Dynamic Politics

In this day and age, the face of politics is changing dramatically. So much that even in a single campaign, one cannot completely nail down the policy of oneself yet alone one’s opponent. This election season, nothing could be more murky than the politicians’ understanding of their opponents. Nothing could be more clear than the changing nature of political engineering and political thought in the US. This leaves us, the voting public, to think critically about the party platforms of both candidates, and think critically about them.

This current presidential campaign has been a campaign which will be analyzed through out history. It is a situation where history has already been made, and will continue to be made throughout the next presidency. The candidacy of Barack Obama as the official Democratic Presidential nominee, and the presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in Sarah Palin give us a chance to re-evaluate our conception of the office of the President. Although this is an important aspect of American history, what does it mean practically in this era, in 21^st Century American politics?

This situation of having two brand-new types of candidates means a changing nature of the race we have seen so far this election season. Sen. McCain can no longer attack Sen. Obama on the basis of experience because he has a VP is much more inexperienced. Obama cannot attack McCain for being too old and out of touch quite as easily as he did before Palin came onboard. Similarly, it is hard for Obama to attack McCain as too much institution, when he himself has Biden, who is more senior in the Senate than McCain. The platforms have shifted. The status quo has shifted.

The platform of “change” became real to Democrats and everyone else in tune to Sen. Obama’s acceptance speech Friday night (estimated at 38 Million viewers). He unveiled the grand master-plan that his constituents and on-the-fence voters were waiting. Among his many propositions were a plan for energy independence in 10 years, heavy research in renewable energy, social security reform, education reform, and more. In contrast to his platform of “change”, he pointed out that his opponent, Sen. McCain, though wishing he was a maverick, wasn’t all that different from his party. With endorsements from a despised President, a voting record of Republican ideology and a lack of foresight on energy and foreign issues, Sen. McCain has towed the line 90% of the time. He put the ball in the Republican’s court. With McCain’s selection of a Vice-President nomination, McCain seems to be responding, however feebly.

Sen. McCain’s claim that he is a maverick would have been much more solidified had he gone with a better VP pick. Had he chosen Sen. Lieberman, he would have sent the message that he plays well with others (across the isle that is), and that he wanted to play the change game too. The problem with such a pick would have obviously been that of his own party. If he had picked some one on the moderate side of his party, such as Mitt Romney, or in Lieberman’s case, an Independent, he would have proven to the “evangelical” voting base that he did not at all have their interests in mind. He was struggling with that from the get-go, being far from the portrait of the model Christian Republican that George W. Bush painted in 2000. By selecting this much more right-wing Republican as a running mate, he appealed to that base.

If by some misguided illusion he thought he could bring a few Clinton sympathizers with his flashy new VP, he failed. The voters who supported her throughout her candidacy would have been much more inclined to switch parties for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, not a pro-drilling, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-environment platform. Sidling up to a woman in the White House is only a very small part of the Clinton equation. Palin’s lack of feminist qualities and feminist appeal will repel those voters much more than a more moderate ticket would have.

The details of the McCain-Palin ticket won’t be completely articulated until later this next week, when the Republican National Convention kicks off in St. Paul. A word to the wise: don’t anticipate a shockingly-new platform. In fact, if you want to get a bit of a preview, just get a hold of some footage of the 2004 RNC.

Though this campaign season will become much more complex and heated as the season progresses, we can already see where it is going. It is a competition over who can be the most change appealing without contradicting themselves more than the other. There will be mud-slinging. There already has been. There will be promises of reform; there already has been. There will be one winner, in the end.

The Foundation: Ideology

This blog seeks to comment on current events, both here and abroad. In order to do this, it is essential to understand some basic language in which to communicate. In this post, this author will address the topic of ideology. This is important to any discussion of current events, history, or international affairs because no event, no communication between parties, nothing dealing at all with politics happens apart from ideology.
Ideology, along with politics as we know them, emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution changed the face of Europe, and one hundred years later, the States. The Revolution create extreme social and economic upheaval, with many moving into the cities, and living in conditions most would not cherish. The influx of economic capital gave new material wealth to European (and later the U.S.) powers. This created a need. People who trusted their leaders were living in conditions deplorable by any standards. The leaders were not feeling the same pinch, and not reacting to these conditions, instead they were helping to create them. This created an alienating feeling, and a need for new thought on politics.
The emerging thinking, called ideology, or political philosophy, can be seen as a response to the social upheaval and economic disproportion created by the industrial revolution. Within this we find many different strategies, from complete upheaval of the institution, to a reversion to the ways of old. It is in this context we find the most common ideological language, that of the political spectrum.
The political spectrum centers around the status quo, meaning current conditions in society and politics. Closest to the status quo we find the conservative, who thinks society would be well off with only minor tweaking to the establishment. To the right of the conservative we find the reactionary, the furthest right on the spectrum. The reactionary is the only position in ideology which sits on the right side of status quo. It is the reactionary who wishes to move society further backwards, to the point it reverts back to “the way things used to be”. This is very different than the rest of the system, which could be seen in various phases of progression.
To the left of conservative sits the moderate. The moderate overall is satisfied with government institutions, but thinks that it needs slight tweaking. They feel as though the political institution and powers that be can be successfully fixed to provide sufficient welfare for society. This of course, is more progressive than the conservative, who is satisfied with the status quo, but not near as progressive as the liberal. The liberal would feel as though the current make-up of the political system is ineffective. The only way to make it right is complete overhaul. It then seeks to do this either internally or externally to create a more beneficial political system. The liberal would call for immediate change, but not in the manner of revolution and armed coup.
On the far left, then, sits the radical, the only political position which says the current system of politics and government is so corrupt, that the only manner of fixing it is violent and immediate revolution: systematic, forced overhaul. This takes its most noticeable form in forced military coup de et’at carried out to depose a tyrant, or unpopular head of state.
There are many different figure heads associated with each of these positions, both contemporary and from history. These are not important now. What is important is the knowledge that there are standardized definitions to politics, to the extent that scholars and commoners alike know what they are. It is with this language that posts from here on will use, and these definitions which will be held.

Information for this post has come from:

Baradat, L.P. (2008) Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. 9th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.