This reflects the money flows. The left has many sources of money, patronage, and a variety of supporting institutions, and their political structure mirrors this. People are bringing their own chips to the table.
The right has none of this. No supporting institutions. So the entire infrastructure depends on the party itself.
Yup. The best they can do is one issue groups—like anti-Abortion was until Roe was done. FedSoc is a general one. Fox is an extension of the party. But they have no Harvard, nyt, ford foundation, SPLC, ACLU, Yale, Princeton, all of which are loaded and bring their own capital.
The Republican lack of institutional support is a function of the fact that people who enter such institutions don't tend to become Republicans. Because if you take the default message of modern Occidental society seriously, that all groups are inherently equal in abilities, you will be increasingly unlikely to join a right-wing political party.
The key is correcting this erroneous thinking. Only then will the lopsidedness with which elites join left-wing political parties have any hope of correction.
Of course, it should also be possible for hereditarians to form a constituent group within the Dems and press for bottom-up change. But our views are so anathemical to post-WWII left-wing politics, we would make ourselves the enemies of everyone else in the party. I think it should be pressed all the same, but I would be very surprised to see it work with the Dems before the Reps.
I was interested in the description of protest movements starting on the outside and then becoming mainstream within the Democratic Party. I wonder if that will be the path of the anti-Israel protests.
That would be the smart move if they wanted to have real influence in the party moving forward BUT a lot of these groups are tied to what you might call the "hard left" school of American politics that's long held ambivalent relationship at best to electoral politics in general and the Democratic Party in particular. A much more likely scenario is they just collapse into obscurity a lot like Ralph Nader's "movement" did after the 2000 election.
There is another characteristic, Stage, that is at work here: Dem presidential debates almost never have differences on the issues; they presume every candidate has the same general goals. Republican presidential debates are full of issue disagreement.
Also, congressional Dems always have to fear defection from their right. And congressional Rs also have to fear defection from their right.
You might find the research article by Matt Grossman linked to in footnote 8 to be of interest--one of the themes of it is that (pre-Trump at least) most Republicans identified their party with *ideas* whereas democrats identified their party with *identity groups.* If you think of your party affiliation as being about ideas, it make sense debates would focus on disagreements there.
One thing that might be changing with the Democrats that folks like Matt Yglesias have pointed out is that the declining strength of organized labor (and American labor unios are a classic example of constituent type political groups) overall means that a key role they used to play in providing money, organizing "muscle", and a sense of practical politicking are increasingly being taken over by a nebulous and hazy mix of major funders, nonprofits, and foundations and crucial the typically well educated, young professional types who work at those sorts of organizations.
This might have major impacts in the long run as there's a difference between being say a union president who ultimately has to go back to membership and explain why you endorsed someone and how say some grant officers who have to go back to Mark Zuckerberg and explain why you did what you did might operate.
Recently a wealthy business associate (historically involved with GOP politics) remarked to me "you'd be shocked at how few decision-makers there are in the Republican party. It's basically a half dozen mega donors who control everything." This articles jibes.
"There are advantages and disadvantages to both operational cultures. “In the short run [Democratic political culture] appears disruptive,” Freeman argues, but in the long run “it is more stable. Once a consensus develops about the desirability of a particular course of action, whether it be programmatic or procedural, it is accepted as right and proper and is not easily thwarted by party leaders, even when one of them is the President.” In contrast, “the Republican Party is more likely to change directions when it changes leaders.”
It's interesting how the Democratic Party has been able to convince people they are the progressive party when in reality the party moves at a glacial pace on change and adheres to dogma much more than the agile Republican Party, which is much more interested in championing new ideas and approaches. The core of the Democratic Party platform has not changed in decades. They fiddle around the edges but the message has been practically the same since 1964: workers, race relations, unions, socialism, equity (not equality). This platform and the ability of the Democrats to sell it has been effective, mostly, since 1964, but we're now seeing a massive change in America. The American public is no longer interested in buying what the Democrats are selling. They can't afford it. And because of the very structures outlined in the article, the Democrats are having a hard time changing direction.
Cool. Who won the last election? And three of the last four?
I'd argue the opposite is true: the Dem structure basically guarantees a minimum of appeal. When the platform becomes too unpopular, some entrepreneurial political leader is bound to notice that power is being traded at pennies for dollars, bring their constituency in, and seize some space for himself in exchange for new blood, new voters, and new ideas.
While the Rep structure is basically entirely reliant on the dominant faction to have the finger on the pulse of public opinion. Since the internal struggle is far from a popularity context, it does not select for this quality in leaders. That's how you end up with a tycoon bashing the unemployed 4 years from the financial crisis.
Even when, out of sheer luck, a leader in touch with public opinion emerges, they have to sell voters the far from credible commitment to ignore the patronage network that put them in power in the first place, and that's how you get a canditate spending half of their time trying to dissociate themselves from the decisions of the judges he himself appointed
The Republican and Democratic parties used to be decentralized mass-member parties operating in a meaningfully politically and economically decentralized system where they formed the basis for that system's democratic governance structures. Now their fully centralized, centrally managed parties in a centralized system that has very little policy variability.
Beyond union activism, are there any (remaining) MAGA-like constituent groups floating around the Democratic universe? You’d think they’d finally be getting some action but clearly, it’s constituents all the way down.
In short, Republicans have a winner-take-all-system while Democrats are an Oligarchic coalition. Sounds like if there is ever a 'Caesar' figure like FDR again, he will most certainly be a Republican due to structural reasons.
RNC - the church + grifters
DNC - Feudalism + sharecroppers
This reflects the money flows. The left has many sources of money, patronage, and a variety of supporting institutions, and their political structure mirrors this. People are bringing their own chips to the table.
The right has none of this. No supporting institutions. So the entire infrastructure depends on the party itself.
> No supporting institutions.
Well, there's the NRA. But aside from that.
Yup. The best they can do is one issue groups—like anti-Abortion was until Roe was done. FedSoc is a general one. Fox is an extension of the party. But they have no Harvard, nyt, ford foundation, SPLC, ACLU, Yale, Princeton, all of which are loaded and bring their own capital.
The Republican lack of institutional support is a function of the fact that people who enter such institutions don't tend to become Republicans. Because if you take the default message of modern Occidental society seriously, that all groups are inherently equal in abilities, you will be increasingly unlikely to join a right-wing political party.
The key is correcting this erroneous thinking. Only then will the lopsidedness with which elites join left-wing political parties have any hope of correction.
Of course, it should also be possible for hereditarians to form a constituent group within the Dems and press for bottom-up change. But our views are so anathemical to post-WWII left-wing politics, we would make ourselves the enemies of everyone else in the party. I think it should be pressed all the same, but I would be very surprised to see it work with the Dems before the Reps.
I was interested in the description of protest movements starting on the outside and then becoming mainstream within the Democratic Party. I wonder if that will be the path of the anti-Israel protests.
That would be the smart move if they wanted to have real influence in the party moving forward BUT a lot of these groups are tied to what you might call the "hard left" school of American politics that's long held ambivalent relationship at best to electoral politics in general and the Democratic Party in particular. A much more likely scenario is they just collapse into obscurity a lot like Ralph Nader's "movement" did after the 2000 election.
Ironically enough, I think the Republican style of party politics is somewhat similar to the way Soviet Communists did things.
There is another characteristic, Stage, that is at work here: Dem presidential debates almost never have differences on the issues; they presume every candidate has the same general goals. Republican presidential debates are full of issue disagreement.
Also, congressional Dems always have to fear defection from their right. And congressional Rs also have to fear defection from their right.
You might find the research article by Matt Grossman linked to in footnote 8 to be of interest--one of the themes of it is that (pre-Trump at least) most Republicans identified their party with *ideas* whereas democrats identified their party with *identity groups.* If you think of your party affiliation as being about ideas, it make sense debates would focus on disagreements there.
Also, Dems have a much more diverse constituency -what is in common between Detroit and Bloomfield Hills?
Great article.
One thing that might be changing with the Democrats that folks like Matt Yglesias have pointed out is that the declining strength of organized labor (and American labor unios are a classic example of constituent type political groups) overall means that a key role they used to play in providing money, organizing "muscle", and a sense of practical politicking are increasingly being taken over by a nebulous and hazy mix of major funders, nonprofits, and foundations and crucial the typically well educated, young professional types who work at those sorts of organizations.
This might have major impacts in the long run as there's a difference between being say a union president who ultimately has to go back to membership and explain why you endorsed someone and how say some grant officers who have to go back to Mark Zuckerberg and explain why you did what you did might operate.
Recently a wealthy business associate (historically involved with GOP politics) remarked to me "you'd be shocked at how few decision-makers there are in the Republican party. It's basically a half dozen mega donors who control everything." This articles jibes.
This is the key to understanding the two parties:
"There are advantages and disadvantages to both operational cultures. “In the short run [Democratic political culture] appears disruptive,” Freeman argues, but in the long run “it is more stable. Once a consensus develops about the desirability of a particular course of action, whether it be programmatic or procedural, it is accepted as right and proper and is not easily thwarted by party leaders, even when one of them is the President.” In contrast, “the Republican Party is more likely to change directions when it changes leaders.”
It's interesting how the Democratic Party has been able to convince people they are the progressive party when in reality the party moves at a glacial pace on change and adheres to dogma much more than the agile Republican Party, which is much more interested in championing new ideas and approaches. The core of the Democratic Party platform has not changed in decades. They fiddle around the edges but the message has been practically the same since 1964: workers, race relations, unions, socialism, equity (not equality). This platform and the ability of the Democrats to sell it has been effective, mostly, since 1964, but we're now seeing a massive change in America. The American public is no longer interested in buying what the Democrats are selling. They can't afford it. And because of the very structures outlined in the article, the Democrats are having a hard time changing direction.
Cool. Who won the last election? And three of the last four?
I'd argue the opposite is true: the Dem structure basically guarantees a minimum of appeal. When the platform becomes too unpopular, some entrepreneurial political leader is bound to notice that power is being traded at pennies for dollars, bring their constituency in, and seize some space for himself in exchange for new blood, new voters, and new ideas.
While the Rep structure is basically entirely reliant on the dominant faction to have the finger on the pulse of public opinion. Since the internal struggle is far from a popularity context, it does not select for this quality in leaders. That's how you end up with a tycoon bashing the unemployed 4 years from the financial crisis.
Even when, out of sheer luck, a leader in touch with public opinion emerges, they have to sell voters the far from credible commitment to ignore the patronage network that put them in power in the first place, and that's how you get a canditate spending half of their time trying to dissociate themselves from the decisions of the judges he himself appointed
The Republican and Democratic parties used to be decentralized mass-member parties operating in a meaningfully politically and economically decentralized system where they formed the basis for that system's democratic governance structures. Now their fully centralized, centrally managed parties in a centralized system that has very little policy variability.
Beyond union activism, are there any (remaining) MAGA-like constituent groups floating around the Democratic universe? You’d think they’d finally be getting some action but clearly, it’s constituents all the way down.
What do you think has been the goal of the Pali deathcultists?
Interesting. This is like comparing Burger King with McDonalds: Neither wants that comparison but it’s hard to miss.
In short, Republicans have a winner-take-all-system while Democrats are an Oligarchic coalition. Sounds like if there is ever a 'Caesar' figure like FDR again, he will most certainly be a Republican due to structural reasons.