempted to reinvent itself. But they never hit the media--how should they? Stories like that aren't sexy. They don't feed the outrage cycle. And non-sexy, non-outrage stories have trouble getting traction, unless there's a big name attached.
You'll doubtless say to me, "But not all Republicans..." Not all Republicans are doing worthwhile crap. No shit, Sherlock. Because if "all Republicans," then we wouldn't have a problem, would we?
I'll tell you what. We have a fucking BIG problem with rich, powerful, influential people making FUCKING stupid choices, choices that are downright evil and wicked and crappy, and what they can do with a damn tweet takes hundreds of us little people to counteract. And sometimes we just.don't.have. the numbers. Or the money. Or the time.
Tell me, have you no difficulties among your own people that you find impossible to correct?
I am now very confused.
Because plenty of people in the U.S. choose candidates based on, well, the person--and the situation--and the current hot issues--right now we'd vote for a gummy bear instead of Trump. Not everybody votes a straight ticket. That's how it's possible for states to switch sides from election to election, and for the whole country to do so as well. In fact (let me whisper in your ear) many of us consider straight-ticket voters to be, uh, not so bright? Because no party is going to avoid having weaknesses, bad apples, and downright assholes. And the policies that such people make/enforce/fail to make/enforce. Which means that you need to examine the people and issues you vote for, rather than just ticking Republican (or Democrat) and being done with the whole thing.
I explained above why, in terms of personality etc. I have spent 90% of my life publicly identified as a Republican. But my party done gone away and LEFT ME, and a bunch of others, and I can't sign up whole-heartedly to the Democrats, though I'll vote for them or a grilled cheese sandwich before I'll vote for Trump or Pence. Nothing has changed in my voting, my values (how I hate that word) or my opinions. But a helluva lot has changed in politics since I first registered to vote.
Whilst I understand that point of view, bipartisanship in the U.K. parliament has been rare as hens teeth in the U.K. for a very long time (possible more the case than USA) - and it is rare that a candidate will vote against the party line on anything of substantial importance.
But we’d generally describe people voting in the way you recount as swing voters.
Yeah, I have my own WTF? moments sometimes when I'm trying to figure out UK politics.
I've no idea whether if I lived in the US I would predominantly sympathies with one party or the other. Other peoples' politics are often a bit mystifying and until the Republicans self-identified as the party of Trump, it was difficult from elsewhere to see what the difference was between the two US parties.
However, I've not much sympathy - or charity - for those, whether members, candidates or voters, who take a position, 'my party right or wrong' - or, for that matter for people who are prepared to put ideology before moral integrity, and vote for a scoundrel because he or she is 'our scoundrel'.
That said, I also understand how our parliamentary system works in practice as well as theory, I try not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I disagree with various of my Labour mps opinions, not least his resigning from the shadow cabinet. But I still campaigned for him.
By your own self-admission you gave your voice and your vote to the party of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh over the course of decades. One of the things in vogue with American conservatives is to pretend that any and all problems with American conservatism started on June 16, 2015 when Donald Trump descended his golden escalator and before that the conservative movement (and the Republican party which is its main vehicle) was perfectly fine and without any problems whatsoever.
In my estimation we're not in the fourth year of Donald Trump's presidency*, we're in the fortieth year of the Reagan Revolution. The current Republican party and conservative movement is what it's been for decades.
No, I'm asking why now? I framed enough background to illustrate that Donald Trump is just a crasser, cruder, oranger version of what the Republican party and American conservatism as a movement have been about for decades. They've been the go-to political home for racists (Trent Lott), sexists (Phyllis Schlafly), demagogues (Newt Gingrich), blood-drunk thugs (George W. Bush), con men (Paul Ryan), the ignorant (Dan Quayle & Sarah Palin), and self-serving grifters (Dick Cheney) for a long time now and none of that has been any big secret. What is it about seeing all these things in one spray-tanned package that finally pushed you over the edge after years (decades?) of support?
I have had issues with the Republican Party since I was a teen in the days of the damnable "Moral Majority," which I despised. I have had other issues with the Democratic Party, which prevented me from simply leaping the fence. And no, I'm not going to give you a laundry list here, so you can pick them apart and tell me I made the wrong decision. That's forty years of crap, and I have work to do today.
You say:
Go talk to those conservatives if you want an answer. I have never done this, and I will not set up as your whipping girl because you are mad at others.
I have a little trouble understanding life-long political allegiances. Why would anyone decide at a early age, or because their family tradition is in support of, to identify strongly and consistently with any one party? It doesn't sound to me like a thinking voter.
"Conservative" contains a lot. In my mind, it includes liking and adhering to traditional/long standing social values, such as family, marriage, nature of social relations among various groups in societies. But it also contains economic ideology of low taxes, limited support services provided by governments, the ideas that everyone must make their own way without "big gov't" supporting them. The term (epithet?) "nanny state" is used to denigrate the social safety net, civil services, and promote the idea that private interest should run services on a user-pay basis. This often translates into pure greed in practice. Thus, to me "conservative" appears to be rather a dog's breakfast of social and economic ideas.
And then we have what may be "one issue" conservatism, which centres on abortion, it seems, in the USA, and a completely non-nuanced understanding of the human condition. I'm not sure this occurs anywhere else.
---
We have two election campaigns underway here, relatively important to us, unimportant to the world: provincial and civic (city council, mayor, school board). In reviewing my voting tendencies, it is first to try not to vote for an incumbent regardless of political affiliation, try not to vote for an older (grumpy) white male, try to vote for an educated person. Certainly would never, and think it totally irresponsible to vote based on one issue. Though if kindness and human decency to others can be represented in politics, I'd vote that way for certain. Though at times the cruelty of a party's policies will have me avoid voting for an individual candidate who seems best. Which is why I find, at least in how they're represented, it incredible that any person thinking of others could possibly vote for some brands of conservatism. Particularly the privatisation and low taxes variety, and the anti-abortion single issue group. I find myself not admitting to religious faith in some contexts because of how denigrated these groups have made it.
I gather that many of you thought it more usual for people like me to have ironclad political commitments that are inherited, unexamined and all-inclusive. There doubtless are such people, but they are not the bulk of the people I know.
Lots of people do it with faith. They're Christian, or Muslim, or whatever else, because their parents are, their family is, and that's how they're brought up - they don't really give it much consideration. If you ask how many Christians have seriously considered whether Islam might be right, or how many Muslims have seriously considered Christianity, I thin you'll get a small answer. I don't think politics works differently in these cases.
Partly it's tribal identity politics - right-of-centre parties are seen as in favour of a certain kind of person, and left-of-centre ones in favour of another kind of person, and you identify as one of those people, so ...
I can understand reasonable people disagreeing about tax distribution, or how welfare should work, and if someone disagrees with me about those things, I can still think them a decent, honourable, well-intentioned person. It's much harder to accept disagreement over things I think of as basic rights (such as the rights of gay and black people to be treated like people) in the same way.
In the UK, it's mostly only people with a distinct interest in politics who would join a political party. Usually a party member would be paying a membership subscription. I'm open to correction from people who are or have been members of a party, but I would assume that members would be given the opportunity to vote on policies or candidates at least at the local level (I don't know how many take up this opportunity, but if you're not interested, why join?), and that publicly announcing your intention to vote for another party's candidate, unless your party didn't have one, would be frowned on (anyone in the habit of doing so would likely leave the party if they didn't get expelled). Some parties have talked about or experimented with affiliate membership schemes of some kind, but I think even these involve payment.
In the USA, my impression is that it's normal to express a party affiliation as part of the voter registration process, that choosing not to is something that requires a positive decision rather than being the default, and that such affiliation gets you a say in the choosing of candidates, but that the only commitment involved is a willingness to be vaguely associated with that party. (It seems to me that there might be an incentive for people to register with the party they dislike in order to sabotage it). Is any of this accurate?
I suppose here many trade unions are affiliated to the Labour party, so their members might be Labour-associated without being committed party members, but there are other reasons besides politics for joining a union, so it's not an exact analogy.
By your own admission you were AWOL in the 2012 presidential election. You said you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the guy who made possible the Medicaid expansion you're so happy about now. You considered him just as plague-worthy a devil as the party pledging to fight tooth-and-nail against such a thing ever coming to pass. I'm just wondering why the change, given that presidential candidate Mitt Romney had policy proposals very similar to Donald Trump's (draconian immigration policy, trade war with China, re-criminalize abortion, tax cuts for himself and other rich Americans, repeal the ACA, etc.) and Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were very similar policywise? Why the shift? Is it just because Romney can act like a decent human being (at least in public) and Trump can't?
As with a lot of American things, it's a patchwork quilt with different rules for different states. Neither of the major political parties requires membership dues, though they're very glad to accept voluntary contributions. Whether you register a party affiliation when you register to vote depends on a lot of things and mostly depends on whether your state parties have open or closed primaries. In an open primary any registered voter can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary election (but not both) to determine that party's candidates. For the most part those states don't track party membership. You can sign up as a member with those state parties but that's mostly so you get mailings and asked to volunteer for stuff.
In states that hold closed primaries, only registered members of each party can vote in their party's primary so this is tracked by the state (which runs the major party primaries). These states will ask people to declare a party affiliation when registering to vote, though "Independent", "Unaffiliated", or some other non-partisan designation is also available. (Exact term depends on the state).
It should be noted that casting a ballot in an election is a public record (i.e. everyone can see that you voted, but not who you voted for) so even in states that have open primaries you can often figure out someone's usual partisan affiliation. If they've voted in the last three Republican (or Democratic) primaries, you can make the educated guess that they're a Republican (or a Democrat). If they've never voted in a primary election, then they're not particularly partisan.
It is in fact possible to falsely claim to be a Y and get their ballot, at least in my state, though I've only once seen it half-jokingly mentioned as a strategy for trying to get a lous(ier) candidate in the Republican seat. (Pauses to contemplate that, shudders, hurries quickly away) There is certainly no legal penalty for doing so--or for switching parties every freaking election. Nobody knows and nobody much cares (except Uncle Ed at Thanksgiving, who will give you a piece of his mind when you are fool enough to mention it). The last time I rocked up to the poll table, they just asked me, "Which ballot do you want?" Theoretically someone could abuse this situation ("let's get zillions of Democrats to vote in the Republican primaries!") but as that would involve forfeiting your ability to vote for candidates in the party you really care about (since nobody gets two ballots), it's not likely to catch on.
If you claim no party affiliation, the primaries (devoted to choosing party candidates) will be basically no use to you, unless local authorities have tacked on some local race (e.g. mayor or county exec) or some referendum or initiative. Otherwise, you might as well stay home.
In my experience, you never pay money (what for?) and you don't get a card or whatever, UNLESS you are one of those freaky dedicated people who is intent on climbing their way through the party and ending up in some chairmanship or candidacy some day. Those people probably have meetings and mailings and who knows what. Your average American has and does none of that. However, Party X will certainly send you gobs and gobs and GOBS of spam, and mailers aimed at getting you to donate, and phone calls, and requests to put a candidate's sign in your yard... Party Y will probably do so also, if you behave as confusingly as I do on the Internet, and the analytics people can't tag you accurately.
When I ceased to be a Republican, there was no "de-registration" or other steps to take. It was an internal decision. I spoke to certain interested friends and family, but other than that, they'll find out the only way that matters--by the vote results.
That means I pay a fee, I have to abide by party rules to remain a member, I can attend regular local meetings (I mostly don’t) that discuss policy and feed back up - which is more pertinent in discussions with local councillors than nationally.
I receive regular email updates, every so often there can be national policy consultations done by email. The local constituency are involved in selection of the parliamentary candidate, and it is through the party that people asked to apply to stand for political office locally and nationally. Campaigning is organised through the local party, and carried out by local party members,
Local ward meetings pass information, recommendations, resolutions to the constituency party, which may pass them onto the national conference. Every year the conference votes on resolutions about the direction of policy, which influences what the party policy platform / manifesto actually is. Membership also entitles me to vote in the elections for party officers such as the national executive council and the leader and deputy leader (the equivalent of a vote in the primaries I guess.)
The point of paying for membership is to fund the party, instead of relying solely on millionaire donors. The purpose of membership is to have a say in what the party does, and what it’s values are.
The party carries out active scrutiny processes to try to avoid being infiltrated by members of other parties - though I think this is more recent. After there were accusations claiming that some sort of shadowy cabal were trying to take over the party when many people joined in support of Jeremy Corbyn.
Though in fact, these were often young people who had become enthused by his platform and others who had previously left the party over Tony Blair’s leadership.
(The communist party of Great Britain had 300 members at the last count, it can’t have leant a quarter of a million people to the Labour Party.)
Can you not read? It was a character issue I was concerned with re Romney--though to be sure, at second hand. My experience with Mormonism (sorry, folks, I know this is offensive, but there it is) is that the church itself is power hungry and duplicitous, and does NOT keep daylight between itself and temporal power. Which makes me worried about any candidate that comes out of that background. (And before anybody says it, I am aware that other religious organizations have similar issues. This particular one seems to me extreme.)
With Trump it is DEFINITELY a character issue, and always has been, and it's not a "maybe"--it's a "Hell no." As in, "no character whatsoever, as proven by his actual life and behavior." I'd vote for basically any of the candidates from any major party we've had in the last 40 years before him--I'd certainly vote for Romney--and it has nothing to do with his alleged policies. Character matters, because a liar like Trump effectively HAS no policies--he goes after what benefits Trump, and no amount of fine talk can hide that.
Upon re-reading that--perhaps you meant to inquire why I did not vote for Obama. I'll tell you the truth in spite of your incivility. Before I cross party lines (well, they existed for me then; not now), I do my damn homework. I study up on people. And during 2012 I was in one of the worst damned personal crises of my life with a job-situation-from-Hell that was so bad it was destroying my health. I was on the receiving end of major abuse daily. I couldn't leave, and I couldn't live, and I couldn't concentrate on a damn thing other than getting through the day. Do you think that's the time I'm going to go off and do a bunch of political study to make sure I vote correctly?
If you are that interested in digging up my past, you can go off and see what was going on in my life at that point. Two major diseases, one brush with death, and the daily asshole boss. I did what I thought was the responsible thing--since I couldn't study up on the issues and candidates, I stayed the hell away.
In so many ways, this sounds more sensible (particularly the bit about excluding millionaire donors). It's just not what we have, and not what we're likely to have.
The percentage of unaffiliated voters has been consistently growing in this state over the last few decades, and younger voters in particular are increasingly likely to register as unaffiliated. Unaffiliated are the second largest group here now, after Democrats and ahead of Republicans.
In California a couple of times I switched parties for a primary. It was sort of the opposite reason you cited. I wanted on the ballot a candidate I could stand living under if my candidate lost. (In this it was only if my favorite candidate looked safe.) You can't just ask for any old ballot here. When the poll workers check you in, they look at your affiliation and hand you that ballot.
I think the initiative was loosely based on the idea of American primaries - and the hope that people joining to vote for the leadership would then get interested and stay.
(Since this, the Conservative party has dropped its fees significantly - but they have not managed to capture the youth vote as effectively. Problem is, older people tend to be more likely to vote.)
Always worth mentioning that Corbyn won a clear majority of the vote in both "traditional" voter groups - normal Labour party members, and the affiliates. You're right, of course, that the three-quid specials voted overwhelmingly for Corbyn, but he'd have won the vote even without them.
But isn't that because you can't imagine how supporting Tory policies could ever be the moral option? If you like some Labour policies and some Tory policies, then "character of the candidate" could easily be the deciding factor.
Yes, that's rather my point. I can't understand how anyone can look at the tories and think that putting them in power would be a good thing.
Most likely. I recall there was a half-hearted effort by some Republicans in 2004 to change their registration to Democratic so they could vote in their states' Democratic primary. (Incumbent Republican President George W. Bush was not facing a serious primary challenge, though this could potentially have hurt any downballot primary races.) It can also lead to some distorting effects, where anyone with political ambitions joins the party that always wins regardless of ideological affinity. Blogger and Rhode Island resident Erik Loomis describes such a situation in his home state:
The other thing you have to remember is that American political parties are decentralized to a much larger extent than political parties in other countries, with a lot of power in the hands of state-level parties.
The problem comes in when idiots attempt to transform this warm, fuzzy, largely-irrational feeling into a faux-logical proposition: "My things are really and truly objectively better than your things" and then build a racist, imperialist superstructure on that. In Christian terms, that is a form of idolatry, and leads to the same ends that idolatry usually does--death, disaster, that sort of thing.
Your response sounds sensible and balanced to me. But maybe more of a centrist position than a conservative one ?
Those who value tradition tend to have in mind their own culture's tradition rather than somebody else's...
In your experience, are conservatives more likely to be positive about America ?