I’ve been toying with an idea lately. Namely, that the Dems essentially serve the same function as a parliamentary coalition, while the Republicans are the party of the plurality.
The basic idea is this. In serving as a “big tent” for a motley crew of environmentalists, labor unions, social activists, artists, and the poor, the Democrats have effectively lost any ability to formulate and promulgate a Grand Vision on the order of Newt’s Kontrakt Uber Amerika. They’ve had to earn their keep agitating for a core set of policies that all of these disparate interests can basically agree on — but that’s not the same thing as actually having a vision.
The Republicans, in contrast, have basically figured out who their constituents are and apart from a few “centrists” (i.e., classical pro-capitalist liberals who haven’t yet gotten the message that Bush is riding this ‘hoss America into the dirt) they’ve got a rough 35% of the electorate who will vote in lock step with them, no matter how many of their sons and daughters Bush sends to die.
(The sad truth, of course, is that there is great dissonance between what Republican leaders DO and what their followers BELIEVE them to be. As Lincoln noted, “you can fool some of the people all of the time”, and perhaps this has never been more aptly applied to any political relationship than to that between the modern GOP and the poor sucka’s in Red America. So the GOP is not a truly unified party, any more than a serf was truly unified with the Czar, apart from a general respect for their common “Russian-ness”, but I digress.)
So, while European coalitions are actually formed by parties already in the legislature, apparently in the U.S. we’ve developed a system where we form our coalitions prior to electing the legislature.
In itself, this probably doesn’t say anything new. But here’s what I’m wondering. If the Dems were to acknowledge that they’re just a coalition of parties with some common interests, could they manage themselves more effectively?
Discuss.
No Responses to “Parliamentary Coalitions, American-Style”
Leave a Reply
You must log in to post a comment.
Now Playing: Episode 361
The Presidential campaign gets nasty while the banking crisis goes international.
Links Mentioned: The coveted Buckley endorsement … and the Brooks non-endorsement … the European banking bailout vs. the U.S. bailout redux … Frank Rich … GM and Chrysler get cozy.
Part of the problem is that it’s inherently boring to watch people talk on phones in a dramatic setting — I bet it’s something that writers try to avoid. Some situations make it necessary — dramas that show some “real life” situation. You think West Wing is full cell phones, try watching 24! With 24, though — and I imagine this is true for West Wing, too — you can’t possibly move along the story without showing them on the phone.
A tangential problem here is that cell phone technology changes so rapidly that shows using cell phones look ridiculous even three years down the line. And nothing takes me out of the action more than watching, say, James Garner pull out a breadbox to talk with.
But you’re right — so many Seinfeld plots would be rendered moot if they only had cell phones. Which is obviously the real reason!
Generally agree, but I also want to point out that with a couple of exceptions a lot of the writers I know still use AOL, and in one case a friend of mine - who wrote a $25 million flick that’s due out this summer - didn’t even have a cell until last year. So I think there’s something in Bruno’s “writers are lazy” view.
Also, there’re plenty of sit-com moments that tech has created. Think about the hi-larious potential of the open conference-call line, for example, or the ridiculousness of im’ing someone who’s in the next cube over.
Finally, I’ll also say that most writers have never worked in a modern business environment. Why are shows about hospitals and law firms so prevalent? Because the filmic vocabulary of these circumstances is so well-developed … it’s hackneyed crap, but it’s easy ’cause there are conventions.
B-schools have produced a lot of ridiculous garbage over the last 20 years (My company’s “special sauce” … blah blah blah), but most writers never made it further into the office than the receptionist’s desk, and without the trite conventions, they simply don’t know enough to write about it.