Two party system

We have to remember that the most important thing to a candidate is to get elected, and continually be re-elected to a position. Through the two party system candidates, political elites, and interest groups have found a way to centralize that power, and use it to reach there ultimate goal. I feel that the two-party dominated system is actually a good thing for politics. Albeit this factious system is not what the founders intended, it actually has morphed into something workable that reflects American society very well. The idea that there are different factions in each party compliments the idea of checks and balances because these different factions all have a different median voter, and they end up balancing each other out. The same happens on a larger scale between the two major parties. Today, the two party system works well because I feel that many of the issues have just two different possible solutions and that is why we have two different parties. The Iraq war, for instance, we can either get out or stay. And the two party system allows for the two different views to join together and fight for what they believe in.

Lynn Cheney. Go back to Wyoming.

I am having trouble finding a topic for this week so I will speak about something that really angers me. Did anyone see Lynn Cheney on the Daily Show this week? I am so tired of these Republican conservatives and there double standards. First of all who cares about your childhood in Wyoming, we don’t want to read your book ma’am. She tries to be “cool” with the Darth Vader doll, but it goes down hill after that. It’s funny that Dick has his wife come on the show because he doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to come on the show and explain his actions for himself. John Stewart tries to joke, but it is a very awkward interview. I am listening as I am blogging; it is disturbing. I love when he talks about the gay marriage thing. It should be appropriate to talk about. YOU conservatives say that it is wrong, but when your child engages in these actions it is okay. This is not what the founders of our constitution would have wanted. “Mary is a good honorable person”, well stay out of peoples homes and let them do what they want. “Opposing gay Marriage is wrong,” well well well. How can I tie this into parties class? This has been the Republican MO. Do as I say and Not as I do!!!!! Lynn we don’t care. I love when she talks about how the history books will view this presidency/VP/ Thing. When the history books come out she will be married to the 2nd worst person in American History. Dick Cheney. The first being the child president from Texas. Check it Out! This is the Direction our country is going.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=111468&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

links corresponding to blog post below

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/1191313303257540.xml&coll=2

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061116/NEWS/611160383/-1/State

Conditional Party Government and the Dems in '06

In Aldrich and Rohde’s The Transition to Republican Rule in the House…, they argue that conditional party government is an “explanation of the impact of political parties on behavior within the legislature.” These conditions are met within the Republican house in 1994, and they make many points as to how and why Newt/and/or/Republicans were so successful in centralizing power and finally influencing outcomes of legislation in the House. While this hypothesis holds true for the ‘94 Republicans, I feel that the transition to Democratic Rule in the House in 1996 is a much different situation not granting the Democrats with an ingrained ability to meet the conditions of “Conditional Party Government.” Because the conditions are not met, the Democrats are left with less power than the Republicans. First, we must analyze the two conditions of the “conditional party government.” The first condition is that there must be inter-party heterogeneity, meaning that a line must be clearly drawn in the sand with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. Heterogeneity is not occurring between the two parties. If we look at the federal level of politics, and we will assume that House members will jump on the coattails of one of the candidates, the conservative Christians are willing to support a third party candidate if the primary winner is pro-abortion. This move of Republican candidates to distance themselves from the norm of being Pro-life is a direct assault on the heterogeneity principle. It is making the distinction between Democrat and Republican blurry, and unclear. The second condition is that there must be intra-party homogeneity. This means that the democrats must have a unified front, and agree on basic principles. The Republicans may not have had a unified front, but Newt didn’t allow divisive issues to the floor, and these divisive issues would clearly show the cleavages/weak spots of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party in ’06 does not have homogeneity. The blue dog coalition is a group of fiscally conservative democrats, mostly from the South, who have 44 seats in the house (almost 45 but Christine Jennings of Florida (D) is still crying about a seat that she thinks she won, but lost-see article). These blue dogs are creating a large faction in the House that has enough clout to make roadblocks in legislation. Since they account for 44 votes they must be made happy if anything will pass in the House, and this decentralizes power creating a more heterogeneous Democratic Party. So the difference between the Republicans of ’94 and the Democrats of ’06 is that the Republicans were able to meet the conditions of “conditional party government,” thus creating a centralization of power which gave them the ability to affect outcomes in the House. The Democrats do not have this power, and will have a much more difficult time passing helpful legislation.