If you were asked to divide American politics into 5 groups

[jsmithsen]

rather than the two (Democratic and Republican) we currently have, what would they be? What would be the percentages of the groups (wild guess is ok). What would be the implications for US politics if these five groups were openly acknowledged?

I ask this because, for instance, we are hearing a lot of about two quadrants ("fiscal" and "social") where people can be "liberal" on one and "conservative" on the other. (This is just one example).

[slackmaster]

1. Workers, Fat Cats, Old Farts, Timmys, and Captain Pikes

40% people who are employed, or are physically able to work but happen to be unemployed.



5% corporate execs, rich people, etc.



30% cantankerous retired or semi-retired people who don't take much crap.



10% impaired but generally able to function independently.



15% totally dependent on others for their support. Most don't vote.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leveymg]

3. right to left: Neo-Fascist; Evangelical; Corporate Right-Centrist; Corporate Liberal; Progressive

10-20-25-25-20

[customerserviceguy]

4. We already have that

1) Fundies, who hate equal marriage, and want child tax credits for their bloated families, yet really don't care about business, just pay them some lip service and throw a bone their way every once in awhile.

2) Country-clubbers, who have no problem with gay people, and think abortion's a dandy way to reduce welfare payments, just give them their tax breaks.

3) Labor-oriented voters, who don't mind anybody else's preferences, as long as there's plenty of money being spent on infrastructure (or whatever pays their wages).

4) Antiwar voters, who really don't care who's attacking us, or why, who just want the military budgets cut, just make vague promises about withdrawls to them.

5) Finally, the mushy middle, who make the difference in all elections, who have no ideology or any other such concerns, but vote for whichever party scares them the least that year.

Usually, groups #1 and 2 make common cause with each other under the Republicon brand name, same with #3 and 4, but under the Democratic banner. They both compete for the fifth group, but if one of the two political parties has a candidate that fails to pander enough to either one of its core constituencies, they stay home, and the other side wins, no matter what the fifth group does.

[jsmithsen]

7. I wonder if the right is as divided as it appears

The fundies go to churches which are themselves big businesses; they work for corporations (often in the South) with huge team meetings which mirror fundamentalist churches.

In addition I wonder if the Labor component is declining simply due to neo liberalism. Workers work less for large employers (and are certainly less likely to be unionized). If a blue collar worker becomes self-employed he/she will have to keep books etc. He/she will start to think like a small business person.

The antiwar group is being hugely courted by the Libertarians through Ron Paul, antiwar.com etc. The grizzlies (many of us) have no problem with Labor, even identify with it. The young antiwar people may be open to the right wing arguments about public employee unions and Social Security.

[customerserviceguy]

8. The country clubbers have always been able to throw the fundies a bone

Plus, they always have the "Democrats are scarier," line to fall back on. That usually works with fundies, but it won't if Mitt Romney gets his turn next time around. Of course, the fundies will prevent him from even getting nominated, so the establishment Republicons aren't too worried.

The reason the Repigs lost last time is because while Caribou Barbie got the fundies all ginned up, Gramps didn't excite the country clubbers too much, he's compromised too long with our side. And the mushy middle simply bought into the idea that Barack Obama was just like them, and thus, less scary than a third Bush term.

One of the strategies of the reich wing is to eliminate the labor part of the equation, Reagan pretended to appeal to them, he even called them "Reagan Democrats" but then he proceded to tear down the unions. Once less than 50% of Americans identified with union households, then union members could be made out to be 'haves', while those who didn't have union benefits felt they were 'have nots'.

You're right about the anti-war people, Ron Paul and the Libertarians have bled off a bunch of them. Of course, failure by Democratic officeholders to keep out of unnecessary wars has caused this bleeding. Better to vote for a party that can't disappoint you, because they'll never get power and be in a position to have to disappoint you.

[Jamastiene]

5. Roughly...

1. Nazis/KKK/teabaggers/etc.
These are your far far right wing groups that you have to watch closely, or they'll bomb something any time.
Examples:
Eric Rudolph
Tom Metzger
Bo Gritz
Timothy McVeigh
all the doctor murderers, cross burners, lone wolf spree killers who target people based on race, sexual orientation, or just because they don't like how the person looks. Any excuse to kill drives them

2. Socially Conservative Republicans.
These are the right wing assholes who stoke up Group #1 into a tizzy to go and bomb and shoot people.
Examples:
Jessie Helms was one.
All the Bushes.
Tom Delay
Trent Lott
Pat Robertson
Jerry Falwell was one too.

We all know that bunch.

3. Socially Conservative Democrats
This is apparently what is not considered the "center" sadly. They are still conservative on social issues. Some might or might not be conservative on fiscal issues as well, but they are definitely conservative on social issues.

Uhm, examples:
Stupak
Nelson
John Beaux
Zell Miller
Schuler
and a bunch more.

4. Socially moderate Democrats
This is where things get tricky. These folks may be fiscally conservative or fiscally liberal. They may sometimes go socially conservative (usually on GLBT issues, abortion, women's rights, Social Security, public education, etc.), and sometimes they may go socially liberal. This group, by itself, could be broken into numerous puzzling subcategories. An entire book could be written about this phenomenon.

5. Liberals
This includes liberal Democrats, a few Libertarians, the Green Party, Socialists, etc.

Usually, liberals are surprisingly moderate fiscally. Some may be a little more liberal fiscally, but that's rare. Most are either moderate or conservative fiscally. When you take into account that most of our government's budget now goes to killing brown people all over the world and very little is being spent at home (although that is slowly adjusting itself a little bit with Obama), it makes sense. Most liberals just want a little of the money spent by our government to help the people, not the corporations and rich and MIC so much. They don't want corporations, rich, and MIC treated unfairly, just more proportionately with the funds that are available. And yes, liberals are socially liberal.


The percentages I think actually exist:
1. In reality, probably only about 10%
2. Maybe 10%
3. About 15%
4. Around 25%
5. About 40% if you count the disaffected who don't vote because they are tired of the 2 party system.

Yes, that is my honest opinion on the percentages based on just what I see.

How would it work if we had a more than two party system and a fair shots for all candidates?

America would lean somewhere between the moderate Democrats and Liberals. It wouldn't be conservative at all, if we had a real voting system that didn't stack the deck to favor conservatives (of both parties) all the time.

[jsmithsen]

6. Interesting emphasis

Where are what used to be called the "Rockefeller Republicans"? They may be the rich (and as such not a huge number), but from my experience they are able to set expectations in the career world about what is publically acceptable, and people often (not always) fold into those expectations.

At the same time they claim to be disenfranchised at the moment.

[Ozwalt]

9. If I have to be limited to 5 parties...

If I have to be limited to 5 parties, these would probably represent 95+% of Americans.

Communism/Naziism -- far left
Democratic Socialism -- solid left
U.S. Democratic Party -- central
U.S. Republican Party -- solid right
U.S. Libertarian Party -- far right

I think the most modern equivalency to Fascism would be a blend of Republicans & Libertarians, rather than being right of the Libertarian Party. I'm tempted to list Evangelical Christian as a separate group, but I resisted. Unfortunately, Christian voters who vote right-wing have mostly been suckered by the Republican Party. Rep. Party leadership doesn't really care about abortion, gay rights, etc. They'd love for those issues to remain in flux forever, as long as they translate into donations and votes. And, if you were to survey Americans on individual issues, we'd probably find that the largest portion would fall in the Democratic Socialism category.