Jump to content
270soft Forum

Swedish Study on Political Parties


Recommended Posts

A Swedish group conducted a large-ranging study on political parties and how they've changed over the past 20-ish years, and the drift from pro-democracy standards to illiberal democracies. 

image.png.513e16bc61b19823b4b433b28df9f62f.png

As you can see, the Republican party moved drastically from the "Democratic Right" to the "Illiberal Right", however they still occupy a range of territory that really isn't seen from other political parties. It is largely the center between the UK Conservative Party and the AKP in Turkey (if a bit closer to the AKP by my eyesight). Meanwhile, the Democrats are largely still in the exact same place as they were in the year 2000. This was conducted by the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/republican-party-autocratic-hungary-turkey-study-trump

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A function of Trump, what I disagree with is the GOP trending in that direction during the Romney days, I do detect a bit of bias based on initial starting location, though I do agree we deserve a large hit based on what Trump has caused us to become.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

A function of Trump, what I disagree with is the GOP trending in that direction during the Romney days, I do detect a bit of bias based on initial starting location, though I do agree we deserve a large hit based on what Trump has caused us to become.

I think that it's largely correct, the GOP has always been a bit farther right than Conservatives in the UK, which has led them to be a bit more anti-democracy. I think that also, the tea party in 2010 likely didn't help anything, which led the GOP's drift from where it was before. Keep in mind that it's the party as a whole, not just the standard bearer. For example, the birther movement probably didn't help, just calling for Obama's impeachment by GOP members of Congress for no real reason, demonisation of the opposition, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

A function of Trump, what I disagree with is the GOP trending in that direction during the Romney days, I do detect a bit of bias based on initial starting location, though I do agree we deserve a large hit based on what Trump has caused us to become.

Do they explain the starting locations? Do they mention when the GOP was last in the Democratic Right box? I assume if 2000 is outside of Dem Right box, then I assume it moved out under Gingrich or with Reagan since they're the influential predecessors of the new GOP (but pre-Trump). 

I am kind of surprised with the Dems being exactly in the same spot. I'll have to read the actually poll info but I gotta go teach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hestia11 said:

I think that it's largely correct, the GOP has always been a bit farther right than Conservatives in the UK, which has led them to be a bit more anti-democracy. I think that also, the tea party in 2010 likely didn't help anything, which led the GOP's drift from where it was before. Keep in mind that it's the party as a whole, not just the standard bearer. For example, the birther movement probably didn't help, just calling for Obama's impeachment by GOP members of Congress for no real reason, demonisation of the opposition, etc.

You act as though these things didn't happen under Bush. I reject the idea that the Tea Party, whose sole purpose was to lower taxes, is an anti-democracy movement. For those of us on the right, the Tea Party was a champion of the republic because we view lower taxes as a good thing for a democracy. We can disagree on that and that's ok but that doesn't make me an authoritarian by any stretch.

Furthermore, as I had stated before, Democrats did the same under Bush. Left-wing nuts like Dennis Kucinich called for Bush's impeachment and he was demonised, literally. I agree that the Birther movement was disgusting and that the GOP has had some ill-intentioned elements. But to act as though the GOP has broken politics while the Democrats have remained choir boys seems misguided.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Do they explain the starting locations? Do they mention when the GOP was last in the Democratic Right box? I assume if 2000 is outside of Dem Right box, then I assume it moved out under Gingrich or with Reagan since they're the influential predecessors of the new GOP (but pre-Trump). 

I am kind of surprised with the Dems being exactly in the same spot. I'll have to read the actually poll info but I gotta go teach. 

Not sure. They're close enough that I personally would consider it to be, because if it's just Dem vs Illiberal, that seems very small for the Democratic box. I didn't see anythign on the article, but I'll try to find the poll.

1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

You act as though these things didn't happen under Bush. I reject the idea that the Tea Party, whose sole purpose was to lower taxes, is an anti-democracy movement. For those of us on the right, the Tea Party was a champion of the republic because we view lower taxes as a good thing for a democracy. We can disagree on that and that's ok but that doesn't make me an authoritarian by any stretch.

Furthermore, as I had stated before, Democrats did the same under Bush. Left-wing nuts like Dennis Kucinich called for Bush's impeachment and he was demonised, literally. I agree that the Birther movement was disgusting and that the GOP has had some ill-intentioned elements. But to act as though the GOP has broken politics while the Democrats have remained choir boys seems misguided.

The final round of debate before voting on the health care bill was marked with vandalism and widespread threats of violence to at least ten Democratic lawmakers across the country, which created public relations problems for the fledgeling Tea Party movement. On March 22, 2010, in what the New York Times called "potentially the most dangerous of many acts of violence and threats against supporters of the bill," a Lynchburg, Virginia Tea Party organizer and the Danville, Virginia Tea Party Chairman both posted the home address of Representative Tom Perriello's brother (mistakenly believing it was the Congressman's address) 

It wasn't all fun and games, either. There was threats of violence from Tea Party chairmen against Democratic representatives. I think that it likely had more to do with platform than anything, but I can't seem to find the segments on political parties, I can only find the one on countries at large.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

Alright, I found some of it I think.

image.png.e64ecd352708c70a1ea951fbbd7f6199.pngimage.png.1284c87c89f867a55f4db41e347f1a64.png

image.png.431ee09a2333e9b008413cedaab81b07.png

but it still looks like it's for a country :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s even more worrying, the study showed that the median governing party in most democracies across the globe are becoming more illiberal—and, sadly, the Republicans are part of that trend. The study says that here “illiberal” refers to a “lower commitment to political pluralism” as well as the willingness to demonize “political opponents, disrespect for fundamental minority rights and encouragement of political violence.”

Found this quote from Fast Company. I think the minority rights could be part of the reason why? But also it could hurt the Dems as well (circa 2000) with treatment of LGBT Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

just calling for Obama's impeachment by GOP members of Congress for no real reason, demonisation of the opposition, etc.

As Supreme Court nominations have become more toxic and far from unanimous decisions in recent years, the society influenced mainly through Internet culture has contributed to this development. One couldn't have spread the idiotic Birther movement without the Internet that quickly and visible. Same with QAnon and Antifa.

15 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I think that it's largely correct, the GOP has always been a bit farther right than Conservatives in the UK, which has led them to be a bit more anti-democracy.

I agree. The UK's Conservatives and the GOP are probable the two most legitimate conservative forces out there. Most ''conservatives'' in Europe are either, way too pro-EU or closely associated with neo-Nazism or anti-semitism as they are not true conservatives... Both is not the case with the GOP and the UK's Tories and that's also, why I appreciate them so much.

I disagree however, that a GOP under Bush, McCain or Romney was more anti-democracy than other legitimate parties of both sides of the aisle. These people have been on the forefront of the democratic struggle. The true anti-democratic hypocrisy is the EU, which doesn't condemn any country for human rights violations, but demands that from all other entities as a self declared haven of morality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.6cdf16ed7571d502a37aab014e9f2303.png

 

@Conservative Elector 2 @Reagan04 @vcczar

I think you'd find this interesting. Disrespects opponents Dems were actually *farther* illiberal than the Republicans in 2000. As I thought, minority rights, LGBT rights, cultural things, etc. that's where the GOP was hit most of the time.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree with the message of the study on the whole, there are some aspects I find questionable.

For example, the populist ‘spectrum’ has republicans moving towards populism, anti-elitist, and people-centric views while democrats are staying neutral or moving away from these values. As Sanders and the demsoc wing of the party have shown, populism is growing in both major parties, not just the republicans as this study claims.

The illiberal section doesn’t have any placements I strongly disagree with, but is also only 4 parts. This is very insufficient to me. Where is the placement on media censorship, gerrymandering, corruption, etc? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zenobiyl said:

Although I agree with the message of the study on the whole, there are some aspects I find questionable.

For example, the populist ‘spectrum’ has republicans moving towards populism, anti-elitist, and people-centric views while democrats are staying neutral or moving away from these values. As Sanders and the demsoc wing of the party have shown, populism is growing in both major parties, not just the republicans as this study claims.

The illiberal section doesn’t have any placements I strongly disagree with, but is also only 4 parts. This is very insufficient to me. Where is the placement on media censorship, gerrymandering, corruption, etc? 

I agree, it seems like too few in my opinion as well. 

For gerrymandering specifically, I'd say it's because not all countries in the world can even gerrymander, so it's not universal.

Corruption is a little bit up to interpretation of the viewer, particularly with things like the GOP and Dems, where corruption isn't really out in the open most of the time, compared with Turkey where it's fairly obvious it's corrupt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

You act as though these things didn't happen under Bush. I reject the idea that the Tea Party, whose sole purpose was to lower taxes, is an anti-democracy movement. For those of us on the right, the Tea Party was a champion of the republic because we view lower taxes as a good thing for a democracy. We can disagree on that and that's ok but that doesn't make me an authoritarian by any stretch.

I agree that the Tea Party started as a more populist, lower taxes, movement. Kind of a right-wing equivalent to Occupy Wall Street. However, I'd say that the Tea Party was hijacked by crazies of the anti-democracy variety, so much that by 2016 the entire movement had been dilluted of its original purpose and ideals. I think all that needs to be said about what the Tea Party became can be said by the fact that the Tea Party Caucus included people like Steve King, Steve Scalise and MItch McConnell

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, superezione said:

I think that the Tea Party started as a more populist, lower taxes, movement. Kind of a right-wing equivalent to Occupy Wall Street. However, I'd say that the Tea Party was hijacked by crazies of the anti-democracy variety, so much that by 2016 the entire movement had been dilluted of its original purpose and ideals.

That’s fair, the Tea Party was killed by Donald Trump so that is true. The libertarian-to-alt-right pipeline is very real and it’s something I’m constantly guarding against and fighting in libertarianism. There are few things more anathema to actual conservative libertarian thought than right-wing populism.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

After considering this chart, I'm going to say that Gingrich's Revolution is the primary contemporary reason for the GOP becoming undemocratic (or illiberal), although it all started earlier. 

For most of our history, both parties had very conservative and very progressive wings. This kept the parties balanced. It give voters a real choice. Neither presidential candidate would be expected to change things too much, it was primarily down to, which party do you trust to do the things you expect the country to do. 

Efforts towards Civil Rights and Voting Rights in the 1930s to the 1950s foreshadowed what was to occur in the 1960s. As you know, starting in the 1960s Southern Democrats started to slowly migrate to the Republican Party, but not really doing so in force until Gingrich. Gingrich also made unbridled Conservative Populism palatable to Conservatives in the North and West. Reagan was too bipartisan to do what Gingrich did, but he sort of opened the door for Gingrich, and Goldwater opened the door for Reagan, whose door was opened by Sen. Robert Taft. 

As Anti-Civil Rights and States Rights Southern Democrats moved to the Republican party, it no longer seemed unethical for a pro-Civil Rights Rockefeller Republican to join the Democrats (formerly "the party of segregationists").  This corresponds with charts that show hyper partisanship beginning with Reagan, exploding with Gingrich, and out of control now. All the egalitarian politicians are pretty much now in one party, leaving one party as the "party of self interest and American purity". 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

After considering this chart, I'm going to say that Gingrich's Revolution is the primary contemporary reason for the GOP becoming undemocratic (or illiberal), although it all started earlier. 

For most of our history, both parties had very conservative and very progressive wings. This kept the parties balanced. It give voters a real choice. Neither presidential candidate would be expected to change things too much, it was primarily down to, which party do you trust to do the things you expect the country to do. 

Efforts towards Civil Rights and Voting Rights in the 1930s to the 1950s foreshadowed what was to occur in the 1960s. As you know, starting in the 1960s Southern Democrats started to slowly migrate to the Republican Party, but not really doing so in force until Gingrich. Gingrich also made unbridled Conservative Populism palatable to Conservatives in the North and West. Reagan was too bipartisan to do what Gingrich did, but he sort of opened the door for Gingrich, and Goldwater opened the door for Reagan, whose door was opened by Sen. Robert Taft. 

As Anti-Civil Rights and States Rights Southern Democrats moved to the Republican party, it no longer seemed unethical for a pro-Civil Rights Rockefeller Republican to join the Democrats (formerly "the party of segregationists").  This corresponds with charts that show hyper partisanship beginning with Reagan, exploding with Gingrich, and out of control now. All the egalitarian politicians are pretty much now in one party, leaving one party as the "party of self interest and American purity". 

This here.  Blue Dog Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans used to exist until recently.  They still do (ie. Joe Manchin in West Virginia, and Larry Hogan/Charlie Baker types for the Republican Party), but they are much rarer compared to, say, 30 years ago.  Only in the past ~10 or so years have things truly polarized imo, 2008 Obama was fairly conservative in some standards (even for those days), but now the dialogue has shifted so much that it is a competition to "out-woke" each other in both parties.  We all saw that Biden struggled to hit his stride in the primaries until SC, and an aforementioned Larry Hogan or Charlie Baker would have difficulty winning a nomination in today's GOP; both parties are adopting much more populist tones and platforms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, vcczar said:

After considering this chart, I'm going to say that Gingrich's Revolution is the primary contemporary reason for the GOP becoming undemocratic (or illiberal), although it all started earlier. 

For most of our history, both parties had very conservative and very progressive wings. This kept the parties balanced. It give voters a real choice. Neither presidential candidate would be expected to change things too much, it was primarily down to, which party do you trust to do the things you expect the country to do. 

Efforts towards Civil Rights and Voting Rights in the 1930s to the 1950s foreshadowed what was to occur in the 1960s. As you know, starting in the 1960s Southern Democrats started to slowly migrate to the Republican Party, but not really doing so in force until Gingrich. Gingrich also made unbridled Conservative Populism palatable to Conservatives in the North and West. Reagan was too bipartisan to do what Gingrich did, but he sort of opened the door for Gingrich, and Goldwater opened the door for Reagan, whose door was opened by Sen. Robert Taft. 

As Anti-Civil Rights and States Rights Southern Democrats moved to the Republican party, it no longer seemed unethical for a pro-Civil Rights Rockefeller Republican to join the Democrats (formerly "the party of segregationists").  This corresponds with charts that show hyper partisanship beginning with Reagan, exploding with Gingrich, and out of control now. All the egalitarian politicians are pretty much now in one party, leaving one party as the "party of self interest and American purity". 

 

 

With all due respect, I'm not convinced either major U.S. Duopoly party truly values democracy, as they both thoroughly benefit from the current electoral paradigm that de facto (if not de jure) makes them the only two parties with the only chances of winning (except for the odd Congressional or State Legislative Seat, Governorship, or Local Office), and neither has expressed, in their leadership (as opposed to some individual members) a true desire to reform or change that system to open it up to political pluralism and less de facto institutional marginalization of Third Party and Independent candidates. On an international list (which I can link, if asked), where nations are ranked by how democratic they are, and in categories of "Full Democracy," "Flawed Democracy," Hybrid Regime," and "Authoritarian," with like Switzerland, Sweden, or Iceland on top and North Korea on the bottom (of 167 sovereign nations evaluated), the U.S. is number 25 and a "Flawed Democracy."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...