Liberal Talk Radio

If I understand Mark Schmitt’s argument correctly, clearly defined ideological divides are the natural — and desirable — state in politics at the federal level. Which is to say, Moderates? Screw them:

Shed no tears for the Republican moderates. As Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a Prospect-sponsored breakfast in May, they are “enablers” of the culture of corruption. But the disappearance of Republicans who were willing to deviate occasionally from right-wing orthodoxy will mark a major change in our political life and culture. Back in 1994, many conservative Democrats were wiped out in the election and the party switching that followed. This year, whether Democrats win enough seats to control the House or not, the second shoe will drop. The hardening of our country into a parliamentary democracy, with two parties representing distinct ideologies and political traditions, will be complete.

Is this a bad thing? Polarized partisanship makes it hard to get things done, unless one party controls everything, as in a real parliament. Or could it be a good thing? In 1950, political scientists issued a plea for American parties to become just like this — ideologically coherent and “responsible,” modeled on the British parliamentary parties. The answer doesn’t matter; this is the way it’s going to be. It may turn out that the political framework of the 20th century — in which conservative and moderate factions in each of the two parties overlapped, and shifting bipartisan coalitions were always the way things got done — was the anomaly, a living fossil dating from the peculiar history of the post-Reconstruction South.

I’ve heard variations on this theme — for example, if you generally approve of one party’s platform over the other, then you should vote for the party rather than the candidate — or in spite of the candidate (see, for example, Bruno’s inability to cut bait with Joe Lieberman). At the party level, a more, I guess, coherent political philosophy helps facilitate this.

But speaking as one of the third of voters in the country who is not affiliated with either party, I don’t like it. I like when candidates tweak their platforms and help push along the ideological conversation within their own party. Plus, it’s not clear to me how that conversation happens were it not for ideological outliers. What would Bill Clinton be without his centrist triangulation? And even if you can actually separate the Presidential component of party politics from the legislative component (and I don’t see how you can), it’s unclear how you successfully run in swing districts. Besides, isn’t there that little issue of, you know, representing one’s local constituency?

Link via, in the spirit of bipartisanship*!

*And of course each link — both being advocacy journals — is relatively disapproving of independent thinking within a party . . .