Why does the far right dominate the GOP while the far left doesn't dominate the democratic party?

[BrentWil]

Many structural factors have allowed the far right to dominate the GOP. The weakening of the party system and the primary system have allowed people who are, in my view, detached from reality to dominate the GOP. That said, why haven't the same factors been at play for the democratic party. I am not suggesting that it would be a good thing. I am fundamentally a moderate and I see no other choice but to be a democrat, at this point. However, one would think that very liberal voters would be the most likely to vote in a democratic primary and one would think that you would see a similar effect in the democratic party. Not that it doesn't happen (ie. Alan Spector), but it seems much less likely in the democratic party.

The basic question of the thread is: Why?

[BuelahWitch]

1. Because we have no one on the far left with a big bank roll

Or at least, no one willing to put up the money like the Kochs, Adelman (sp), etc.

[BrentWil]

3. Thats a fair point. There is some (ie. soros) but much less.. or it at least seems. NT

[JHB]

10. Each of the Koch brothers has more than Soros...

...and wealthy RWers have been doing this for a very long time. Richard Mellon Scaife, the Coors family, the Bradley Foundation, etc. funded the founding of all the RW Washington spin tanks we know and loathe. And let's not forget the Koch's father helped found the John Birch Society (after having made his fortune on government contracts -- with Stalin's USSR, to boot).

[JI7]

18. Adelson was trying to prevent Santorum from winning the nomination

[Rex]

2. Because the far left is practical and the far right is farcical.

You attract a lot more people to fiction, than non-fiction. Tell people what they want to hear, not so much reality (as it can be boring and even sometimes depressing) Also, the left has always had a bias toward the truth and that really bothers people in both parties.

[YoungDemCA]

51. Good post

The powerful people like their power, and they don't like someone rocking the boat.

[Rex]

68. Allowed to get away with 30 years of failed economics

it is hard for them to grasp a better system at least even according to them. I believe you can only go to a certain level of crazy before ALL the populace calls you on it.

I think Ted Cruz reached that moment.

[LiberalElite]

4. What "far left"??? -

except for Pacifica radio-station-on-the-brink-of-extinction WBAI which has a slogan of "the only left left." AFAIK there's hardly any kind of "left" anymore.

[BrentWil]

5. As in any society, what is far left and right..

is relative to that society. There is no question that the "middle" has gone to the right over the last 30 years. I would be a conservative (at least economically), if this was 1970.

[LiberalElite]

7. And compared to the current conservatives,

what they keep calling the radical socialists - right now I must be a Little Red Book waving Chinese Communist.

[BrentWil]

8. No, I agree

If a person proposed what Truman proposed or what FDR did.. all hell would break out. Health care reform (which I do think is a good thing and will help millions), is fundamentally a reform to the private market.

[steve2470]

6. good point, you have to look pretty hard for the "far left", in general nt

[steve2470]

9. both parties are, at base, extensions of the capitalist system in this country

I think your answer is right there. The "far left" seeks to reform or eliminate it, the far right seeks to move it to bona fide fascism in all respects, although they would heatedly deny that.

[Raine1967]

11. The far left (whatever that might be) doesn't have lying, cheating billionaires to fund it. eom.

[chowder66]

12. By and large the left tend not to suffer fools easily.

The republicans on the other hand gladly suffer their fools, even create them and attract them. But they mainly become them if they aren't a fool already.

That's all I got.

[Demo_Chris]

13. Simple answer...

The GOP is comprised largely of three distinct groups (as well as the usual assortment of disinterested moderates who vote Republican as much out of habit as anything else). These groups are Paleo Conservative Libertarians, Neo Conservatives, and Social Conservatives. Anyone who can combine the support of any two of these three will win national office.

Paleo Conservatives are by far the weakest of the three groups, largely because their ranks are split between the two parties -- with the actual party selection of individuals determined by the relative importance each places upon certain positions. They are left wing in terms of foreign policy, equal rights, and social issues. They are appalled by the police state and big government in general, and favor its eradication. In general, while the party leadership offers this group the occassional platitude, that's all they get. The GOP is currently led by the alliance of Neo and Social Conservatives.

NeoConservatives remain the foundation of the party at the National level. They believe in and stand for nothing more than realpolitik and see America and the GOP leading (and where necessary, crushing) the world for global corporations. They are corporatist facists who love money and power and nothing else, and they are MORE than willing to allow social conservatives to dictate GOP social policy at the state level in return for their support at the national level. Or, rather, they were in the past. More on this in a minute...

At the state and grassroots level it's a different story; there Social Conservatives rule the day. This is what we call the Christian Right. Simply (and accurately) put, they want their religious beliefs to be the law of the land. They are racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-science and anti-reason. They are literally the American Taliban. The problem for the GOP and our nation is that Neoconservatism has been largely rejected by the country at large. We are tired of corporatism, tired of global conquest, tired of the facist police state Neocons so love, and as a result the largest remaining power block within the party is Social Conservatives. That's who is deciding candidates and elections. They are unimaginably powerful in terms of their ability to get out the vote and the money at their command -- far more so than most American's realize.

Social Conservatives are not interested in or impressed by practical or rational considerations. They do not simply hope that their representatives actually represent their interests, they DEMAND it, and they will accept no compromise. The things that they believe are not positions based on their consideration of what's best for America, they are the will of God, and one does not compromise when it comes to that. Not when one is in his mid to late sixties, a follower of talk radio and Fox news, and otherwise ignorant.

As for Democrats, the answer there is simple as well. Our party too is divided, but the divisions are simpler. We have the same indifferent moderates who make up over half the party, we have a bunch of left wing liberals and issue voters, and we have a party leadership owned completely by the same global corporations who own the neoconservative wing of the GOP at the national level.

For what it's worth.

[Populist_Prole]

15. Very profound analysis

It's interesting how "unified" the GOP is in light of the fractiousness within it. It could be they're pushing so hard now because this very fractiousness is at a point where their big tent can only shrink from this point on. Hence, the "now or never" veracity of them.

[truebluegreen]

16. I think their coalition is about to burst at the seams:

The teahadists and libertarians want to shut down the government, and I'm thinking Big Business doesn't care all that much--they'd prefer less government--but if the crazies drag it out to the brink of default, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

It is a horrible position for our country and far too many of our citizens to be in, but if the suicide bomb detonates under the Republican party, it is for the best.

[Live and Learn]

24. Big business doesn't want less government at all.

They want less regulation but not less government. They simply want to control the government and they want all of the government funds. In fact, if (looking more like when these days) they take full control, you can expect government to grow exponentially since their greed knows no bounds. No fascist government is small.

[Demo_Chris]

26. Exactly. Well said. nt

[Laelth]

34. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[steve2470]

36. agreed nt

[truebluegreen]

44. True. But the parts that the teahadists are trying to cut away

are the regulations--quel surprise! The MIC / surveillance complex will continue to grow, any part that can be privatized for profit is better, etc.

As I said, this first part is fine with big business, but a default will disrupt the markets--or even the world economy--and that is a bridge too far.

[Live and Learn]

48. I should have clarified that they want less regulation for themselves,

not for others. Big business is in a large way responsible for the regulations placed on small businesses already. They don't like to play fair at all.

[truebluegreen]

55. I agree completely.

A friend of mine is a libertarian and an entrepreneur. He is certain that his inability to grow his business is the fault of government regulation. He doesn't or can't see that gov. regulations are stacked in favor of the big businesses that wrote them...and that that is exactly what we progressives are against. He is also blind to the idea that, without the counterweight of government, all that is left is big business--which will crush his hard-built enterprise like a bug.

[Demo_Chris]

25. I suspect there is something to this when discussing Social Cons...

This "now or never" aspect you mention applies to Social Conservatives personally, politically, and as a general world view.

Personally, they are rapidly aging -- the average age of the typical Fox News / talk radio listener is mid to late sixties. In that aspect they are running out of time. This applies politically as well: they know that young people simply do not support their views, and when they die their issues die with them. And in terms of world view, the clock is definitely ticking... a common denominator of every major monotheistic religion is the longing for Armageddon.

As for overall party unity, I question it. Paleo Conservatives loath Neo and Social Cons every bit as much as we do. For example, Ayn Rand considered Corporatism the most terrifying form of government imaginable -- though I suspect were she to devote more time to the question (given her views on religion) she would have ranked Theocracy right beside it. And I suspect that Neocons and their corporate owners are no more happy with the rise of the Social Conservative right than we are. They can tolerate them, and they share some common interests, but they undoubtedly recognize the dangers of aligning themselves with the irrational.

To the Neocon, this alliance was fine so long as Social Cons voted GOP and were content with the occasional speech condemning abortion or gays, but the collapse of public support for Neoconservative policy has left the door open, and the Social Conservatives have stepped right through. This has got to be a cause for serious alarm both among Neocons and their corporate owners. You can see signs of this in the outreach toward the Paleoconservative right in the last election. Suddenly you had GOP candidates talking carefully about Ayn Rand (carefully, in that they ignored basically everything she actually said -- particularly about religion), as if they did not represent everything she found most despicable.

That was an effort doomed to failure of course. Paleo Conservatives are nothing if not distrustful, they have long memories, and in any case they are not going to actively support a candidate who is pro-war and anti-freedom.

[Live and Learn]

27. Love your analysis and think much of it is spot on. Couple of questions though:

Aren't the Paleo Conservatives strikingly close to Libertarians?

And if so, is the reason they don't join the Libertarians simply because they don't like to lose, i.e., the Libertarian Party is not big enough for them?

[Demo_Chris]

43. Answers...

Simply put, yes. Obviously we are talking about individuals. The relative weight they give issues (as well as their sense of pragmatism) determines where they fall in terms of party selection. Some register and vote Libertarian across the board, some register Libertarian and vote Republican, others register Republican but end up voting Libertarian. I suspect that in Obama's first Presidential run a good number of Paleo Conservatives and Libertarians gave him their vote -- an advantage he definately did not earn during his second run.

In any case, this is no different than the Green or Communist party supporter who registers and votes Democratic.

[Live and Learn]

45. Yes, I thought of the Green Party when I asked the question.

Thanks for your reply.

[steve2470]

21. well done post, worthy of a political scientist nt

[Uncle Joe]

57. Your post seems like a sound analysis, perhaps you have touched on the true motivation

behind O'Reilly's upcoming B.S. book.

I believe Archae's post #14 spells out O'Reilly's political angle in trying to sway the Social Conservatives toward the Neo-Conservative point of view.

"Bill O'Reilly says God told him to write his new book, "Killing Jesus: A History."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023749173

O'Reilly is a fraud.

"This new book blames taxes for "Killing Jesus."

O'Reilly tries to show how "intellectual" he can be, but the dummy had no idea about gravity and tides.

He tries to show how "moral" he can be, but he sexually harrassed Andrea Makris, (not his then-wife, BTW,) and has now divorced his wife, using his money and influence to harrass his ex-wife's new boyfriend.

[Demo_Chris]

64. Many Fox pundits make a point of declairing their Christianity...

Fox's bread and butter is, and always has been, appealing to Social Cons.

Some Fox pundits even deny they are Republican -- Hannity, for example, and Beck (I seem to recall) claimed to be Libertarian -- but gosh darn it they are all Christian. Note as well how, once the Social Conservatives hijacked the Tea Party, suddenly Fox began all but advertising for Tea Party rallies.

So yes, of course O'Reilly is an outspoken and ignorant Christian. He doesn't know or care how the tides work. All he needs to know is that Jesus hung the moon, and that's good enough for his viewers. And sadly, it is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Because there is a skew (in the mathematical sense) to the American electorate.

One way of putting this is that the "rightwards tail" of the bell curve of American political opinion is a lot thicker than the "leftward tail". Another is that the mean political opinion is a lot more conservative than the political opinion of the median voter.

The gap between the two parties is, roughly, the median point.

So the average Republican is a lot further right of that than the average Democrat is left of it.

[truebluegreen]

17. Or the ruling class is far more conservative than the public.

Check out the test here: politicalcompass.org The results may surprise you.

[JI7]

19. over 80 percent of liberals support Obama so liberals do control the party

if you mean someone like kucinich than it's as simple as why lieberman doesn't control the party. neither of them have much support.

[RC]

37. Obama is a Right of Center corporatist.

If 80% of Liberals support him, I'd like to know the questions ask to get that 80% number. Do 80% of Liberala support him on the Chained CPI? Do 80% of liberals support him on his drone kill list? Do 80% of Liberals support him when he wanted to bomb Syria? Do 80% of Liberals support him on his crack down on whistle blowers?

[JI7]

38. he won the Primary with other candidates in the race , if he didn't Hillary would have won

but what i want to know is why would you be in a party if that's how you view the top Dem and most who support him ?

[RC]

62. So it is the party and the (D) that is important to you?

Regardless of where in the political spectrum their politics are?
For me it, is the actions of the person, not the position... or the person, it is what they do, that is important.
Supporting someone just because he won isn't enough, They also have to prove they deserve that support.
The lesser of two evils got old over 40 years ago. We are still putting up with the evils, because too many people think of elections as sports games.
All too often they forgive bad/wrong actions/decisions in those they vote for, when they would condemn those same actions, when someone on the other side does it. Sound familiar?


What is Liberal or Progressive in most of today's Democratic leaders?

What is your position on Alan Grayson? Bernie Sanders? Patrick Leahy? Sherrod Brown?
Don't you think we need more people like them in Congress and less DLC and DINO's, and yes, even less corporatist, as is now the case?

[JI7]

65. i view Obama as left of Center, i don't view him as you described

if i did i would not support him.

in fact i wonder about those who who go on about Obama being that way yet are still in the party.

[RC]

66. Left of Center?

With the Republicans he has appointed? His kill lists and drones? His war against whistle blowers? His caving to the Republican wishes far too often? That does not sound like any one Left of Center that I know.
You do understand that our government is way Right of Center, don't you? That many Republicans have changed affiliation to Democrat, because the Democratic Party has moved far enough to the Right the (D) now fits their conservative views?
That center you see is an optical illusion. The real political center is way over to the Left. You know, where the Republicans of the Nixon era, used to be so many years ago.

[JI7]

67. so why are you in the Democratic Party if you feel that way ?

did you vote for Obama ? because i would never vote for someone i viewed in that way .

[RC]

69. That is my question to you

Do you really know what the Democratic party used to stand for? It is not what they are doing now, that is for sure. The Democratic party used to work for the people. Now it is the Left wing of the Republican Party.
I voted enthusiastically for Obama the first time. I was expecting him to work to clean up the mess bu$h left this country in. I am still waiting. His actions did not follow his campaign rhetoric. He extended the bu$h tax cuts. He bailed out the big money, at the expense of the rest of us. The recession is still ongoing. Even today, more of our jobs are going overseas. Our real take home pay is going down. Interest rates we are paid on money we invest or save, are still no higher than when bu$h was in office. I remember when CD's were paying 10% to 14% or more. Saving accounts 7% to 10%. One bread winner per family was enough to live comfortably. You know the Living Wage?
I am not seeing much going on to get us out of this recession, except excuses.
I voted for Obama reluctantly, the second time, as there really was no other choice. Only this time I was expecting the corporatist and big business support, over the will of the people. Don't forget those so-called trade agreements Obama is in on, those that over rule even the Constitution even.

[JI7]

70. really ? because i would not have voted at all if what you described were the only choices

or i would have wrote in someone else.

Obama is the same now as he was when he was candidate obama in 2008.

[Rex]

71. This really has to do with the Ted Cruz loonies in Congress.

I believe the GOP has finally reached critical mass with Palin gushing accolades for Cruz as he works to destroy the system. Fucking twilight zone stuff.

[JI7]

20. McCain and Romney won the last 2 Republican Presidential Nominations

not the far right.

[treestar]

22. Energy IMO

They work at it. They start at the bottom, rather than obsessing over the Presidency as if just getting that will make it all work. Look how they worked at getting state houses so they could gerrymander to get more federal power. They run for school boards. That is why you hear ridiculous proposals to take science out of schools. They run for state houses, and propose absurdly right wing laws in them. They get attention that way.

The left thinks something like Occupy or just demanding that the President take care of it all will work.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Because the far left is really bad at making arguments

This is even more embarrassing because the far left is usually correct. How can one be correct most of the time, yet few people buy into it? Answer: your argumentative strategies SUCK.

[bowens43]

31. Nonsense. Most Americans are not capable of understanding words with more than two syllables

or ideas that can't be fully expressed in a 30 second sound byte. The fault is not ours.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. yeah, you lose because everyone else is an idiot

Keep telling yourself that. It's a winning strategy.

Example #1 for why the Left keeps losing: "Let me convince you of my position, though I probably won't be able to, because you're a fucking moron. So, I'll now proceed..."

You wonder why you lose?

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Ouch. n/t

[JI7]

39. also many who claim to be far left are not really left

these days i'm seeing mostly anti govt whining from those who claim to be left. plus isolationist type positions on foreign policy.

[grasswire]

28. people on the left support causes.

people on the right support ideology.

Left: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc.

Right: Heritage Foundation, etc.

[bowens43]

29. We're not vindictive, we don't eat our own....

[Kablooie]

30. We don't carry as many guns and don't have God on our side.

And we don't enjoy spewing diarrhea from our mouths the way the right does.

(Our mothers don't cook socks in hell)

[brooklynite]

32. Because Democrats aren't self-destructive?

And we've recognized that the majority of pro-Democratic votes are in the center rather than the hard left?

[liberal N proud]

35. Because people on the right are agressive and the extreme right is well extreme.

People on the left tend not to be so aggressive.

[Coyotl]

40. MONEY! Billionaires on the far right, starving slaves on the far left.

[G_j]

41. I'll add another ingredient I think may apply

Last edited Sun Sep 29, 2013, 08:51 PM - Edit history (2)

I've known lefties my entire life. Almost none of them have had a desire to enter politics, in terms of running for an office.
Though they are usually very aware of current affairs, and may support candidates. Generally, they lead lives that they find less compromised, and more creative and fulfilling.
There is certainly an irony in that often the people with the best ideas don't
want to play the game.

[YoungDemCA]

52. Very true

[hedgehog]

47. The left and right are not two sides of the same coin?

[Recursion]

49. Part of it's numbers; part of it's a deliberate structural change the Democratic party made

after Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got their asses handed to them.

The numbers thing is that the American political distribution is not Gaussian even though poli sci models keep pretending it is. Republicans have a lot on the right and a tiny bit from the center. Democrats have a tiny bit from the right, a lot from the center, and some from the left.

[YoungDemCA]

50. Short answer: Because there is no far left in the USA anymore

They've been extinct for some time now.

Also, many of the more mainstream or "moderate" conservatives in the Republican Party have moved into the Democratic Party over the past few decades.

America's political system is also incredibly conservative by design, and there are a whole host of reasons for that....the far right is useful to the Establishment (if kept under control, of course), while the far left is a direct threat to the system.

[jeff47]

53. Because the far right will show up and vote in a primary

The far left shouts "Both parties are the same" and stays home or votes 3rd party.

[pnwmom]

54. Because we wanted to win the general election.

We deliberately expanded our party's base so that we could win in some of the red areas -- so we would have enough Dems to give us a majority in the House and Senate, and so we could win the Presidency.

The progressive end of the party was actually helping to finance campaigns of more conservative Dems running in the red states -- out of sheer practicality. We wanted enough votes to control the House and the Senate, even if some of those votes weren't always reliable.

The Rethugs are too rigid to even consider that.

[DonViejo]

56. Because ultimately, true followers and activists of the "far left,"

the true "far left," do not believe in electoral politics; it's that simple.

[woo me with science]

58. CORPORATISTS dominate both parties. Traditional conservatives aren't happy,

just like traditional Democrats aren't happy.

Corporatists foment and highlight right-wing social wedge issues like abortion in the Republican wing of the Corporate Party in order to obscure the general agreement of corporatists in both parties on economic/war/police state issues.

The big corporate propaganda lie that is told to both sides, the Republican Red Team and the Democratic Blue Team, is that the Other Side is getting everything they want and are responsible for all the problems in government....but in reality, we are ALL being betrayed. Traditional Republicans are as angry as we are, because traditional economic conservatism has been discarded by Republican corporatists as much as traditional economic liberalism has been discarded by Democratic corporatists.

Traditional conservatism values small government, while corporatism seeks to grow and use government to enrich itself. Just as corporate Democrats lie and pretend to value traditional liberal-Democratic policy goals like social safety nets and public education and protecting the environment, corporate Republicans lie to their base and pretend to value traditional conservative-Republican positions like small government and individual liberty.

Then the corporatists in BOTH parties get into office and support everything nobody but the one percent wants: a mammoth, predatory corporate government, a surveillance state, and destruction/corporatization of social safety nets, schools, and the environment.

Neither traditional liberals nor traditional conservatives are happy with the government we have, because neither group has representation anymore. NONE of us are being represented. And the corporate thieves control both parties.

[TheKentuckian]

59. TeaPubliKlan leadership wants to be even more far right so deep pockets keep the right

active, engaged, well resourced, and start their arguments deep in the reactionary right.

Democratic leadership wants corporate dollars, cushy positions when their time is up, not to look soft on terror, seeks compromise and partnership with the opposition, loves "free trade", and is "stakeholder" and especially Wall Street friendly.

The TeaPubliKlans are all rowing in roughly the same direction while Democratic leadership cautiously and more slowly rows in the same direction the supposed opposition does while the the left is left un-resourced and if at all possible ignored.

[ecstatic]

60. The far right directs their anger at their "enemies;" the far left directs anger at other dems

The rabid RW hates anyone who doesn't look or sound like them. There's no need for the other factions of the GOP to complain because ultimately, the goals are the same: to get more repugs in office.

On the other hand, the left often gets off track and focuses more on derailing democrats, which then leads to infighting as other democrats try to silence them--not necessarily because they disagree, but because they know that turning the Supreme Court, etc. over to teabaggers is a terrible idea.

Anyway, we're now seeing how infighting in a party (in this case the GOP) weakens the entire party, so hopefully everyone is taking notes.

[Doctor_J]

61. hate radio

Pretty simple really

[Shankapotomus]

63. Because there is no far Left

Not in the same sense there is a far Right.

We all basically agree what has to get done...there are just differences on methods, when and how fast we should attempt to implement them.

Some accept the geologically slow pace of political change. Others want a political Revolution over night.