Democrats getting more liberal? Republicans getting more conservative??

When thinking about political parties, we normally think of conservative Republicans making a big slash on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But can it be said that the Democratic party is continuously getting more liberal? As we discussed recently in class the political spectrum, the conservative Republicans would be found on the far right of the spectrum and the liberal Democrats would be found on the far left. Based on recent polls done by Pew Research Center from the years 1987-2012 Democrats as a group have moved farther to the left.

One might ask what is so different about liberal Democrats than moderate Democrats? Well there can be some similarities but there are certainly more differences as their views are normally much more intense. Although the number of liberal Democrats is in the minority at 34 percent and the moderate/conservative Democrats hold the other 63 percent, it seems that the liberals are picking up steam for the 2016 election. This can be found in the last election where New Hampshire liberal Democrats made up 56 percent of primary voters and in Iowa made up 53 percent. With their place in popular sway states it can be said that differences will be made. On the other side, conservative Republicans make up 67 percent in the GOP with 32 percent being the moderate or liberal Republicans, showing them land on the far right of the political spectrum.

Some of the differences between liberal and moderate/conservative Democrats are not only ideological, but are also demographic. It is said that most women and white voters will lean to the liberal side, and it is also said that they are more educated. On the other hand moderate and conservative Democrats are more often male, poorer, less educated, and African American or Latino. 

I would like to point out the major differences between the liberals and the moderates. Most liberals do not believe that people can make it by just tying hard. Most of these voters are looking for government handouts and things along that line. Also liberals tend to care less about the budget at hand while that is a pretty important subject for anyone else involved in politics. Most strongly are in favor of same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and citizenship for immigrants looking to attain it. And the last point I will make is the majority of liberals are not a fan of military strength but peace, which is different from the other Democrats. The liberals are mostly in favor of president Obama and his policies including the Affordable Care Act. 

My question to the group is do you believe that this shift in the Democrats political spectrum will have an impact on upcoming elections both on local and national levels? Do you believe these polls are correct or could they be a misrepresentation of information? I'd love to hear your opinions, thank you.

Zach Stephenson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/are-the-democrats-getting-too-liberal/2014/02/28/c0d42d7c-8d26-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/2014/02/28/are-the-democrats-getting-too-liberal/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/03/01/are_the_democrats_getting_too_liberal_326793.html

Rand Paul, a party savior?

I'm a registered Republican, and let me say, sometimes its hard to have that affiliation in America today. While I agree with a lot of conservative economic values and a conservative approach to government , I cant get past the social conservatism of many of the mainstream Republican candidates that take the spotlight on a national stage. I, like many other young Republicans and Libertarians would much rather see politicians reign in the deficit and fix the economy than worry about legislating morality. The anti abortion and anti gay rhetoric often propagated by some members of the GOP has only helped to turn away young voters, like myself while the Democratic Party has increased its youth base.

During the past election I had the chance to campaign for a great politician in the Republican Primary, Ron Paul, but unfortunately, even from the start most in his organization new that he would have little chance to compete nationally. As I think back to some the candidates and politicians that have been the faces of our party for the past couple years I think of Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and Rick Santorum and I have no trouble seeing why Republicans get made to look like idiots on a consistent basis. Not only do Republicans often make themselves seem like bigots with their anti abortion anti gay rhetoric, but they somehow are able to forget their Ivy League educations whenever they get behind a microphone. MERICA'. While there are so many intelligent and polished Republicans that the party could choose to push to the podium, for some reason this just dosent happen.

For this reason I'm excited looking forward to the 2016 election. I'm excited by the thought that Senator Rand Paul may step forward as a competitive presidential candidate. Today it became public that Senator Paul has made efforts with the Kentucky State legislature to clarify election law, which would allow him to run for a Senate position and the presidency at the same time, just as Lydon B. Johnson did. This sign of a 2016 presidential campaign is very exciting to me and others who have been waiting for a savior for the Republican party.

 In early straw polls Paul has fared well, and I believe that he may be the man to unite Libertarian and Republican voters to take the presidency. Paul has been an outspoken advocate for the Constitution and conservative spending practices and could surely do wonders for the Republican Party image when given the spotlight of a presidential election. Paul would also surely help to promote the Republican Party to young voters, a demographic that his father, former presidential candidate Ron Paul, had a large following with in 2012.

I tend to agree with some of the political junkies that say nobody will beat Hillary Clinton if she decides to run, but at least Rand Paul's presence in the Republican Party spotlight in 2016 could serve to right the ship and move issues of true importance onto the party's radar.

Only time will tell, and until then all we can do is speculate and hope.



UPDATE: 3/8/2014

So later in the week after my original post Rand Paul spoke at the CPAC conference and won the CPAC straw poll by a strong margin. This is very encouraging because many "establishment" Republicans did not fair well in comparison. He has gotten a lot of media attention over this speech, I suggest you take a look.

Can we just live in harmony?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/02/1280725/-Economic-conservatives-take-religious-conservatives-for-suckers

Why do we feel so strongly against a person who is different from us? Like the saying says "opposites attract" but in this day and age almost all people we give our attention to share common interest? Think to yourself if someone walking into a coffee shop and sparked  a conversation with you but had all opposite views. Would you still talk to them? Would you persecute them? Would you stereotype them and call them names". But now think of it like this "why cant we love people for who they are as a person not if they are homosexual or not"? Will Arizona law be changed?

Politics and Culture among other things..

Politics and Culture

Have you ever heard of the news station shows such as: Huckabee? Rachel Maddow? Anderson Cooper or even Piers Morgan Live? Well if you watch MSNBC or Fox news you are bound to see these shows and subsequently be subjected to the views of these anchors for their respective news outlets. What I want to point out in this blog is the question of how politics and culture are intertwined. Or are they?

Even now and again someone from a major network has a slip up and the rest of the media grabs onto it. Taking a look at someone in particular would be Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan took over Larry King's 9pm time slot in 2011. Morgan has been an outspoken advocate for tighter gun control especially after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. Piers has gone on record on his show numerous times with panelists for and against gun control and has argued his stance on the issue as well. As some of you may know by now, Piers Morgan will be leaving the air as early as next month. My question is that since his show was sheerly political, does it make sense that his culture directly reflects his political views? I believe it does and to be frank it doesn't bother me. I am a firm believer on everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be respected. Piers Morgan obviously comes from a much different culture with different ideas and philosophies in which he lives by.

Conversely on the other side of the aisle if you will is Fox News. Fox is putting on programs such as Huckabee and Hannity. Culturally, these two men are very different from Morgan. Hannity and Huckabee are much more conservative in ideology than Morgan. What my thought is that culture and political ideology have a correlation. I am not making a bold claim here just suggesting that culture has a bigger role in politics than we tend to lead on. Being from the UK, Morgan has a much different outlook on guns than Huckabee and Sean Hannity. What we see in todays media is a constant battle for ratings and market share. It is in the best interest for news outlets to put polarizing views of a certain topic in order to stir conversation. 

My last thought on the matter is acceptance. It is my thought that the different sides of the political aisle are to eager to jump down each others throats about any picayune thing. My question to pose to the class is that would it be better to simply accept others views, disagree with them and move on? You don’t have to watch Fox or MSNBC at any particular moment but what we can do is stop bickering and fix real world problems. Not a call for bi-partisan support on everything but being more human about things.

Arkin, Daniel. "CNN Cancels 'Piers Morgan Live' After Three Years." NBC News. MSNBC, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

"'Piers Morgan Live' to Be Canceled by CNN as Early as next Month, Network Says." NY Daily News. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

"Hannity with Sean Hannity." Fox News. FOX News Network, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

Why the assault on the 2nd Amendment? Lets have a "war" on mental illness, joblessness and poverty instead

It is pretty unclear to me why there is such an assault in this country on gun rights. While I understand that people want to see less gun related deaths, I must ask why so much blame is put on the inanimate objects whose related rights are guaranteed us in the Constitution's Second Amendment. Does it not take someone to pull the trigger? Why isn't more blame put on the shoulders of the individual and less on that of the gun? I'm fully suprised that we haven't come to the point in this country where we incarcerate the gun and allow the criminal to walk free (sarcasm).

 To fully understand gun crime in our country why not look at the statistics. Even as gun ownership and the production of guns has risen over the past decade, gun crimes have fallen. While the mass shootings that captivate the media are tragic and very disheartening for sure, they are also a rarity, and since nearly half of these killers obtain their guns illegally, gun control wouldn't solve this problem. Furthermore, the perpetrators most often suffer from serious mental illness which might speak more towards poor mental health treatment in the United States, than a need for gun control. Of the nearly 32,000 gun deaths each year, about 60% are attributed to suicides. That means 19,200 of the 32,000 gun deaths each year are from suicide. Again, Id suggest that this speaks more towards poor mental health treatment in America than a need for gun control. If someone really wants to kill themselves, couldn't they turn to a bottle of pills or other means, if guns were unavailable? Another 3% of gun deaths are attributed to accidents leaving only 34% of guns deaths, or around 11,000 deaths each year to actual gun crime. Of these 11,000 deaths each year nearly 80% of deaths are part of gang violence in large metropolitan areas with high poverty. Gun control wouldn't help here either because these guns are being obtained illegally. What probably would help is if we invested in America and brought manufacturing jobs back to some of the large metropolitan cities that suffer from gang violence like Detroit and Chicago. Jobs would be a hell of a lot more effective in curbing gun violence then gun control would be. This leaves about 2,200 gun deaths each year that aren't related to gang violence. 2,200 deaths from guns in a country of 314,000,000 people! In a country where there are approximately 250,000,000 firearms! (Check out the stats Here) It can also be reasonably be considered that out of these 2,200 homicides, a considerable portion of killers would have used other means had guns been unavailable.

This means that 1 in every 142,727 people was killed by non gang related gun violence in America. If you take gangs out of the consideration gun crime really isn't the huge issue that the pundits make it out to be. I think we as a country should take a harder look at the mental health services and inner city poverty to combat the gun crime numbers in America rather then looking towards legislation to solve our problems. While I don't usually agree with the pundits to the right or left, I think the gun lobby hit the nail on the head when speaking on gun control "criminals don't follow laws".

New Hampshire is a great illustration of why guns aren't the problem. New Hampshire is a state where gun ownership is well above the national average, yet gun crime is well below the national average. In fact New Hampshire, a state with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation  and one of the highest rates of gun ownership has the second lowest gun crime rate in the country, second only to Hawaii.

A war on guns would only serve to take guns away from citizens who a majority of are law abiding citizens, however if we were to have a "war" on mental illness or a "war" on poverty and joblessness to decrease gang violence, I think we might be able to get closer to solving the gun violence problems America suffers from. Much like many of the platform issues in this country gun control is an issue propagated by the media that only serves to distract us from the real issues that America faces.

Political Party History in New Hampshire

 This is from an article Dr. Egbert and I wrote for State Party Profiles: A 50-State Guide to Development, Organization, and Resources, Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward, eds. for CQ Press, 1997.

Political Parties in New Hampshire reflect the enduring characteristics of the state: a homogeneous population, a moderately high level of economic prosperity, dominance by a narrow range of political interests, and a traditional and amateur governmental structure. New Hampshire, with a population less than 2% racial minority and ethnic minorities that have tended to be as conservative as the majority white populatioon, has endured few deep and lasting cleavages among its major groups. The state has no large cities, few large employers, and no dominant industry. Interests such as railroads, newspapers, textile manufacturing, lumber, and tourism have been dominant only in alliances with one another rather than individually. The structure of government, especially the amateur nature of the 424 member legislature, has made party organization difficult. Consequently, the state has had a one-party system except during a few transitional periods. Further, dominance by a single party has made strong organization difficult for the minority party and unnecessary for the party in the majority. The recent switch to a Democratic Majority bodes change for the state's party structucture.

PARTY HISTORY

Several themes run through the history of New Hampshire political parties: dominance by a single party, strong party organization and competition only during transitional periods, cycles of corruption and reform, the influence of coalitions of powerful interests, and the impact of strong personalities.

At first, New Hampshire was among the strongest of the Federalist states; the state's Puritan Congregationalism was synonymous with the Federalist Party. Most town charters required that land be set aside to build a church, the state constitution required towns to support a Congregational minister, and public office was restricted to Protestants (Heffernana and Stecher 1981, 103).

Federalists began to lose support in the granite State when their reckless abuse of power became evident in the Union Bank fight of 1800. John Langdon, a Democrat-Republican, organized a new bank which made small loans on easy terms. The state legislature refused to charter Langdon's bank since the state owned a considerable interest in the state's only bank, the New Hampshire Bank. Langdon and the Democratic-Republicans, unable to obtain loans at the New Hampshire Bank, paralyed this into a hard-fought campaign alleging the denial of the charter was just "another piece of Federalist intolerance." (Robinson, 1916, 30).

In 1806 the Democratic-Republican Party became the majority party. New Hampshire's people were ideologically much more closely aligned to the party of Jefferson, so the change is not surprising. During the transitional period after the turn of the century, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans created permanent hierarchical organizations. The latter, still using the legislative caucus for nominations, created a "Grand Committee of Elections and Correspondence" and subordinate local bodies, and the existing New Hampshire Gazette (which continues publishing today) became the party organ. The grand committee appointed and controlled county committees, which in turn appointed and controlled town committees (Robinson 1916, 63).

Bitter conflict between the parties was in evidence when the newly empowered Democratic-Republicn legislature took over Dartmouth College as a state university, revising its governance and relieving former Federalist trustees of the property and records of the institution. Daniel Webster represented the trustees in court to reverse what Jager and jager (1983, 58) referred to as this "novel process of creative theft." The decision against teh trustees in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was reversed by the Federalsit-leaning United States Supreme Court (Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 [1819]), which found the legislature's actions in violation of the impairment of contracts clause of Art. I, sec. 10.

The transfer of power from the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to the Jacksonian Democrats was complete in New Hampshire by about 1835. Important political figures, of former or later national stature, behind the Democratic Party organization in the state included Isaac Hill, editor, U.S. senator, and governor; Levi Woodbury, governor, U.S. senator, secretary of the navy and the Treasury, and justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Franklin Pierce, W.S. senator and later president of the United States. Jacksonian Democrats brought the spirit of reform to the state, and New Hampshire became a leader in the treatment of the insane, prison reform, public education, religious toleration, improved working conditions, and abolition of imprisonment for debt. The Democrats replaced "king caucus" with the state party convention and solidified their power by controlling most newspapers in the state.

The next transitional period began as the Democratic Party split into two conflicting wings in 1842. Independent Democrats, Whigs and abolitionists combined to control the legislature in 1846. Reform efforts continued as railroads and other large interests were subject to state regulation. The issue of slavery unified the remnants of the Whig Party, the Free Soilers, the Know Nothings, rebellious Democrats, and other smaller groups to provide the basis for the Republican Party. In 1853 Amos Tuck called a meeting at his home in Exeter, New Hampshire, where those invited claimed to have conceived and named the Republican Party (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). The Republicans elected their first governor in 1857, and in the 150 years since, only seven Democrats have occupied the New Hampshire executive office.

Following the Civil War, Republican hegemony supported rampant corruption and huge increases in political spending. William Chandler, former owner of the New Hampshire Statesman and Concord Monitor, while serving in the U.S. Senate chronicled the heightened role of political money at the time. he wrote that big money first appeared in 1882, when railroads began to spend "immense" amounts (Chandler 1898, 8). The state party supported candidates directly, and the state committee chair had the discretion to dispense all state party funds (Chadler 1898, 13). Some recipients signed contracts: "In consideration of one hundred dollars, I agree to vote as the maker and prior endorser [party chair, railroad, etc.] of this draft may direct" (Chandler 1898, 15). Free railroad passes and retainers for lawyers were provided openly. By 1907, critic Frank Putnam would write that the man who really governed New Hampshire was "the president of the Boston and Maine Railroad" (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). Republican ascendance in this era did not translate into party government. There was an absence of clear party ideology and organization. Tradition, slogans, "strong personalities, enormous egos and ambitions both broad and narrow fired the political system" (Wright 1987, 53).

New Hampshire joined the progressive movement by passing legislation curbing free railroad passes in 1907. In 1909 the legislature voted to require reporting of legislative concerns and expenditures of lobbyists, to require use of the direct primary to nominate party candidates. Progressives were the first to understand and take advantage of the new nomination process, electing Robert Bass as governor in 1910. Under Bass, the legislature regulated utilties and monopolies and provided for child labor reform, workmen's compensation, factory inspections, and forest protection.

The feud between Roosevelt Bull Moose Progressives and the Taft Republicans spilled into New Hampshire. As the Republicans feuded, New Hampshire Democrats organized to elect Samuel Felker governor in1912, the Executive Council, a majority of the legislature, and a United States senator. In the first election following ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 mandating the direct election of U.S. Senators, the Republicans swept back into power and remained the dominant party, until the 2006 elections.

ReferencesChandler, William E. 1898. The growth in the use of money in politics in New Hampshire. Manchester Union, Dec. 24 and 28 (A reprint, by Rumford Press, Concord, N.H., appeared in 1899.)

Heffernan, Nancy Coffey, and Ann Page Stecker. 1981. New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its development.Grantham, NH: Tompson and Rutter.

Jager, Ronald, and Grace Jager. 1983. New Hampshire:An illustrated history of the Granite State.
Woodland Hills, Calif.: Windsor.

Robinson, William A. 1916. Jeffersonian democracy in New England. New York: Greenwood Press.

Wright, James. 1987. The Progressive Yankees: Republican reformers in New hampshire: 1906-1916.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Welcome to the Spring 2014 Class!

Welcome to our blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting!

A few rules to follow:

1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!

2. No jerks.

3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.

4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.

Remember you are expected to comment on your classmate's posts!!

Now....get blogging!