Ideological spectrum

                According to CNN those born between 1978 and the year 2000 are the western world’s first post-ideological generation, in which the stuffy ideological labels of the past hold little resonance. For those of you from the millennial generation, I would argue that it’s impossible to comprehend contemporary politics without some grounding in the ideological spectrum. Conventionally, the ideological spectrum is depicted in terms of a dichotomy between left-right on the horizontal axis, and authoritarian-libertarian on the vertical axis. This conventional approach is still widely used and at least has the merit of familiarity. The more nuanced approach is a horseshoe model, which seeks to reflect the similarities between an extreme left regime and one based upon right-wing extremism. As this is a moot point within the states, the conventional approach offers greater validity to us (Bloor, 2010).

                One of the striking features of American exceptionalism is the absence of a major socialist party. There are several reasons for this. Of these, arguably the most significant is that socialism is incompatible with the American mindset. Socialism awards a higher value to collectivist action, and yet the individual, as opposed to the collective; is commonly presented as the hero throughout the historical narrative of our country. It was rugged individualism that made America what it is; a lesson learned quite literally from kindergarten. We are also encouraged to believe that we can achieve the American Dream by either the Divine Hand of religion, or the invisible hand of the free-market (note the absence from either of collective action).

Secondly, socialism is fundamentally a critique of capitalism whereas America has long been a champion of the free market. Many Americans have been attracted to our land of opportunity in which taxation is low and state intervention is minimal. To many people, socialism itself is therefore un-American. Moreover, it doesn’t take much by international standards for a liberal Democrat to be labeled in such terms. One would only have to consider the Affordable Care Act. By European standards, Obamacare entails no more than a modest set of proposals but to many Americans the scheme is ‘Marxist.’

Other reasons for the absence of a socialist party relate to the role of the Democrats themselves and their source of funding. Left-wing policies have on certain occasions been adopted by the Democrats rather than from a major socialist party. Moreover, trade unions have donated money to the Democrats rather than a left-wing party akin to the British Labour Party. One would also have to consider the barriers which exist towards the creation of a third party. The ability of wealthy groups to dominate the political process may also be considered. For a Marxist interpretation (Marx and Engels, 1848), one might identify the existence of false consciousness. American society is divided more by ethnicity than social class (Enriquez, 2005), and ethnic enclaves thwart the emergence of a shared class consciousness.

                Despite what has been argued above, America does have a left-wing! It makes perfect sense to describe the Democrats as a party of the left within the states even though they have little in common with social democratic parties in other comparable democracies. The political gravity of the states is titled firmly towards the right. In a country widely depicted as center-right, Democrats seek to implement policies and promote a discourse that would in many other countries be described as conservative or right-wing. Indeed, the Democrats have sought to uphold capitalism when a socialist alternative might have been a practical option (such as during the Great Depression and the credit crunch).

Left-wing Democrats such as Patrick Leahy are more likely to represent areas geographically and politically far away from the mainstream (Vermont in the case of Leahy). At the present time, there is one independent in the Senate (Angus King) and he caucuses with the Democrats. As one might expect, he represents a state from the North-East. Other left-wing figures within the party include Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. Once again, it is important to note that they are left-wing in the context of American politics. By international standards, most Democrats would belong to center-right or centrist parties.

In the contemporary era, the main division within the party is that between left-wing Democrats and new Democrats. The former seeks to uphold and expand elements of the New Deal. This gives left-wing Democrats a peculiarly defensive tone. In seeking to adopt a progressive agenda, they often appear to be defending that which has come before. For instance, they can appear instinctively conservative over proposed reforms to entitlement spending. New Democrats emerged during the 1980s in response to a decline in the party’s fortunes. The Democrats had won just one presidential election since the demise of the New Deal alliance in the late-1960s, and that was by a cat’s whisker. New Democrats claimed that the party needed to detoxify the party brand due to its association with vocal minority groups, aggressive secularism and a ‘tax and spend’ approach to social problems. They claimed the party had become detached from many of its core supporters, particularly white voters. Republican figures such as Reagan and Nixon had also managed to reach out towards white Democrats dissatisfied with the direction the party was heading in. Indeed, the ‘great communicator’ admitted that he was once a supporter of the New Deal; but became disenchanted due to its association with big government.

In terms of the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum, it is difficult to properly identify the location of new Democrats and left-wing Democrats. The party itself is to some extent more authoritarian than the GOP, in that they are more willing to utilize the government in order to ensure a fairer society. Naturally, this comes with certain caveats. Democrats would therefore be favorable towards the government implementing affirmative action. They would however be opposed to the government promoting a Christian fundamentalist message. Moreover, there are divisions within the party over the extent of state intervention. For instance, a left-wing Democrat would take a Keynesian approach to the management of the economy. In contrast, new Democrats are more favorable towards de-regulation and privatization.

The Democrats are to some extent a rainbow coalition consisting of those on the left (such as labor unions) and those figures located nearer the center of the political spectrum (such as the Democrat Leadership Council). The party has a recognizable split between the left and the center, but the division between a libertarian-left and an authoritarian-left within the party is harder to identify. Obama is conventionally located on the left of the political spectrum, although he has disappointed some on the left of the party over issues ranging from civil liberties to his dealings with the financial services industry. It is however too simplistic to label Obama as a moderate Democrat either. He plays an adroit political game with both wings of the Democrats, offering something to both sides whilst seeking to avoid becoming beholden to either.

Figures on the right of the political spectrum are primarily located within the Republican Party, although there are a small number of Blue Dog Democrats from the south (such as John Barrow from Georgia and Henry Cueller from Texas). The political gravity of the GOP is further to the right than other comparable conservative parties in the world. For instance, a British conservative may find little ideological common ground with a social conservative from the GOP. David Cameron’s stance on a number of issues may even have more in common with Barack Obama than many prominent members of the Republican Party.

The divisions within the Republican Party are in part ideological, and in part one of background. On a conventional level, there is a clear observable split between moderates and those further to the right of the party. The most overt wedge issue within the party is that of reproductive rights. Figures from the religious right usually oppose abortion under any circumstances, whereas moderates adopt a more pragmatic approach. Moderates and right-wing Republicans are also divided over the issue of government spending. Fiscal conservatives such as Paul Broun and Paul Ryan wish to limit the role of the state, whereas moderates such as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney believe that government spending can be used to promote Republican goals such as defending our national security. Divisions within the party over government spending escalated under the Bush administration, a move that mirrors an earlier division under his father’s presidency over the issue of abortion.

There is also a division within the GOP in terms of background. Of a more subtle character than the heat generated by ideological disagreements, it is an important division nonetheless. To begin with, the party establishment is more likely to adopt a moderate stance. This ‘Country Club’ Republicanism is distinct to the more right-wing approach of the rank-and-file. The former reflects the traditional North-Eastern flavor of the party hierarchy, whereas ordinary members demonstrate a more southern-fried populist character. These divisions within the party were laid bare during the 1992 convention, when the patrician George Bush senior clashed with the robust rhetoric of Pat Buchanan. 

The two main parties are the quintessential illustration of broad church parties. This means they adopt a fairly loose ideological character in order to appeal to as many voters as possible. Studies show that most voters congregate around the center of the political spectrum, so it makes rational sense for a party seeking elected office to lean towards the center. Given the wide ideological character of the two parties, it seems inevitable that divisions within the parties are as significant as those between the main parties.

In such a vast country, there is also a regional dimension to consider. The politics of the south are more conservative than the rest of the union, particularly in regards to social issues. In contrast, politics in the North-East is dominated by a liberal mindset. In order to gain elected office in the Bible Belt, a Democrat may well adopt a socially conservative stance. They may also be forced to adopt a pro-gun stance in contrast to most of their fellow Democrats. A clear illustration of this point is Jon Tester, who represents the traditionally red state of Montana. It should of course be noted that not all politicians are necessarily driven by ideological fervor. For many ambitious politicians, a prudent approach to the adaptation of party labels may well be the best course of action to take. This is partly reflected by the propensity of some figures to switch party labels (such as Nathan Deal and Arlen Spencer).