Posted by: Andy | February 21, 2008

time for 4 political parties?

OK, 5 if you count the standard independents. 6 if you want to be nice and count the Greens. But realistically, I don’t think either of those two groups will ever count for anything. Sure, I hope they will, but I have zero expectations.

So what am I talking about with this 4 party thing? Well, this round of primaries has showcased pretty strongly the division lines within the parties.

1. Conservatives – Reaganites, favor little government, don’t care too much about the religious/moral issues in a political sense, but will cater to that audience because it goes along with their basic beliefs and they want the votes! People who would, if not pressured, be able to make policy decisions without adhering to a religious mandate. John McCain & (I think) Mitt Romney & maybe Ron Paul would all probably fall here. Favor restrained spending & less government.  The (very few!?) atheist conservatives would of course wind up here.

2. Neocons – Bushites. The modern, religiously-focused, Republicans. Huckabee would obivously be here. Has at least a 20% share of the Repub party, if not more. Seem to favor big government, big spending (spend now, pay later).

3. Classic Democrats – Pro-aggression/war, favor classical Democrat (big government) stances, like playing the politics game the way it’s always been played. Only has value stances because that’s the stances they have taken historically. Both Clintons go here. Richardson probably too. Could possibly be called “conservative” Democrats because they tend to favor some Republican flavored policies.

4. Modern Democrats – anti-war, not afraid to rock the boat. Younger constituents tend to favor this group. They are tired of the “the way the game is played” and not afraid to try new policies and standpoints. Obama & expensive haircut guy (forgot his name all of a sudden) go here.

Yeah so I haven’t really thought this through at all, and I’m not a poly sci major or anything like that so DON’T TAKE THIS TOO SERIOUSLY! But, I think if you at least think about it from a party-split point of view, you can make it make some kind of mental sense.

Different parties would ally with different parties over different issues – hell the Neocon & MoDem parties might even team up on poverty issues, they seem to be the main ones that care. (Yes, Clinton wants healthcare for everyone, but she wants to force people who can’t afford it to pay somehow. Hmmm….).

The Neocons & the Modems would be the “values” parties – both having an actual value set (pretty much diametrically opposed: anti vs. pro gay, pro-life vs. pro-choice, etc.). The other two will just swing whatever way their constituent and/or lobbyist base does.



%d bloggers like this: