It was a commonly held belief among the Republican party that Mitt Romney was almost a guaranteed win in the 2012 presidential election. This view wasn't necessarily because Romney followed Republican policy to a T but rather because of Obama's disastrous job with the economy in the previous four years. History was well in the minds of most Republicans in that particular matter since no president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt had ever won a presidency after the economy had gone as low as it did and was in a serious struggle to rebound. With this piece of history in the minds of most Republicans the assumptions was history would continue to repeat itself even if Romeny wasn't the Republican parties knight in shinning armor. The election results proved otherwise and in areas where it counted President Obama won over the key states in regard to electoral college votes. Obama won the battleground states of Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado and then eventually florida. One key state to the succes was Pennsylvania, where Romney made an 11th-hour bid for support to try to derail the president’s drive for re-election. North Carolina was the only battleground Romney won (Dorning ). This spelled yet another loss for the faltering Republican party and had many of its members on edge and talking of change.
The Republicans were divided on the changes that needed to take place. There are two different paths to explore, first of which is whether the party needs to get with the times and take a more center or moderate approach or entrench itself in its conservative beliefs. Looking at the first suggestion it seems most Republicans share this view and believe that the party needs to recognize the changes in Ame...
... middle of paper ...
...egardless of the situation changes will have to take place to turn the parties luck in the 2016 election.
Works Cited
Abramowitz, A. I. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/aia2010031101/
Dorning , M. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/obama-wins-re-election-with-romney-defeated-in-key-states.html
Huffington Post, Black Voter Turnout Passes Whites In 2012 Election, A First In Census History. 2013. Photograph. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/black-voter-census_n_3240403.htmlWeb. 13 Nov 2013.
Lopez, M., & Taylor, P. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/latino-voters-in-the-2012-election/
Omero, M., & McGuinness, T. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2012/12/12/47916/how-women-changed-the-outcome-of-the-election/
In closing, this book informs us on how the Republicans went crazy and Democrats became useless, and how it’s become a problem. The books unfolds the faults of the Republicans and Democrats “behind the scenes”, and made me more aware of the parties today.
8.In order for political success, both sides of the political spectrum must be critically examined in order to omit mistakes and for cultural advancement. Over two hundred years of United States politics have seen many changes. The names of parties may have changed, but the bi-partisan feature of the party-system has not. Republicans and Democrats are our two major partisan groups in present day America. Sometimes there are disagreement amongst party members that lead to dispute and a less concentrated effort. That is the beauty of a democracy, everyone is allowed to put their two cents worth in.
As the country grows and matures into a great nation, people realize that change is inevitable and sometimes even needed. Within the time period of 1802 to 1817, many Jeffersonian Republicans realized that their ideals and principles weren’t always best for the nation. That is why they adopted some of the ideals of the old Federalist Party. Also, during this time, the Federalists died out. As realized after the Hartford Convention, the nation did not need nor want the Federalists anymore if the Democratic Republicans could get the job done. Although people changed a great deal during this time, it seemed to be beneficial to the nation. If people had not grown and never continued to learn and aspire to what is needed, then we may have never gotten to this great nation that the United States of America is today.
Rosenstone, Steven J., Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus. Third Parties in America. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Looking at the United States in 1965, it would seem that the future of the liberal consensus was well entrenched. The anti-war movement was in full swing, civil rights were moving forward, and Johnson's Great Society was working to alleviate the plight of the poor in America. Yet, by 1968 the liberal consensus had fallen apart, which led to the triumph of conservatism with the election of President Reagan in 1980. The question must be posed, how in the course of 15 years did liberal consensus fall apart and conservatism rise to the forefront? What were the decisive factors that caused the fracturing of what seemed to be such a powerful political force? In looking at the period from 1968 to the triumph of Reagan in 1980, America was shaken to the core by the Watergate scandal, the stalling of economic growth, gas shortages, and the Vietnam War. In an era that included the amount of turbulence that the 1970's did, it is not difficult to imagine that conservatism come to power. In this paper I will analyze how the liberal consensus went from one of its high points in 1965 to one of its lows in 1968. From there I will show how conservatism rose to power by the 1980 elections. In doing so, I will look at how factors within the American economy, civil rights issues, and political workings of the United States contributed to the fracturing of the liberal consensus and the rise of conservatism.
The United States, comprised of much political diversity, has only two major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists on March 20th, 1854, and is represented by its mascot, the elephant. Often referred to as the “Grand Old Party”, or GOP, Republicans favor customs that exude traditional Christian values with a platform based on American Conservatism. As a Christian myself, the values I share with Republican ideals are a main reason I side with the Republican Party.
“Republican Party Platforms, Then and Now.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Since the writing of the Constitution there has been innumerable arguments regarding its meaning, but only one side is correct-- the Republicans. The Federalists’ ideology regarding the Constitution reverted back to the government they had just escape...
American Politics in Transition For the United States, as for most states in the world, the 1980’s and 1990’s were a time of change and challenge. During this period the effects of change both within the US and internationally acted as push factors in many areas of life, including economics and politics. This sudden change was primarily due to global shocks and recessions, increased foreign economic competition, the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, the development of revolutionary new technologies, the achievement of post-industrial society within the US, slower rates of domestic economic growth, and the demographic changes within American society. By the Mid 1980’s important developments had occurred within interest groups, political parties. By 1990’s national debates were being held in regard to America’s future in the post-Cold War world, America’s economic competitiveness, culture, morality and the states relationship with society. Five major things must be taken under account when discussing American politics in transition. 1) the basic nature of the American political system, 2) the sources of political change since the late 1960’s, 3) the conservative renewal and the new conservative agenda, 4) the Reagan-Bush legacy in politics and public policy 5) the new political and economic constraints in the era of divided government, and 6) the public policy environment of the 1990s. At the core of American political culture I support for the values of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. The nature of this society with also has glorification of the individual, and the rejection of conservative theories of organic society, hierarchy, and natural aristocracy. Being an American means accepting this liberal Democratic creed (laissez faire), while those who reject it are considered to be un-American. America’s political evolution has also been shaped by the continental scale of the American State. The influx of immigration has caused there to be an extraordinary mixture of ethnic, racial, and religious groups spread across a continent-wide expanse that contributed historically to strong religious, racial and regional cleavages. Even its econony was spread throughout the American state. The largest sector of the economy were commercial agriculture, mercantile capitalism, mining, and heavy (capital goods) industry, but these, however, were also diversified into product specific areas. Collectively, the cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic factors had a profound effect on America’s political development because they reinforced the trend towards decentralization and localism that had already been established in the political and legal domains by the American constitution.
William E. Gienapp discussed the ethnocultural origins of the Republican Party. Gienapp claimed that in 1853 and 1854 the state and local political contests revolved primarily around the ethno-cultural problems. Anti-Catholicism and temperance were examples of such ethno-cultural matters. Gienapp believed that the slavery issue was not as important to the complete collapse of the second party system as the anti-Catholicism and temperance issues were. Anti-Catholicism was the resistance of the protestant states to the Catholic Church; the objections to its rituals and Pope became a political subject matter. Temperance was the prohibition of alcohol. Catholics consumed alcohol, but the Protestants were completely against the consumption of it.
Activists in the main weren’t demanding the Republican Party become something new, or ultra-right-wing. They were demanding the party—beset at that time by logrolling, earmarks and corruption—simply hold true to its stated and longtime principles of free markets and limited government. It was a quest for a better-quality product, not a different one altogether.
According to V.O. Key he states that there are “trends that perhaps persist over decades” (page 1) he feels that these trends will make way for new party processes and decay of old processes. Key believes Secular Realignment is shown through out a various number of elections, whereas critical realignment is set to bring in new voters, new issues and alter voter alignments. According to Key Secular realignment is the best option to follow for a few simple factors. This type of alignment allows for a slow rate of change seeing as how the party process seems to have issues with change in general this would allow for an easy adjustment. Key also feels that with a secular realignment this would take the common tendency of parties for attachments to issues, candidates, leaders and so on. This will force them to change their way of thinking however slow it may be, it will over all change the political culture at a rate that is slower and more acceptable.
There is much debate in the United States whether or not there is polarization between our two dominate political parties. Presidential election results have shown that there is a division between the states; a battle between the Democratic blue states and the Republican red states. And what is striking is that the “colors” of these states do not change. Red stays red, and blue stays blue. Chapter 11 of Fault Lines gives differing views of polarization. James Wilson, a political science professor at Pepperdine University in California, suggests that polarization is indeed relevant in modern society and that it will eventually cause the downfall of America. On the contrast, Morris Fiorina, a political science professor at Stanford University, argues that polarization is nothing but a myth, something that Americans should not be concerned with. John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, gives insight on a driving force of polarization; the Tea Party Movement. Through this paper I will highlight the chief factors given by Wilson and Judis which contribute to polarization in the United States, and will consider what factors Fiorina may agree with.
Starting during the 1970s, factions of American conservatives slowly came together to form a new and more radical dissenting conservative movement, the New Right. The New Right was just as radical as its liberal opposite, with agendas to increase government involvement beyond the established conservative view of government’s role. Although New Right politicians made admirable advances to dissemble New Deal economic policies, the movement as a whole counters conservativism and the ideologies that America was founded on. Although the New Right adopts conservative economic ideologies, its social agenda weakened the conservative movement by focusing public attention to social and cultural issues that have no place within the established Old Right platform.
Wattenberg, Martin P. (1986). The decline of American political parties 1952-1984. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.