Why are Democrats so much more united than Republicans?
A good question, one asked by commenter “Cornhead” in the Republican unity thread:
But why are the Dems so united? They rarely ”“ if ever ”“ break ranks. Nebraska’s Ben Nelson was a perfect example. Conservative state but he voted for Obamacare and every single Dem bill.
The thread is loaded with answers from other commenters to that question, and well worth reading.
But here’s mine:
(1) Democrats are far more wedded to ends justify means, and less wedded to the specifics of justifying their personal ideology and beliefs.
(2) Many Democrats see progressivism as a movement, almost like a religion. As such, they follow their leaders for what they see as the greater good.
(3) The Democratic Party has been engaged for quite some time in (successfully) purging its more moderate members. So it really IS more united than the GOP, because the outliers have either left politics or come over to the GOP.
(4) The Democratic leadership plays hardball (more so than the Republican leadership), and those who would defect realize that they probably wouldn’t have a very lengthy political future.
Think about it. The right focuses more on individualism (rugged or otherwise), the left on collectivism. Doesn’t it follow that members of the left would be more inclined to submerge their individual beliefs for what they see as the good of the collective (the party, in this case) than members of the right would? This represents a personality difference as well as a difference of philosophy, and as such both are internal motivations to do what the party leaders say. But there are also external reasons (for example, numbers 3 and 4 above) that play into the phenomenon and foster party unity for Democrats as well.
Those tendencies and coercions toward party unity have been more successful within the US left in recent years. But the drive for unity has had to push against the tendency of radical groups to splinter. Here’s a humorous depiction of the latter:
I am sorry to sound like a broken record but its the media. The democrat party gets a pass on so many things that repubs don’t.
So they can be strongarm or dirty as hell and they know that if the media has a choice to run a story that might hurt the dems or ignore it, they will ignore it.
The dems are spoiled rotten now. They can get away with kissing the Russians asss for 8 years, then flip 180, and scream we are Russian stooges in one day, and no one in the media questions it, nope they jump in and support it evidence or no.
Over a long period of time, Democrats know they can get away with any hypocrisy, or subvert federal laws ala sanctuary cities, then turnaround and demand we all follow federal laws, and to hell with your local laws, whenever they feelz it.
So of course its easier for them to hang together, if they dont like their current position, they can change it tomorrow, and not even their voters will say a word, because no one is going to hold them accountable.
The Democratic Party is more a tribe than a party.
Democrats are typically more disciplined than the GOP for a several reasons. First, there is a strong tribal element in their party absent from the GOP. Second, they are united by their lust for power, for control of everyone else in the U.S. Third, their entire lives depend upon being in power, as not one in ten of them has ever had a non-political job, let alone a career (and no, NGO “work” doesn’t count). Fourth, I’ve suspected for a long time that J. Edgar Hoover’s files with dirt of everyone in D.C. was taken up the someone in the Democrat Party. Why else would all the news media – just for one example – stop talking about Trump being in Russia’s pocket and there’s intelligence material that proves it, when someone points out in the real media that that kind of proves Trump’s claim that he was being spied on during the election? Too complete a change in “The Narrative”, too sudden a change, to be anything other than centrally directed with something powerful to back up the directions, like Hoover’s files and being cut off from the federal government’s money pot.
I do think the media plays a part in this by blowing up every Republican disagreement and then harping on it over and over which causes the differences to grow as more and more Republicans are forced to comment on it.
On the other side like Jim above said the Democrats are given a free pass on all differences and hypocrisies which make it easier for these to stay out of the public narrative.
This is not to say that Republicans aren’t more divided only that their divisions are constantly highlighted which tends to make them worse over time.
neo-neocon writes, “Many Democrats see progressivism as a movement, almost like a religion.”
Wellll, delete “almost”.
In fact, delete “almost like”.
There — it’s on target now.
“Democratic Party”
When did the democrats become the democratics?
because the republicans are an alliance of many different fractions with different beliefs united total for some common principles, the democrats is totalitarian. Compare reality to Star Wars, the left is the empire while the right is the old republic.
“Democratic Party”
When did the democrats become the democratics?
Ray: It’s a name going back to Madison and Jefferson’s “Democratic-Republican Party.”
Conservatives say “Democrat Party” just to annoy Democrats. I find it a stupid and petty practice.
Which isn’t to say Democrats don’t do plenty of stupid and petty things to annoy Republicans.
neo offers a good list of reasons for Democratic unity.
I’d bump the “religion” aspect up to #1 because the left is a secular religion which infected then absorbed the liberal Democratic Party.
You can’t get pithier than Iowahawk:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
The Republican party was pretty much in unity against most of Obama’s legislation. Certainly against Obamacare. So the real question is why are they sometimes unable to unite around a bill? The reason they could not for healthcare is because the main goal was to repeal Obamacare rather than replace it. They did not have a replacement or a goal to pass a bill. While the Democrats have wanted a healthcare bill for a long time. It was a goal and Obama got it passed when Democrats had majority.
Victor Hugo claimed that, “One cannot resist an idea whose time has come…”
New religions that seize the public’s fancy, burn fiercely.
The liberal left, in abandoning Judeo/Christian precepts was faced with a vacuum and human nature must have something beyond itself to believe in with ‘progressive’ Marxist-socialism the only ideology that was available to act as a substitute.
That it is inherently totalitarian and unsustainable is a truth relentlessly refused, since having rejected religious belief, the remaining alternative is nihilism. While scapegoats can always be found to excuse its repeated and invariable failures. Nothing is as inviolable as a religion’s dogmas because they form the foundational pillars upon which its theology rests.
Montage: It’s also true that Obamacare, by design or lack of foresight, was cast in concrete so repealing it is a leap into the abyss.
My take is Trump considers Obamacare such a clusterf*** that he just wanted to get past it while he gets on with jumpstarting the economy.
If the bill had passed, fine. It would give Trump time and a rationale for tax cuts. If not, he’s content to let Obamacare blow up — you can count on that — then pick up the pieces later.
Another gloss on Neo’s “Many Democrats see progressivism as a movement, almost like a religion.”:
Sort of. I think it’s more precise to say, as a couple of people say above, that it *is* a religion, in practical terms. But they don’t see it as one. That’s part of why it’s so powerful. It’s so much a part of the way they see the world that they don’t realize they’re doing anything but looking at simple obvious reality.
As for the unity question: I don’t know whether the Dems as a party are or are not more unified than the Republicans, but I do know that every single liberal-leftist I know is very proud and confident of him/herself as an independent thinker. The unconsciously-held religion is part of the reason that they can think so. They all just happen to come to the same conclusions because these are the conclusions that smart people naturally come to, because they are true.
Victor Hugo claimed that, “One cannot resist an idea whose time has come…”
GB: Be still my beating heart!
Back in the late 70s/early 80s I was a true-blue Werner Erhard kiddie out to share the gospel of transformation.
Werner used that Hugo quote to launch the Hunger Project intended to end world hunger by 1996, though later amended to 2000.
Ending world hunger was close to my heart but quickly I learned the Hunger Project was not about feeding people, but doing massive PR to “create a context” for ending world hunger. Plus, not so incidentally, to burnish Werner’s credentials as a good guy.
I was one of the early shock troops getting people to sign cards and make donations. But it was a bridge too far and the beginning of the end of my involvement.
They are bullied into it. If they step off the reservation, they are no longer in their tribe…. The right have their own minds and opinions, and are more accepting of others opinions.
“The right focuses more on individualism (rugged or otherwise), the left on collectivism. Doesn’t it follow that members of the left would be more inclined to submerge their individual beliefs for what they see as the good of the collective (the party, in this case) than members of the right would?” – Neo
The premise of the question that the dems are more consistently “united” than conservatives is flawed, as it may be more a frame of view than actual measurable fact.
From our side of the fence, it may seem so, perhaps because we here (as more politically interested individuals) are more focused on and personally bought into the conservative positions and legislative outcomes.
But, talk to those who are on the other side, and they’d observe that conservatives seem more “united” (at least the ones I encounter).
.
We can come up with all kinds of explanations for what we see from our side. No doubt it makes some sense. But, IDK how accurate it all is.
Just did a search on the topic and near the top was this, making the opposite case to our premise…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/16/democrats-policies-are-more-popular-but-republicans-are-more-ideologically-unified/
Evidently, there is readily available info that may refute or make rather debatable our premise about the “unitedness” of dems.
“quickly I learned the Hunger Project was not about feeding people, but doing massive PR to “create a context” for ending world hunger. Plus, not so incidentally, to burnish Werner’s credentials as a good guy.” – huxley
Lived in a city that had a “Food Bank” like operation. The founder declared to want to “end hunger in the city”, by giving away food. His “proof” of the “need” was the mass of people lining up every day.
What struck me with the approach is the complete misunderstanding of the economic model of their/his approach.
“Free” has unlimited demand. It creates those massive line ups.
The “proof” is probably a conflation those who are “truly needy” with those who may well be living near the margins but couldn’t turn down such a “bargain”.
Incidentally, he was also looking for “public funding” from the city.
Nobody really wants people to go hungry, but the man cleverly put anyone into the difficult position of looking “heartless” in opposing public funding for his home grown program, especially in a world where they are already many government programs aimed at this problem directly and indirectly.
So, yes, seems like social signalling and perhaps (minor) empire building.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove