The rise of ideologically coherent, well-disciplined political parties is probably the key fact to focus on if you want to understand contemporary American politics. So it’s very exciting news (well, exciting for politics geeks, anyway) that a new group blog launched this week is devoted to discussing and debating the ways our parties work—and the ways that they often don’t work with our political institutions.
The blog is Mischiefs of Faction—the name is borrowed from a famous line by James Madison—and the authors are political scientists Seth Masket, Hans Noel, and Greg Koger. Masket and Noel may be familiar to regular CJR readers; I interviewed Noel about the “invisible primary” last July, and we’ve cited Masket numerous times, most recently in this look at Colorado’s swing-state status. Koger, meanwhile, has been a guest contributor to the excellent poli-sci blog The Monkey Cage, about which I wrote here.
Everything on the site so far is recommended reading. Here’s Masket on why it was inevitable Republicans would nominate a “flip-flopper,” and on the pointless search for the “real” Barack Obama; Koger on the difference between partisanship and polarization in Congress; and a two-part post from Noel on how modern parties overcome the obstacles Madison put before them, and how popular reform proposals don’t reflect Madison’s insights.
The site promises to be a great addition to the politics blogosphere, and, in the way that it can provide a theoretical framework for understanding day-to-day events, a valuable resource for journalists. Check it out here, and follow the blog’s Twitter account here. (And to figure out what Daniel Day-Lewis has to do with political parties, see Masket’s old blog here.)
I must say the author needs to get out more if they find the blog they cite "promising".
Just a simple look at any of the posts shows laughable ignorant of sanity.
Lets take this one
"The Demise of Senate Consensus
A month ago, Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann sparked a debate with their WaPo column, "Let's Just Say It: The Republicans are the Problem." Personally, when I talk to reporters I try to be even-handed and to take the long view of history; surely Republicans have their complaints about Democratic behavior, and we can definitely go back in time and identify similar periods of high partisanship.
Ornstein and Mann, however, correctly identify an anecdote that I found particularly revealing at the time: the January 2010 effort by Senate Republicans to defeat the debt commission that they had been calling for, with the swing votes coming from Republican cosponsors of the proposal. Returning to the theme of partisanship vs. polarization from yesterday, an ideologically extreme group of legislators will nonetheless jump at the chance to change policy when offered exactly what they are demanding. A partisan team, on the other hand, will vote against anything to keep the other side from getting a "win" and diluting their message."
This has to be the most retarded argument I have ever seen. Was the written even alive during this event? Clearly not.
The debt commission was a joke by the time the democrats and republicans got done with it... which is why many republicans were like "**** it I'm voting against this mess".
And of course they were right. It was a huge win for the democrats and doubled up win because as was well known at the time of the vote that it would be overturned long before a single cut happened... which it has been.
I guess you could argue the republican center-left leadership got exactly what they wanted... but thats hardly the argument thats being made.
#1 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Thu 31 May 2012 at 12:51 AM