Voter Discontent
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Recent national elections have been characterized by the sharpness of their swings, producing outcomes that have not only varied sharply from election to election, but which have brought an end to--indeed, reversed--what previously had been a relatively long-standing pattern in American politics. Up until 1994, the Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years, while up until 1992 the Republicans had controlled the White House for 28 of the previous 40 years, including 20 out of the previous 24 years. Put another way, by the early 1990s it had become something of a standard pattern over many years for the GOP to control the White House, while the Democrats controlled Congress. Then, successively, the GOP lost the White House in 1992, and the Democrats lost both houses of Congress in 1994. Thus, during 1995-1996, the party control of the branches was reversed from what it had been for most of a generation. The natives-- that is, the voters--were restless. In 1992 they rejected George Bush, who little more than a year before had enjoyed approval ratings as high as 91 percent; in 1994, they effectively repudiated Bill Clinton, whom they had elected two years earlier. Also in 1992 they had given the largest margin to any third-party presidential candidate in 80 years. Voter discontent evidently lay at the root of many of these sharp electoral reversals. In 1992, voters turned sharply against Bush because he seemed indifferent to or unaware of
. . .
he variant interests of "Wall Street" and "Main Street," while the Democratic coalition united even more disparate elements ranging from Northeastern liberals to Southern conservatives.
From the 1970s on, however, parties grew institutionally weaker and ticket-splitting more prevalent, as indicated by the failure of two Republican presidential landslides, in 1972 and 1984, as well as the near-landslide of 1988, to shake Democratic control of Congress. The requirements and nature of fund-raising have been identified as factors in this weakening of the parties (Dahl, 1994, p. 3). Individual candidates became electoral entrepreneurs, dependent on their own fund-raising machines (as well as their own media images) rather than the parties.
As a consequence, party discipline broke down. So long as incumbents could maintain the support of their own local networks, they could defy party leaderships with impunity. This was particularly marked among Democrats; throughout the 1980s, conservative Southern Democrats, the so-called boll weevils, were effectively part of the Republican coalition on most substantive issues (e.g., the crucial Reagan-era budget votes), in defiance of the national party.
The breakdown of the parties
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Reeher Cammarano, Southern Democrats, Clinton Democratic, Willie Horton, Pitney Connelly, Street Democratic, Bill Clinton, Tip O'Neil's, President Clinton, Democratic Congress, voter discontent, political system, american political, 1994 election, american politics, american political system, connelly 1996, dahl 1994, 1994 context york, context york, 1994 context, white house, elections 1994 context, midterm elections 1994, ed midterm elections,
Approximate Word count = 2269
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Voter Discontent
|