One state, two state, red state, blue state

[qatarperegrine]

You know what's unexpectedly hard? Trying to explain the U.S. political system to someone who knows very little about it. Not because our system is that complicated, but because it's such an unusual experience to talk to someone who doesn't have the general knowledge that can be expected of anyone who's been through an eighth grade social studies class.

A few weeks ago, an Egyptian student brought me an article on media bias. She was baffled by a particular section about different media outlets' decisions to report the Supreme Court decision on the Florida recount as either a 7-2 or a 5-4 decision. This student is fascinated by politics, and the article brought up a lot of questions in her mind about how American government worked.

Every time I answered a question, though, it just led to more questions. Answering a question on why only Florida had a recount, for example, opened the whole question of the electoral college. I found myself explaining basic concepts like federalism, the branches of government, and the principle of judicial review. (A shout out to Mr. McHenry, my eighth grade social studies teacher, for drilling Marbury v. Madison into my brain.)

Here were the two hardest parts of explaining the 2000 election:

1. Communicating the seriousness of concerns about voting irregularities without making it sound like American elections are as corrupt as Egyptian. (The only time the student's eyes lit with recognition was at the mention of the fact that some of the Supreme Court justices had been appointed by the father of one of the candidates. Her next question: "Does 'appointed' mean the same as 'bribed'?") How do you explain that, even though she hears people say the election was "stolen," it's not quite the same as Mubarak stealing an election?


2. Explaining "red states" and "blue states"! At first blush it seemed easy: red states vote majority Republican, blue states Democrat. However, the student didn't know what Republicans and Democrats were, nor the meanings of the words "conservative" and "liberal." So here's my question to all of you: how would you explain these concepts? What examples would you choose to show the differences between the two parties' views?

Comments

[3catsjackson.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you could relate Repubs and Dems as being akin to Theocratic and Secular governments? Not at all a perfect analogy, but it might be more accessible in the Middle East.

As far as the outrage over 2000, I think it has to do with the fact that Americans in general tend to idolize the founding fathers, the documents they wrote, and the system they built. Even though we see flaws with the system we live in, the link with that idealized notion of democratic government is something that many Americans hold dear, almost fanatically. So most Americans take it for granted that we're all created equal, and that all of us get one vote, and that all those votes will be counted. 2000 brought to light some ways that this wasn't actually the case, and so the reaction was one of disheartening to see ideals heretofore considered factual to have either deteriorated, never existed, or been extraordinarily stolen. Given those choices, it's far less painful to consider it a fluke rather than a typical occurrence. Voters in Egypt by now are used to (if not thrilled with) Mubarak's sort of election stealing, so it lacks the same shock value and jarring of expectations.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I did talk about Republicans as favoring traditional interpretations of religion and societal values, and Democrats as favoring personal choice in such matters. Of course, the examples that came to mind (abortion, gay marriage) are issues on most folks here would be resolutely on the Republican side.

I did tell her that to have such electoral confusion was unusual in the U.S., and that while there are always low-level concerns about things like how impartial judges really are, we are used to a much more transparent political system than she is used to. (I doubt I said it that concisely, though.)

Excuse me

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

but other than the pieces of paper with Party Platform written on top, campaign slogans and generic labels such as "conservative" vs. "liberal", I seriously ask, IS there really any significant difference in practice, between the two parties? While I've never lived in the USA as an adult, the view from afar is such that as far as actual governing is concerned, I can't really tell which party is "in power" or who backed which lousy President. Aside from the fact that each party has it's "traditional demographic" of voters, I don't see much difference between them [Bush has actually greatly increased the polarization between the two], to the extent that the cynic in me thinks you folks mostly have a [two-headed] one-party system (with all that this implies) that have things set up between them, to prevent any real threat from any other opinion/party - As long as this status-quo prevails it doesn't really matter what the party agenda is. All they ever use are buzz-words any way.

I have never actually voted in the USA. Because of the way the bizarre electoral system is set-up, I don't really have to. My absentee ballot would be polled in a strong Blue state (Massachusetts), and my inclination so far (surprising as this may seem), has been to vote for Democrat Presidential candidates. I once checked - the last time my voting district was voted red was about 130 years ago.

The one time that I actually bothered applying to vote, was back in 1992 or 1996 when Ross Perot ran for office (this would have been my first or second eligible election). But at the time, I didn't understand how futile this would have been - If you are NOT from a "swing state" then your vote really doesn't matter, whether you vote for or against your state "color", let alone some additional candidate.

The greatest difficulty that foreigners have with understanding the USA political set-up, is that despite external appearances where the USA appears to be one country, internally it is, to a large extent, fifty independent ones, with a lot more political maneuvering and in-fighting than an outsider would believe possible. It took me a good long time to internalize this, that in fact, the states even have [moderately] different forms of government, each with it's own set of laws and "constitution", and that indeed these minor differences are a source of "state pride". Us foreigners tend to think the USA is much more monolithic. You guys are weird. ;-)

I'll close with a wonderful quote from Ross Perot, that is so much more true today than when said in 1992, Washington D.C, he said,

"has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not words, in this city."

Re: Excuse me

[qatar.livejournal.com]

The United States certainly has a much narrower political spectrum than most countries in the world. In other words, compared to other countries, our most outrageously left-wing and outrageously right-wing candidates are a lot closer together.

Before we started invading Middle Eastern countries willy nilly, I would have agreed with you that the two major parties are only nominally different. (Full disclosure: I am currently a registered Democrat because I live in a closed-primary state; normally I'm a member of the Green Party.) However, Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq to fight Osama bin Laden. John Kerry would not be trying to start a Crusade against "Evildoers." I think those are differences worth talking about.

[aristopheles.livejournal.com]

I think I would try to identify the usual constituencies that Republicans and Democrats try to appeal to. Neither party really has a single base: Republicans want to appeal to their traditional business interests along with small businesspeople, evangelicals, security hawks, and most of rural America. Democrats have most of the cities, union members (dwindling), some minorities, and liberal religious groups. Of course, a lot of people fit into more than one of these groups, and there are tensions between coalition partners! For example, among Republicans, business people and hawks are often socially liberal. African-Americans generally vote Democratic, but they often support school vouchers and disapprove of abortion.
So I'd probably want to start with that kind of analysis, before trying to explain why the parties sort of have official ideologies, but aren't very consistent.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Ooh, that's a good thought. Maybe I'll do that next time.

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

In the simplest possible terms, I would define republicans as fiscally conservative in government with tendancies towards free market places, while being social traditionalists. Conversely, democrats or liberals tend to want the government to invest in social welfare programs and tend to be socially permissive. Naturally politics in a two party system with winner take all elections means politicians must tend towards moderation within their district to win, so the distinctions are more theoretical than real at this point, but I think that is where the ideological lines can be drawn in the simplest possible terms.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

The social welfare issue is one I didn't discuss, but you're right that it's a really important one.

I'm not sure that I buy that Republicans are fiscally conservative anymore, though!

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

No, they aren't, but that tends to be their campaign platform. Democrats arent exactly socially progressive either. Hillary Clinton and other prominent democrats are quick to shit upon the first amendment when it secures moderate voters. These kinds of issues dont run well with moderate voters, so they tend to get dropped by the wayside once push comes to shove. The average person is xenophobic, ruled by fear, and wants government assistance back whenever they have it taken away from them. Defining what a political party is is a virtual impossibility. Defining what their platform is is about the best you can do I think, while explaining that with our election system being the way it is, most politicians tend towards the moderate of their constituency, wherever that happens to be, so most democrats and republicans end up having some features of the opposing platform in order to get elected, to the point where many republicans and democrats are practically speaking indistinguishable. Depending on who you ask, that is either a huge problem with, or the brightest point of our electoral system.

It's why Bush and crew have ultimately lost the good will of the electorate. His talk was appealing to many in theory, but most people being moderate in nature, his extremist politics eventually offended the moderates that voted for him, as well as the ideological purists that voted for him as a second choice. 3 years ago I might have said otherwise, but ultimately, I think our moderate politics may be a good thing. I just think we need instant run offs, and a few other electoral fixes like proportionality and, most importantly, campaign finance reform with teeth. Really though, the ultimate resolution of this Bush crises has reinstilled in me a sense that, bizarre as it seems from moment to moment, the U.S. electoral system seems to work well enough in the long run.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

"I just think we need instant run offs, and a few other electoral fixes like proportionality and, most importantly, campaign finance reform with teeth."

Amen!!