Why do repukes vote as a bloc, while Dems do not?

[cuke]

And do we really want the Dems to vote however the leadership tells them to vote?

This thread is brought to you by the discussion about how 9 Dems voted for *'s latest nominee to destroy the judiciary. 38 voted against.

My theory is that the repukes vote as a bloc because they are more beholden to the party. It is my assumption that because the RNC typically pulls in so much more money for "party building" than the Dems, the RNC is better able to control their minions than the DNC is due to the fact that Dems are not as beholden to the party because they raise more of their own funds.

If my theory is true, then the way to get dems to vote the party line is to make sure their campaign funds come the party, and not from people who donate directly to the candidates. This means no donations to your favorite candidate; Give it to the party. It also means that the DNC will be beholden to those who contribute to the DNC, and who do you think that will be; people or corporations?

So, what are your theories? Should we try to get dems to vote in lockstep, and if yes, how do we do it?

[phantom power]

1. Conservatives didn't vote as a bloc in 1992.

They split the vote with Perot, and it put Clinton in the White House.

It may happen again in 2008, but this time, the Dems have become so tone-deaf, that I'm not sure we'll win this time.

[cuke]

4. I as referring to repukes in Congress

Sorry for not being clear about that

[wyldwolf]

11. political myth. Sorry. I have to be blunt. "Perot cost Bush the election" is bullshit

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. I don't know about that.

I donate to the party but I do like to reserve the right to give more to particular candidates. If all funding came through the party, Hillary Clinton would have it all and I would not be happy with that.

[cuke]

6. Would like to see the Dems vote as the party leaders tell them to?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. If the party leaders were telling them to vote the right way

I admire the discipline of the GOP, it's their ethics I have a problem with.

[billyoc]

3. I don't know, let's ask them.

AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!

[cuke]

8. I'm asking you

but from looking at your picture I'm thinking you don't think much about it

[Dhalgren]

5. We need some new parties. Parties that can't be bought by corporations.

The Democrats who vote with the Republicans have been bought by the corporations who own the Republicans. The corporations want those Bush-Dog Democrats to stay in the Democratic Party in order to do exactly what they are doing. This maintains the corporate control of congress. If the tables were turned, there would be just enough Republicans voting with Democrats to do the same thing. It is a rigged game, that's why we need several new parties. Force these parties into ruling coalitions that the corporations would find too difficult (and public) to deal with. Just an idea...

[harun]

7. I have been thinking about this lately as well

When you look at the power "establishment" in Washington, it is actually still MEGA republican owned. I was looking in to why this is and it is in my opinion almost entirely due to the loyalty they all show each other, and not their policies. The only free thinker I even know of in the Republican party is Ron Paul. How many do we have in the Dem camp? It is all over the place. I don't think there is anyway to fix this. Until something is done to break the two party system it won't change.

[cuke]

10. But why are they so loyal?

Do you think it's just a part of the repuke psychology to be more loyal? I don't think so

[billyoc]

13. Their platform has fewer planks, so it's easier to please all the party members. n/t

[cuke]

14. I don't think that is true

I think they have as many "planks" as we do. And even if it is true, that doesn't explain WHY they have fewer planks.

[harun]

22. Planks

Dem's need to put their planks out there more instead of trying to hide them. They should at EVERY chance they get talk about health care reform like H.R. 676. You will see when the Repugs have some BS issue to bring up, like the MoveOn.org ad, every Repug when getting up to talk in the House and Senate will bring it up. It is childish and juvenile and I don't want Dems to stoop to that level but they should pick some actual issues like Health Care and just beat it into the ground as THEIR issue they WILL achieve, and just not stop fighting for it. People will see this as a Dem principle (and plank) and not just an anti-republican plank like the media always tries to make everything.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Democrats Are More Diverse

DSB

[cuke]

12. I dont know about that

For one thing, there is diversity in the repuke party on a number of issues like SS, immigration, and even the Iraq War. For another, it doesn't explain the SCHIP vote. I can't believe that they did something that will so obviously hurt them at the poll next November. To me, it looks like there was a lot of arm-twisting on the repuke side, and that suggests threats of no future support from the RNC convinced them to vote against SCHIP.

[gateley]

15. I just heard or read yesterday that the R's get a lot of pressure to tow the

company line. For the life of me can't remember where, but if that's true, it might explain why they place such stupid votes.

I wouldn't want any leadership to be able to dictate how their party votes. It's all part of that checks and balances thing. If we had a lunatic in the WH like Bush, I'd be furious at Dems if they DID support his or her frightening agenda out of party obligation.

[cuke]

16. Can you remember more about this pressure?

Was it from the party leaders? Constituents (I doubt it)? Donors?

[gateley]

18. I got the sense it was from the party leaders. I'm trying to remember where

I saw/heard it so I can present it more accurately.

[OHdem10]

17. In the Democratic Party--we have two wings--

the Democratic Wing and the DLC/Blue Dog Wing.

The DLC/Blue Dogs are coservative Democrats. Conservative
is conservative and therefore, on most economic issues, taxes, etc.
their conservatism puts them more in alignment with the GOP.
I am saying they are the same as GOP, but their philosphical
outlook is closer to GOP.

The Democratic Wing is the more liberal/progressive wing.

If one thinks about this seriously, it is akin to having
two parties within a party.

Up until now pretty much Dems are permitted to vote "their"
conscience. Very few bills by Democrats are "whipped".
When the GOP has legislation, the WHIP goes around to each
member "whipping" them into line to vote in unison.
Not so often with Dems.

It does seem to me, that their should be a command performance
on bills which the Dems continue Signature Legislation.
Example on SCHIP there were two Democrats who did not support
the measure.

Under Tom DeLay, had these been Republicans --he would cut
off funds in their next election bid, or if there is some
legislation that helps their state--he would see it never
came to the floor. The GOP plays hardball. 40 years out
of power toughened them up. Once a member did not vote
with GOP. The Members Son was planning on running for office.
That Son was cut from the opportunity to run.

These things seem rather harsh, but some kind of discipline
is required. The Fact that the GOP is so disciplined is
the thing that makes the Media believe the GOP is more effective
at governing. The Media is aware of the two wings in the Democratic
party and sees the party as never speaking with one voice. Poor
Governing is their conclusion.

the

[cuke]

20. I appreciate the post

and agree with most of it, but I was wondering:

Why do repukes vote in a bloc? What did you think of my theory about this?

Would you like to see the Dems vote as a bloc? How can we get them to do that?

If you agree with my theory, and you want the dems to vote together, then the obvious course of action is to give money to the party (not individual candidates) and let the party leaders decide how the party votes.

I'm not so sure this would be a good thing

[BootinUp]

19. Its food for thought cuke

I try to contribute to the Congressional re-election committees and the DNC when I can.

[cuke]

21. Sounds like you agree with my theory

no?

[BootinUp]

23. I don't know off hand

it is a logical theory, just depends on whether the DNC will use the money as you want them to I guess. I am not a party insider so I don't know how that works to tell you the truth.

[cuke]

25. Sounds like we agree

It also sounds logical to me but, like you, I'm not sure about how much money the various dem candidates and groups (ex DNC, DSCC, etc) are collecting and from where

[Odin2005]

26. The Dems are more diverse political coalition.

The Republican party has a strong, dense, consolidated "core" of votes from the religious right and money from big business. The Democratic party is more fractious and thus doesn't have a consolidated "core" to the extent the Republicans do, and instead seem to have 3 "quasi-cores." these quasi-cores are:

1. The Progressives: socially liberal and economically left-wing, least hawkish, most environmentalistic.

2. The Populists:: socially moderate and economically left-wing, most anti-illegal immigrant, most protectionist.

3. The Centrist Libertarians: socially liberal and economically centrist, least protectionist.

[cuke]

30. I could do the same for the repukes

1) Religious nutjobs
2) Neo-con warmongers
3) Big Business

[The Magistrate]

27. Several Reasons, Mr. Cuke

Having to do with the different character and experience of rightist and leftist political elements.

The right understands that its position is essentially a minority one, that for rightist policies to secure the votes of a majority of the populace requires that many people be voting against their actual self-interests. This breeds the understanding among rightist figures of all stripes that it is essential for them to hang together in a bloc, if they are to have a hope of actually maintaining themselves in power, since what power they have is always based, in a democratic polity, on a pretty slender margin secured by legerdemain.

Rightists contain among their number a much higher than average proportion of persons who are authoritarian by nature of their personality. Authoritarian types value obeing orders as much as they value giving them, and indeed, consider the ability and willingness to obey orders as the prerequisite for the ability to give orders and secure the obedience of others to them. This enables them to function in a cohesive fashion, with an eye to maintaining power for the right as a whole.

The right also has a good deal of practical experience in being in the saddle, dating back to times long before democratic polities, when political power was exercised by naked force and fraud without any pretense the purpose was anything but exploitation. Traditional trade-craft should never be under-rated: there is a reason a small number of veterans can generally defeat a much larger quantity of green troops, no matter how ardent the latter may be.

The left is well aware that its position is truely the majority one in a democratic politity, or at least ought to be by rights the majority one. This leads to a certain slackness concerning the need for unity, as well as to an often uncomprehendng frustration when it fails to actually carry substantial majorities. Frustrated people do not think clearly.

Leftists, in this country at present, at least, contain among their number a much greater than average proportion of persons who place the highest value on individual expression and realization, and actively despise group identification and acquiesence to authority. Where so great a value is placed on 'going your own way', action by a group, in a solid bloc, will be difficult to achieve.

The left, particularly its elements farthest to the left, have very little practical experience in running things, and base most of their actions on theory. Quarrels among theoreticians are far more bitter than quarrels among persons with practical experience, for the latter will have some pragmatic standard to which they can appeal, and the former do not. The more bitter the quarrel, the harder it is to settle, and jion together amicably afterwards.

[cuke]

31. Thank you. That was fascinating

So basically you're saying it's a combination of attitude and experience along with the self-awareness that they are, in reality, a minority party. No?

I can't say that I agree with you, but that's only because it's hard to swallow and digest so much in one sitting. I will say that I can't find anything to disagree with and was exactly the sort of thought-provoking response I was looking for

Thanks

[alfredo]

28. Read John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience." Authoritarian

followers do what they are told. Authoritarians do not fit well with the Dems, but they do in the Republican party.

Remember when the Communist tried to get some traction with the political left (Dems and such"? We are not authoritarian, we tend more to the Libertarian/anarchist. Our response to the Maoist, and Trotskyites, was yeah yeah, Ok have a good day. We listened but didn't buy..

According to what I read about the Neo cons, they were on the left but couldn't get traction with their authoritarian philosophy, so they migrated to the Republicans and found fertile ground.

[cuke]

32. Thanks

You sound a bit like the Magistrate with the authoritarian angle. Can't say that I disagree

[alfredo]

35. Thanks. Do pick up on John Dean's books.

[Lucinda]

29. Because Borg are built that way

Dems are toooooooo independently minded to lockstep.

[madmunchie]

33. I believe that most Repubs are self serving and followers and are

rather shallow. A woman I know is very upset with Bush and the Iraq War....She comes from the South and her family is Repubs, she voted against Dukakis because of his eyebrows, she voted for Bush the 1st time because she liked him, the 2nd time because he made the mess so he should clean it up and she didn't trust that Kerry could get us out of the mess. She voted for Clinton twice. So look at it....all superficial reasons. Very nice person, but superficial. Same with another friend, baby of the family, it has always been mememe and family is Republican. She voted for Bush 2x, I told her that I wouldn't admit that to anybody, she asked why....well, I went off on my tirade that she never wants to listen to. She is now against Bush and what has happened and I look at her as a usually smart person, - but smart in what the average self serving in-the-box thinker is.

Not that I am a rocket scientist. Plenty of Democrats are followers as well, but with Dems at least they tend to be more socially conscious and many are more independent thinking. Dems just have more heart for others and are deeper thinkers.

[sandnsea]

34. cut taxes, cut government, subsidize big business

They're all on the same page. Easy for them to vote as a block.

[Echo In Light]

36. Authoritarianism, projection and its subsequent "groupthink" mentality

But don't be fooled. As this structure is predominant across our social landscape, many dems and so-called liberals (who actually aren't very "liberal" at all) push things in the same direction. Most noticeably from supporters of the biggest Name Brand candidates, who will in reality servce the War Pigs and their fascist {"democracy") War Machine over the wants of the people, who have been conditioned to see social safety nets as "weak," or "socialist." This explains how so many citizens here literally vote against their own self interests while believing they're supporting the exact opposite.

[flvegan]

37. Brand Recognition. Easier than thinking.

That's why the idiotic "W" was such a good rallying icon. Simple enough for the stupid, something to get behind regardless, so one didn't have to think.

[Arkana]

38. We're cursed with the ability to think independently.

Also, we tend not to listen to religious leaders on matters such as who to vote for.