A news item out of the University of Kansas makes some interesting observations about the behavior of political partisans. A summary on ScienceDaily carries the title "Most partisans treat politics like sports rivalries, instead of focusing on issues" and refers to an article in Political Research Quarterly titled "Red and Blue States of Mind: Partisan Hostility and Voting in the United States."
I found it interesting because it seems to support a feeling that I have had for a long time about why folks vote against their own self-interests.
Meanwhile, there was a TV News squib about a request in someone's obituary to the effect of "Please don't vote for Hillary" as a means of honoring the dead person. Down below the break I have some more comments.
Patrick Miller, Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Kansas, and Pamela Johnston Conover, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have colaborated in an exploration and analysis of what makes partisans tick in this highly polarized political climate. The main thrust of their analysis is that political views and voting are not based on a reasoned examination of the issues involved, but are treated instead as an "us vs. them" kind of rivalry as is usually seen in sports fans.
This really is not too surprizing to astute observers, but it is good to see it being formally studied and analyzed in a professional manner. Readers of the comments here at Daily Kos can see it fairly often in the bashing of the opposition that takes place. Similarly, much of what the Republicans say is pure emotional bashing of the Democrats, without any critical analysis of the underlying issues.
It is no wonder that Independent voters are the most rapidly growing faction of the electorate; most folks are just disgusted with the indiscriminate trash talk that marks the interactions between the artifically maintained two parties. There are, of course, exceptions with some partisans actually examining the issues and finding themselves more in agreement with one party or the other. Unfortunately, these folks are sometimes bashed by everyone for being weak and wishy-washy.For some partisans, the term bi-partisan is an epithet, not an adjective.
One year (back in the day) I was a delegate to the county Democratic Convention, from a precinct that was rather more conservative/moderate than the county leaders. The Party presented a platform, including a few planks that the precinct meeting decided needed at least symbolic opposition to to be expressed. (What they were doesn't matter at this date.) So I requested the three planks be pulled for individual voting on, leaving the rest to be affirmed by acclimation. The Chair then called for voice votes on each of the pulled planks, and tried to ignore the solitary "Nay" that I practically screamed across the small auditorium. For the first of the planks, she did acknowledge the Nay, and the local newspaper noted it as "a lone, but persistent" vote. The other two objections were summarily ignored and "passed unanomously" despite the solitary Nay. The Convention was then treated to a Pep-Rally speech by the district Representative to Congress featuring lots of Republican bashing and constant calls for pulling the "Straight Party" lever when voting. [Yes, it was well before optical mark sense ballots[1] we use now.] After the Convention, the Chair came to me and asked why I had pulled the planks, and I said "The precinct decided that we wanted a symbolic protest noted in the record." She sort of "harumphed" and my days as a convention delegate were over. About 20 years later, and after many years serving as an assistant registrar, I was nominated to be the Democratic Precinct Election Judge, I declined, however, because my wife had had a stroke and I needed to take care of her.
This anecdote is noted as an example of the "sports team" sort of fanaticism that marks the partisanship of the two-party political system. Those who are the "party faithful" do not really examine the issues and mindlessly pass the platforms presented from on high. Those who have objection to some of the extremes of position get marginalized and ignored. This happens in both parties, and at all levels of Convention organization.
Yet another, somewhat bizzare, example of the fanatic positioning is the appearance in a printed obituary (in Texas) of a request for family and friends to "promise not to vote for Hillary Clinton." The Associated Press circulated the story, and the family has defended its position rather strongly.
For me, what needs to happen in partisan politics is clear. Abandon the top-down dictation of policy and truly honor the changing culture of the base voters. Encourage meaningful dialogue about the issues and move toward the center in a spirit of consensus. The Democratic Party has, from time to time, adjusted the (supposedly non-existent) delegate quotas to more reflect the diversity of the base during the Convention showcase, but they still dictate policy from the top and run roughshod over the actual diversity of opinion that exists in the base.
Hillary seems, at least, to be probing the opinions of the base (in Iowa and New Hampshir) before formulating the platform that she will present; however, I suspect that only a few planks will be "adjusted" while the main shape will not really change significantly. This, I think, is why a lot of potential voters, see both parties as "being the same" despite the real differences in policy. Neither party voluntarily makes major changes in the direction of fairness and elimination of corruption. The Republicans furthermore, are facing a schism from the extremism of the "Tea Party" wing that they embraced and absorbed, before they really understood the fanaticism of the Tea Party adherents. Democrats have, in the past, faced some similar problems, by embracing some extremist elements that significantly moved them to the "left" but have somehow managed to hold on to a set of more centrist views despite the extremism.
I have read here, at Daily Kos, several appeals to the extremists to accept the realitiy of the machine mechanisms, and to support Hillary "anyway" for the sake of preventing the further ravages of a Republican controlled government. All this, despite the fact that the Democratic Leadership is just about as corrupt as any Republican when it comes to feeding at the corporations tables. I also wonder why it is, that the introduction of a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the effects of the Citizens United decision was introduced by Bernie Sanders (an Independent from Vermont) rather than by the Democtaric Leadership. It will take a strong effort by our progressive voices to really change the shape of the Democratic policy machine to get behind such a move on Citizens Uinited and several other initiatives.
So, folks need to be aware of this aspect of partisan politics in order to come up with strategies that will effect real changes in the political arena. I intend to keep pushing the local machine in the correct direction (and I am not without connections) but I have been marginalized for being a "poor, disabled Elder" and for not owning or using a private car in my life. I have had enough, I will not "shut up and sit down" anymore.
[1] Footnote: Incidentally, the NC Legislature has moved to make all counties use a paper, optical mark sense ballot. This terminates the NC experiment with touch screen voting, which did not provide a individual ballot of record for use in recount or challenge situations. Additionally, the touchscreen voting systems used here in NC were found, on auditing, to be unreliable and consistently inaccurate (in the wrong direction by anyones' measure.) The main problem, though, is that it may take until 2018 to get all precincts back to paper ballots.