Search

Begin New Search Topic Political Parties Political Geography North America

11. The Common Ground of the American People: Policy Positions Supported by Both Democrats and Republicans

Author:
Steven Kull
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
The Federal government is currently failing to address numerous problems. This failure is largely due to increasing partisan polarization resulting in government gridlock. One may well have the impression that there is virtually no common ground between Republicans and Democrats in America today. Some speculate that polarization in the American public is driving the polarization in Congress. However, there are strong reasons to believe that the polarization in Congress primarily comes from other sources. Over the last decades, concurrent with the increase of polarization in Congress there has been an extraordinary increase in the amount of money flowing from special interests into political campaigns as well as a dramatic increase in the number of lobbyists operating in Washington. As many of these special interest have competing objectives their increased efforts at influencing government decisions, and the increased access derived from campaign contributions can exert centrifugal forces on the policymaking process. Still the question stands as to whether there is common ground between Republicans and Democrats in the public—at least more than Congress. If so, the public would have the potential to become an arbiter between the parties, offering a pathway toward convergence. To find out if there is such common ground, a major multi-year study of the American people was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation with the support and participation of Voice of the People, and more recently Common Ground Solutions. Financial support was also provided by the Democracy Fund, the Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the MacArthur Foundation and the Circle Foundation.
Topic:
Ideology, Political Parties, Polarization, and Party System
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

12. Resisting the Call of Nativism: What U.S. Political Parties Can Learn From Other Democracies

Author:
Rachel Kleinfeld and John Dickas
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Nativism has once again gained momentum in U.S. politics. This tendency to define nationhood not by values or laws but in racial, ethnic, or religious terms is not new. Yet nativism is inherently undemocratic because nativists demote citizens who have the “wrong” characteristics to, at best, second-class citizenship. As nativist voters flex their muscle, what can political parties on both sides of the aisle do to put the genie back in the bottle? Examining how Austria, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and Italy have addressed nativism in their politics offers some useful lessons. Case studies of these countries’ experiences indicate that: Nativists can be found on both sides of the political spectrum. Though currently congregating in conservative parties globally, nativists’ preference for redistributive economics that are restricted to their preferred group make them “swing” voters who may vote for candidates on the left or right. Mainstream parties that embrace or collaborate with nativists often believe they can temper nativist preferences. Instead, they tend to absorb the nativists’ views. Nativists then either take over the establishment party or beat it in elections. Changing the subject to economic issues or other topics does not seem to work as well as addressing nativism directly. Parties that condemn and reject nativists sometimes pay short-term electoral costs but are able to keep nativists from taking over their policy agenda. Rejecting nativist politicians does not necessarily reduce the appeal of nativism. Blocking nativist politicians can lead to splinter parties and factions. It does, however, seem to keep nativism from spreading and becoming legitimized.
Topic:
Democracy, Domestic Politics, Political Parties, and Nativism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

13. Republicans, Democrats Divided over Federal Spending Priorities

Author:
Craig Kafura
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Results from the 2020 Chicago Council Survey, conducted July 2-19, 2020, reveal bipartisan support for increased federal spending on a number of domestic priorities, including education, healthcare, and Social Security. But beyond that, Republicans and Democrats are divided on a range of spending issues, including defense, immigration enforcement, and federal aid to state and local law enforcement.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Immigration, Law Enforcement, Budget, and Political Parties
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

14. Republicans, Democrats Split on Increasing US Defense Budget

Author:
Craig Kafura
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
On December 8, the House voted to pass the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), authorizing a total of $740.5 billion in defense appropriations and continuing a trend of defense spending increases. The bill, passed by a margin large enough to override a threatened veto from President Trump, includes pay increases for US servicemembers, mandates the renaming of ten US military bases currently named after Confederates, and has a notable focus on competition with China. The 2020 Chicago Council Survey finds that the US public overall tends to prefer to maintain current levels of defense expenditures. But a plurality of Democrats, younger Americans and the college-educated favor cuts to the US defense budget, while a plurality of Republicans favor expanding it.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Public Opinion, Budget, Political Parties, and Survey
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

15. Predicting United States Policy Outcomes with Random Forests

Author:
Shawn K. McGuire and Charles B. Delahunt
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
Two decades of U.S. government legislative outcomes, as well as the policy preferences of highincome people, the general population, and diverse interest groups, were captured in a detailed dataset curated and analyzed by Gilens, Page et al. (2014). They found that the preferences of high-income earners correlated strongly with policy outcomes, while the preferences of the general population did not, except via a linkage with the preferences of high earners. Their analysis applied the tools of classical statistical inference, in particular logistic regression. In this paper we analyze the Gilens dataset using the complementary tools of Random Forest classifiers (RFs), from Machine Learning. We present two primary findings, concerning respectively prediction and inference: (i) Holdout test sets can be predicted with approximately 70% balanced accuracy by models that consult only the preferences of those in the 90th income percentile and a small number of powerful interest groups, as well as policy area labels. These results include retrodiction, where models trained on pre-1997 cases predicted “future” (post-1997) cases. The 20% gain in accuracy over baseline (chance), in this detailed but noisy dataset, indicates the high importance of a few distinct players in U.S. policy outcomes, and aligns with a body of research indicating that the U.S. government has significant plutocratic tendencies. (ii) The feature selection methods of RF models identify especially salient subsets of interest groups (economic players). These can be used to further investigate the dynamics of governmental policy making, and also offer an example of the potential value of RF feature selection methods for inference on datasets such as this one.
Topic:
Political Economy, Elections, Public Policy, Money, and Political Parties
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

16. Rebuilding a Bipartisan Consensus on Trade Policy

Author:
Phil Levy
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Once upon a time, there was centrist, bipartisan support for US leadership in crafting an open global trading system. Over recent decades, though, as trade grew more complex, the share of US workers in manufacturing fell, and China emerged as an economic power, that consensus dissolved. By the 2016 election, both major party presidential candidates opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement central to US economic and foreign policy. Lest this opposition seem to represent a new consensus, it ushered in the recent period of political discord over trade. While some praised aggressive US actions to address trade deficits and national security concerns, others worried about the fraying of the global trading system and international markets lost to retaliatory barriers. This book provides the non-specialist reader with the background to understand the debates about trade. It begins by briefly tracing the history of US support for trade, as well as the shifts in the manufacturing sector that helped inspire calls to “make America great again.” It also considers the particular challenges posed by China’s emergence as a trading power while calling into question popular thinking on the resultant “China Shock” to US manufacturing. The book also offers an accessible guide to many of the esoteric topics that underlie today’s trade debates. It starts with tariffs, but proceeds to tackle issues such as trade deficits, intellectual property rights protection, rules of origin for goods, antidumping procedures, labor and environmental protections, and sovereignty. Finally, the book offers ways to move beyond the impasse that had emerged by 2016. Rather than focusing on a specific agreement such as the updated NAFTA (USMCA), it looks at whether deals should be bilateral or multilateral, and just how transparent negotiations need to be. It divides some particularly contentious issues into those that are easily addressed, those that might be feasible with work, and those that are nonstarters. While most of the work to restore a consensus would be difficult, the rewards would be great. The book concludes with a warning that the penalties for not restoring US leadership on trade could be severe.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economy, Trade Policy, and Political Parties
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

17. Countdown for Brexit: What to Expect for UK, EU and Turkey?

Author:
Burak Cop
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Political Trends Center (GPoT)
Abstract:
As the most divisive issue of the British politics since 2016, the Brexit phenomenon continues to shake the two biggest mainstream parties, Conservatives and Labour. The Conservative Party is affected by the tension between the Soft and Hard Brexiters, but the divisiveness Brexit brings about hits Labour even worse. A No Deal or Hard Brexit is likely to strengthen Scotland’s bid for independence. Scotland’s probable departure from the UK will surely be encouraging for other secessionist movements in Europe, however it should be noted that the window of opportunity Brexit opens for Scottish nationalists constitutes a rather exceptional case in Europe. One could argue that the “Norway model” for post-Brexit UK could be valid for Turkey too, but that model aims to bring about a deeper integration than what the proponents of “EU-Turkey exclusive partnership” prescribe for Turkey.
Topic:
European Union, Brexit, Political Parties, and Secession
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Turkey, Middle East, North America, Scotland, and European Union

18. Latin America’s Shifting Politics: Mexico’s Party System Under Stress

Author:
Kenneth F. Greene and Mariano Sanchez-Talanquer
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Democracy
Institution:
National Endowment for Democracy
Abstract:
On 1 July 2018, leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) won a decisive victory in Mexico’s presidential election, while a coalition led by AMLO’s National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) claimed majorities in both houses of Congress. AMLO’s calls for change resonated with voters frustrated by chronic poverty and inequality, rising violence, and corruption, and his win has called into question the stability of Mexico’s party system. Yet AMLO, who strove to assemble a “big tent” coalition, is ultimately more a product of the system than a disruptive outsider. Moreover, clear programmatic differences among Mexico’s major parties persist, as do the institutional advantages they enjoy. It is thus most probable that MORENA’s ascent augurs a recomposition of the party system rather than a process of partisan dealignment.
Topic:
Poverty, Elections, Democracy, Inequality, and Political Parties
Political Geography:
Latin America, North America, and Mexico

19. Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election

Author:
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
The U.S. presidential election of 2016 featured frontal challenges to the political establishments of both parties and perhaps the most shocking election upset in American history. This paper analyzes patterns of industrial structure and party competition in both the major party primaries and the general election. It attempts to identify the genuinely new, historically specific factors that led to the upheavals, especially the steady growth of a “dual economy” that locks more and more Americans out of the middle class and into a life of unsteady, low wage employment and, all too often, steep debts. The paper draws extensively on a newly assembled, more comprehensive database of political contributions to identify the specific political forces that coalesced around each candidate. It considers in detail how different investor blocs related to the Republican Party and the Trump campaign as the campaign progressed and the role small contributors played in the various campaigns, especially that of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. It also critically evaluates claims about the final weeks of the election in the light of important overlooked evidence.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, Elections, Finance, Donald Trump, Political Parties, and Banking
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

20. The Economic and Social Roots of Populist Rebellion: Support for Donald Trump in 2016

Author:
Thomas Ferguson, Benjamin I. Page, Jacob Rothschild, Arturo Chang, and Jie Chen
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
This paper critically analyzes voting patterns in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Using survey data from the American National Election Survey and aggregate data on Congressional districts, it assesses the roles that economic and social factors played in Donald J. Trump’s “Populist” candidacy. It shows the hollowness of claims that economic issues played little or no role in the campaign and that social factors such as race or gender suffice to explain the outcome. While agreeing that racial resentment and sexism were important influences, the paper shows how various economic considerations helped Trump win the Republican primary and then led significant blocs of voters to shift from supporting Democrats or abstaining in 2012 to vote for him. It also presents striking evidence of the importance of political money and Senators’ “reverse coattails” in the dramatic final result.
Topic:
Political Economy, Populism, Economic Policy, Free Trade, Money, Voting, Donald Trump, Political Parties, and Presidential Elections
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America