U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-07-2015, 11:28 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,836,278 times
Reputation: 2140

Advertisements

For the Republican Party, they face a social conservatives who do not like immigrants but they also have to satisfy their business wing which wants more immigrants both legal and undocumented. So on the one hand, the Republican Party needs to BeVocal about controlling immigration and building a stronger border. On the other hand, however, the Republican Party needs to give businesses easier and massive access to a large number of immigrants in order to keep our labor market dynamic and abundance.without much new people, not only would labor price go up for businesses, there is a real possibility of unions rising. Unions are worse than ethnic diversity for the Republican Party.

For the Democratic Party, it is just as conflicted. One, the Democratic Party was to support the poor and working-class unions. But you get more vote, the Democratic Party needs to legalize immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants who come from and will likely just stay in blue color status. The rich donors of the Democratic Party, many of whom come from Silicon Valley, advocate for more high skill visas. The Democratic Party cannot ignore these business people's demands. Make no mistake these business people who are leaning toward the left are such away only on social issues; when it comes to economic issues, who these people are stylishly against unions and taxation. But should the Democratic Party really fight to eliminate poverty and oppression that they give lip service to? if people become more affluent, they are simply more likely to vote for the Republican party. The thing is, it order to run a business of solving problems, you need to manufacture problems at the same time. For instance, if you make computers, you need your computers to be better than your competitors. But your computers must break down soon enough so that your customers needs repair and buy another computer from you. In that way you keep your business running and you make money. The Democratic Party cannot set its goals as eliminating poverty and succeeding the middle class. It is only when people become poor and Lower middle, and no longer believe in the dream, that would prompt them to vote democratic. In so doing, the business is alive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2015, 06:43 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 7,225,545 times
Reputation: 37457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
For the Republican Party, they face a social conservatives who do not like immigrants but they also have to satisfy their business wing which wants more immigrants both legal and undocumented. So on the one hand, the Republican Party needs to BeVocal about controlling immigration and building a stronger border. On the other hand, however, the Republican Party needs to give businesses easier and massive access to a large number of immigrants in order to keep our labor market dynamic and abundance.without much new people, not only would labor price go up for businesses, there is a real possibility of unions rising. Unions are worse than ethnic diversity for the Republican Party.

For the Democratic Party, it is just as conflicted. One, the Democratic Party was to support the poor and working-class unions. But you get more vote, the Democratic Party needs to legalize immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants who come from and will likely just stay in blue color status. The rich donors of the Democratic Party, many of whom come from Silicon Valley, advocate for more high skill visas. The Democratic Party cannot ignore these business people's demands. Make no mistake these business people who are leaning toward the left are such away only on social issues; when it comes to economic issues, who these people are stylishly against unions and taxation. But should the Democratic Party really fight to eliminate poverty and oppression that they give lip service to? if people become more affluent, they are simply more likely to vote for the Republican party. The thing is, it order to run a business of solving problems, you need to manufacture problems at the same time. For instance, if you make computers, you need your computers to be better than your competitors. But your computers must break down soon enough so that your customers needs repair and buy another computer from you. In that way you keep your business running and you make money. The Democratic Party cannot set its goals as eliminating poverty and succeeding the middle class. It is only when people become poor and Lower middle, and no longer believe in the dream, that would prompt them to vote democratic. In so doing, the business is alive.
Where's the debate?

In a two-party system (which, given our political structure is all but inevitable, per Duverger's Law - see below), any party which even approaches political parity on a national basis will by necessity be a broad coalition. There will always be conflicts between the various components of such coalitions.
http://www.kenbenoit.net/pdfs/Benoit_FrenchPolitics_2006.pdf

This is nothing new. Parties simply have to balance out their priorities. No part of the base will ever be fully content, but it is always possible to give each part of the base enough to make its participation in the coalition a politically worthwhile endeavor for that base-component.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 02:49 PM
 
32,214 posts, read 26,049,985 times
Reputation: 18882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
For the Republican Party, they face a social conservatives who do not like immigrants but they also have to satisfy their business wing which wants more immigrants both legal and undocumented. So on the one hand, the Republican Party needs to BeVocal about controlling immigration and building a stronger border. On the other hand, however, the Republican Party needs to give businesses easier and massive access to a large number of immigrants in order to keep our labor market dynamic and abundance.without much new people, not only would labor price go up for businesses, there is a real possibility of unions rising. Unions are worse than ethnic diversity for the Republican Party.
wait you claim the social conservatives dont like immigrants(not true in fact LEGAL immigrants are fine), and then you say that republicans need to be vocal about controlling the borders, but then when they are vocal they are called racists and haters of immigrants.

so either support republicans who support controlling our borders, and stop calling them racists and haters of immigrants, or stop the hypocrisy about ones stance on immigration, legal or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,182 posts, read 13,274,974 times
Reputation: 7347
It's not that Republian's don't like immigrants...it's that we want them to FOLLOW THE RULES AND LAWS! We are a nation of immigrants....become Americans...legally. Learn the language. Pay the right taxes. Support our way of life. Do it LEGALLY. BE AMERICAN. LOVE AMERICA.

Geez...its really not a hard concept! It's quite simple!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,595 posts, read 6,335,195 times
Reputation: 2385
That's one of the perils of a two-party system: coalitions become so broad that agreement becomes impossible*. The GOP is somewhat like this now, where the factions using it as a vehicle have ideologies much less compatible with each other than previously, leading to the leadership being reactive to the collective will of the caucus rather than active. Coalitions governing parties complicate the fetishized "compromising with the other side", since they have compromised with their own people already.

This is one of the reasons why I think we will see the U.S. go the way of other major English-speaking countries and become more of a multi-party system than a two-party system. Two generations ago, strong two-party systems were entrenched in every major Anglophone country except Ireland (which had a different electoral system). Since then New Zealand has changed its electoral system and went multi-party, Australia remained two-party but experienced a hung parliament, Canada has had a strong multi-party trend at the federal level since the 1990's, the U.K. recently and very quickly became a multi-party system, leaving the U.S. as the only remaining major Anglophone country with a robust two-party system. In 2010 for the first time in history, every large Westminster-model country had a hung parliament, which considering that that system supposedly strongly discourages hung parliaments is quite surprising. No other large democratic country, even ones that use first-past-the-post, has the kind of strong two-party system the U.S. has. Duverger's Law was posited in the early 1950's based on observations of a world with many more strong two-party states than exist today, and majoritarian reforms in continental Europe have failed to produce American-style (or even traditionally British-style) two-party politics, so its effect, assuming there is any (a questionable assumption), has obviously been overrated.

We shouldn't assume that whatever has driven Anglophone countries' two-party systems to crack is a phenomenon America is immune to. First-past-the-post electoral systems didn't save Canada or Britain two-party systems from shattering into multi-party systems, and there is no reason to believe it will save America's two-party system. As for what would put America's two parties over the edge, take your pick - there's plenty of grievances to choose from. When only a quarter of the public believe the two parties adequately represent the people, something will give; the only question is what.

*Whether that actually happens or not just depends; in some times and places agreement can be taken for granted, whereas in other times and places only small parts of the electorate can agree with each other enough to congeal into a viable party. In the OP's case, there is a middle position that is satisfactory to both of the wings in question, but some other issues...not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
This is nothing new. Parties simply have to balance out their priorities. No part of the base will ever be fully content, but it is always possible to give each part of the base enough to make its participation in the coalition a politically worthwhile endeavor for that base-component.
Ah, but there is a point where what you give to one part of the base is incompatible with the requirements of the other parts' participation. Once that happens your party either shrinks or collapses entirely; the void in the duopoly that the collapse of the Whigs and Federalists created was filled, but the modern trend seems to be fragmentation into greater numbers of major parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 09:00 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,836,278 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
That's one of the perils of a two-party system: coalitions become so broad that agreement becomes impossible*. The GOP is somewhat like this now, where the factions using it as a vehicle have ideologies much less compatible with each other than previously, leading to the leadership being reactive to the collective will of the caucus rather than active. Coalitions governing parties complicate the fetishized "compromising with the other side", since they have compromised with their own people already.

This is one of the reasons why I think we will see the U.S. go the way of other major English-speaking countries and become more of a multi-party system than a two-party system. Two generations ago, strong two-party systems were entrenched in every major Anglophone country except Ireland (which had a different electoral system). Since then New Zealand has changed its electoral system and went multi-party, Australia remained two-party but experienced a hung parliament, Canada has had a strong multi-party trend at the federal level since the 1990's, the U.K. recently and very quickly became a multi-party system, leaving the U.S. as the only remaining major Anglophone country with a robust two-party system. In 2010 for the first time in history, every large Westminster-model country had a hung parliament, which considering that that system supposedly strongly discourages hung parliaments is quite surprising. No other large democratic country, even ones that use first-past-the-post, has the kind of strong two-party system the U.S. has. Duverger's Law was posited in the early 1950's based on observations of a world with many more strong two-party states than exist today, and majoritarian reforms in continental Europe have failed to produce American-style (or even traditionally British-style) two-party politics, so its effect, assuming there is any (a questionable assumption), has obviously been overrated.

We shouldn't assume that whatever has driven Anglophone countries' two-party systems to crack is a phenomenon America is immune to. First-past-the-post electoral systems didn't save Canada or Britain two-party systems from shattering into multi-party systems, and there is no reason to believe it will save America's two-party system. As for what would put America's two parties over the edge, take your pick - there's plenty of grievances to choose from. When only a quarter of the public believe the two parties adequately represent the people, something will give; the only question is what.

*Whether that actually happens or not just depends; in some times and places agreement can be taken for granted, whereas in other times and places only small parts of the electorate can agree with each other enough to congeal into a viable party. In the OP's case, there is a middle position that is satisfactory to both of the wings in question, but some other issues...not so much.



Ah, but there is a point where what you give to one part of the base is incompatible with the requirements of the other parts' participation. Once that happens your party either shrinks or collapses entirely; the void in the duopoly that the collapse of the Whigs and Federalists created was filled, but the modern trend seems to be fragmentation into greater numbers of major parties.
But I wasn't talking about the fragmentation of parties. Even of parties fragment into many different types, those fragmentation of societies needs and views are still there. That is my point. Americans views on these things do not have much compatibility, which is the reason that both parties are internally incompatible and conflicted. As long as public opinion is so conflicted internally, things are going to be difficult. If the party is consistent I get you have so many parties, how do you make the Congress were Parliament act on behalf of the so-called public interest? And who is there to define the public interest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top