Republicans Are Normal, Democrats Are Not
By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
My U.S. News column this week is on the roadblocks the Obama administration is encountering to its expansive budget and economic policies. Ours is not a parliamentary democracy like Britain's, where the majority party can push its program through the legislature without much trouble. Members of Congress are, to a considerable extent, independent operators, beholden not to the president but to their own constituents, and act accordingly. Obama's big plans on energy and taxes affect different states and congressional districts in different ways, ways that cut across party lines. So he's encountering roadblocks, and it's not clear whether he'll get around them.
In the New Republic, Jonathan Chait makes similar points. Writing from a liberal Democratic perspective, he bemoans the tendency of the Democratic Party to split more along regional and other lines than, in his view at least, the Republican Party did during the first term of George W. Bush. He's on to something here, and he provides some useful historical perspective: Democrats had majorities in Congress for years, but many of those Democrats (Southerners especially, but not exclusively) were elected from states and districts where liberal Democratic policies were not popular. Republicans, once they got majorities in both houses for the first time in 40 years, in 1994, were more disposed to accept party discipline.
This is similar but not identical to a point I've often made: that the Republican Party is the party of people who are considered, by themselves and by others, as normal Americans—Northern white Protestants in the 19th century, married white Christians more recently—while the Democratic Party is the party of the out groups who are in some sense seen, by themselves and by others, as not normal—white Southerners and Catholic immigrants in the 19th century, blacks and white seculars more recently. Thus it's natural for the Democrats to be more fissiparous. Chait, in his anger that current Democrats are not going along with the Obama program, sees this more as a function of the selfishness of contemporary Democratic politicians. But politicians of all parties throughout the ages act out of some combination of calculation and conviction, in varying proportions. And the changes in policy that Bush sought were considerably less radical than those Obama is seeking.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Michael Barone.
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
- Read more about Democrats.
Tags: Democrats | politics | Republicans
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (46) | Print
Reader Comments
Jimatnadison of WI
Jimatmadison of WI, Right Wing Talk and Left Wing Talk are not part of the MSM. Right Wing Talk and Left Wing Talk admit going in they are biased and for entertainment. MSM's job is to REPORT THE NEWS!! MSM does not admit it is biased, in fact they insist they are not biased. They cloak their bias in reporting the news with a leftward slant. Owners of MSM do no reporting and do not force their employees on how to report the news. That thought is somewhat thoughtless on your part. This issue is not even open for debate, as all studies have proved my point. As Rick said on a previous point it is obvious you Lefties do very little reading.
Right Wing Talk has defeated Left Wing Talk in open competition and now the Leftists want to force people to listen to Left Wing Talk or remove talk radio from the air. Do you support this infringement of free speech?
As far as Holloywood is concerned, John of AL did not state ALL entertainers are Democrats. This is another issue not open for debate, as it is know to most all who pay attention the vast majority of those out there in lala land are Lefties.
I really recommend you study issues before commenting in the future.
Double huh?!?
Jeepers, John of AL, it was Barone's point, not mine, that Republicans are sheep. Obviously, I was being way too subtle for you.
It was Barone who said that Republicans 'are disposed to accept party discipline', not me. In other words, according to Barone, you are sheep. I admit I added the word 'dimwitted', but I've never met a smart sheep.
You do make a lot of assumptions. I do not 'eagerly consume the propaganda from the MSM and Hollywood without question.' First off, most of the MSM (which is rightwing talk for mainstream media) is owned by corporate entities that do not address any of the issues of the average American. It tends to be vapid, shallow, and personality-oriented.
And Hollywood? If if wasn't for you righties yapping about it all the time, I wouldn't know who Barbra Streisand voted for because I don't care. It is you Republicans that worship celebrity. The Terminator, Bonzo's daddy, Cher's ex-husband and sleepy old Fred Thompson were all Republicans. We are entertained by celebrities. You exalt them to high political office.
As far as never being 'offered a job by a poor person', well, that's generally true. But a lot of people have been offered a job by this particular 'smart, highly driven, educated', LIBERAL. well-to-do business manager. Rich people tend to be Republican for the same reason that black people tend to be Democratic. You go with the folks that will look out for your interests.
I didn't think Barone's commentary deserved any more of a 'well thought out response' than I originally gave it because I don't consider an ovine personality to be 'normal'. Being a sheep may be normal in the world of the ditto-heads, but it isn't out here among regular folk.
To Johnny51 of Ks
Johnny51 of Ks, you just proved John of Al's point.
advertisement
