This is just an observation. I may be entirely wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. It's an observation of political leanings, too, so feel free to pick it apart.

I'm following up on RAW's earlier post below, somewhat, in that it sparked some things I read a while back. If you look over the blogosphere, in respect to the recent Texas constitutional amendment outlawing Gay Marriage, there are pretty much two reactions - "eh" and "OMG WTF those Texans are so intolerant." This seems to be especially true of certain blogs I read that are authored by Texans who were vehemently opposed to the amendment before it passed.

Strangely disheartening, despite the fact that the amendment passed by a more-than-clear majority, is two common components: comment posts explaining rationally why someone would vote for the amendment, and comment posts by those who are in agreement but don't agree about calling people names.

Thus, the "echo chamber." It has been posited that part of the reason for the political split in the country has to do with people's associations: as politics gets more charged up, people start using political views as an excuse to disassociate with people (because their political discussions don't remain friendly). Pretty soon, they get to the point where many sit today - a soundproofed echo chamber where their own viewpoint is reflected back at them by their friends, and opposing viewpoints are bounced out by a wall of "I can't believe you just said that, you're so uneducated/redneck/bigoted/intolerant/insert vitriol here."

Obviously, the left has no monopoly on this. Listen to a radio talk show like Limburger or inHannity and you get much the same format - a host going on and on, who gladly accepts callers who agree, and whose concept of "reasoning" with someone who disagrees more or less consists of cutting them off in the middle of any statement they make.

However, the echo chamber of the left, at least to me, seems more institutionalized and uncomfortable. Part of this is the fact that the Democratic Party is "unified" whereas many so-called Conservatives are not Republicans. Democrats follow the wisdom of Lyndon Johnson, who admonished his party to keep their critics inside the tent peeing out, rather than outside the tent peeing in. The result is that the Democratic Party platform, and its top officials, go through an amazing vetting process. Even lesser-known Democrats know that to utter certain heresies is to bring the wrath of these groups.

For instance:
- Suggesting that Roe v. Wade is anything but a blanket "any abortion, any time, at moment's notice" decision is highly frowned upon.
- Suggesting that there are cultural problems within the black community (gangsta rappers, disdain for education and proper speaking via the "acting white" stereotype) that cause many of the problems for them today, even by certain black leaders, is heresy.
- Suggesting that environmental groups may be partly to blame for our energy problems, because they have constantly opposed the creation of new power plants and refineries anytime one was to be built, is heresy.
- Suggesting that our border with Mexico needs controlling? Heresy.
- Suggesting that maybe, just perhaps, the same forces of evolution that have left females to be (on average) shorter, and less muscled, with wider hips, than males also have shaped a few differences in brain structure? Utter heresy.
- Suggesting that they "gay rights" movement isn't exactly the same, and just as urgent, as the Civil Rights movement under MLK was? Heresy.

Now, these are just a few, and I won't say that you never hear these - but I can say with certainty that when you do, some interest group or other within the Democratic Party is going to throw a screaming hissy fit and demand an apology. Even in mixed company, discussions along any "heretical" topic from the side of the left tend to begin with comments incorporating a dismissive buzzword, that attacks the opposing viewpoint on emotional rather than logical grounds.

Case in point: the crew I was hanging out with earlier this week. Normally, we don't discuss politics, because we've got 1 hyperlibertarian, 1 true moderate, 1 moderate-to-conservative (me), and at least two hyperliberals. But this one was "important."

The entire discussion, before it degenerated and got cut off in favor of not becoming crazy and hurting feelings, was:
1: "Hey, did you hear the Prop 2 amendment passed by over 70%?"
2: "Yeah, I can't believe this entire state is so *bleep*ing intolerant."

That was it. A few more words were spoken, but the underlying assumption - that all of the room would be in agreement - was flat wrong. And yet it didn't get challenged. Why? Because there would be no point. You've already been called "intolerant", and you know by that word that the person who uttered it will not be convinced to any other point of view. You know that if you argue it, you're likely going to be called a few more of those names. The alternative, which I followed, was to bite my tongue and just sit it out.

Echo Chamber, in a nutshell.

On a statewide basis, one has to wonder how prevalent this is. There were plenty of pro-gay rights activists out trying to drum up support. The cries of "intolerance" were heard far and wide. Talk radio hosts might have been the other side, but plenty of callers were calling those shows and voicing their opinion that the amendment needed to fail.

Yet it passed, by 70+ percentage points voting for it. Where were all these voters? Apparently they were the silent majority. Calling them intolerant, or bigots, or anything else, just gave them that much more reason to pull the lever for the amendment in the privacy and anonymity of the voting booth.

The echo chamber is a more generalized case of RAW's earlier observation about the vitriol in the issue and the fact that rather than wondering why so few people agreed with them, the activists are still busy attacking everyone who didn't vote their way, but it's still valid.

The bigger problem for the left is that they're presenting themselves as un-convincable. To convert someone - even a moderate - to your side, you have to at least give the appearance that you're willing to listen to their concerns or ideas if they think you're not quite right.

The left, even being out of power, still aren't doing that. And that's where they're losing the moderates, many of whom (like myself) probably agree with them on 45-55% of the issues.

Hey all,

Since RAW is having lots of fun with "life" the next couple weeks, I offered (and he said yes) to fill in. Our topic today, of course, is Harriet Miers, who is no longer a nominee for the Supreme Court.

Lots of blogs out there, too many to list really, went one way or the other. Democrat blogs were either mum, or trying to dig into her past. Conservative blogs were, susprisingly (but not overly so), also unsupportive of Miers.

The rub of the matter: being relatively conservative myself, Miers surprised me. I, like many, thought this was blatant cronyism. Like many conservatives who aren't big-R Republicans, I've come to have a passing support of President Bush issue by issue, depending on whether or not he's representing my principles. As in this case it seemed obvious cronyism, and there wasn't enough information for me to have a good idea of what her qualifications were as a real constitutional scholar (not to say that I think much of the Court currently are, since it's obvious some of them haven't read the document in decades), I couldn't stand firmly behind her.

I was also, I fear, dissuaded by the behavior of the other side. As some would say in talk radio, most nominees that the other side of the aisle would agree with, are not people I would. Yes, the Democrats were putting up token opposition, but it didn't seem quite real. Any nominee that fits my perceptions of a good judge, likely is someone who will infuriate at least a few of them (especially those whose job it is to be infuriated), so the relative silence was unsettling.

I was also unconvinced by Bush's assurances that she "shares his judicial philosophy", because I've yet to nail down what that is. If she shares a judicial philosophy that let the Microsoft antitrust suit wither on the vine, that passes and expands the PATRIOT Act with no oversight and in light of recent FBI admissions of grevious abuses, I'm sure I don't agree with it.

Sum total: I'm glad she's gone. There are plenty of nominees who will be relatively transparent, and will have a record from which their record and thoughts can be gleaned, rather than having to trust Bush's word when I already disagree with him at least 30% of the time.

This is the last in the Whigs and Federalist series of posts, though I'll make reference to this all off and on because of the ways that these two parties in this fictional world where super powers exist and we're at war against South America matter to me in the world of Republicans and Democrats.

The little quiz I wrote says that I'm a Moderate Whig. The way I wrote it made it have to say I was something (I didn't have an "independent" option). The truth is that I am actually neither. In the world that I wrote, I am absolutely, 100%, in between.

This provides me a great deal of insight to real political issues (or at least I'd like to think I have the insight that I believe this mental trick provides me). It allows me a greater degree of objectivity because if I find myself in a purely partisan dispute, I can usually transfer the argument to Whigs and Federalists and get a whole new look on things.

Lex Alexander sometimes refers to The Hillary Test, in which you take an action of President Bush's and apply it to President Hillary Clinton and see if you approve of it or not.

In one sense, such tests are helpful. If you don't support a member of the opposite party having a particular power, then you shouldn't support a member of your own having it. There are, in my experience, two problems with this method:

1) Antagonism towards the opposition: Republicans often shriek at the thought of Hillary Clinton having any power. It is in some ways not rational. The Republican view of Hillary is in itself not rational. I know because I harbor a deep dislike for the woman, but I'll be damned if I can give a good reason for feeling the way that I do. That's just it, it's a feeling, not an objective analysis. As such, I would not be willing to give her powers that she needs to carry her office effectively.

The same applies with Democrats towards Bush. The belief that Bush is a moron is belied by his MBA. Yet they believe it anyway. It's more than just that Bush disagrees with them, but it's a feeling that they have towards the person. The same goes for various postings I've seen by liberals where Bush is an evil entity or, as I've seen in a couple places, a psychopath.

Being a Republican, I am not in any position to make an objective analysis of either President Bush or Senator Clinton. Because Bush supports most of the views that I do, I am naturally inclined to look at him more favorably not only from a political standpoint (I agree with him on the issues) but from a personal one, too (I believe that he is a good person). Because Clinton opposes most of the views that I do, I view her unfavorably professional (she supports things I don't) but personally as well (she's opportunistic and shallow).

None of this is to say that my views are inherently invalid and when I take knocks at a Democrat you should just shrug it off. There are liberals that I admire (I like Russ Feingold) despite our disagreements.

But often the personal creeps in to the political. It's difficult for anyone, no matter how well-intentioned, to completely seperate the two.

So, for me, the Hillary test would likely result in my not giving any president any power. Libertarians would undoubtedly view that as a good thing, and as a libertarian-minded Republican I'm sympathetic to it, but sometimes powers must be given to protect the state from enemies outside and in.

2) Some views are not transferrable. If someone is afraid of John Ashcroft using powers for nefarious ends, it does not necessarily follow that they should fear Janet Reno using powers for similarly nefarious ends. Ashcroft is a social conservative with antipathy towards moral licenciousness, homosexuality, abortion, and a host of other topics.

If there are laws in place making homosexuality and abortion legal, which there are, there is somewhat less reason to fear Ashcroft than if the law was ambiguous or against such things.

A similar argument could be made in regards to Janet Reno and guns. If there are numerous laws in place restricting gun ownership rights, and Reno is very much a gun opponent, there is more reason to fear a certain right that she could use against the private ownership of guns than there would be by John Ashcroft, who is in favor of private gun ownership.

Both of these apply to broader principles as well. It's not a very easy thing to do to say "What if the situation in Florida in 2000 had been reversed? What if it was Bush that had the voters that had voted wrongly and thus costed him the election? What if it were Gore that was saying that the election is over and therefore we should accept him as the winner?"

It's a difficult scenario for a couple of reasons. First of all, while it could happen, an aspect that would be newsworthy would be how the two sides were reversed. Instead of the stereotypical conservative disinfranchising the minority, it would be the liberals doing it. Take it a step further, and it's less likely that Republicans would vote technically improperly to begin with.

Elderly voters are, in general, Democratic. So are first-time voters. So are uneducated voters. Republican voters, in general, are wealthier (more educated) and in rural areas (where there are less voters and they can get more attention if they are confused). So the question of "what if the roles had been reversed" is a difficult one to imagine.

As it was, it was an easy conclusion for both sides to come to. The Republicans, being less tolerant of error and more skeptical of "pro-democratic" laws (such as instant voter registration) that allow a greater chance of abuse or mischief, quite easily came to the conclusion that if you undervoted or overvoted, you should pay more attention next time.

The Democrats, believing that democracy is only democracy if everyone participates, quite easily came to the opposite conclusion: Every vote should count.

I'm oversimplifying it in a number of areas, including the overseas ballots, but in some ways that underscores my point. That was struck as odd by me and a number of other people because not only were both sides arguing against what they were saying a day earlier, but they seemed to be running contrary to their philosophical instincts.

Incoincidentally, throughout all this, there is the matter that low turnout (ie ones where we make sure everyone votes properly, registered six months in advance, etc.) helps Republicans and high turnout (ie ones with spontenous or inspired voters) helps Democrats. This dovetails nicely with each of their position.

Many of the very same issues were at work in the last New Jersey senatorial election, where Democrats felt that the laws are there to provide a choice and if the laws don't account for a choice, democracy trumps legalism and the Republicans felt that no, no do-overs here.

In many ways, it all folds in together. We view politics in general as a left-right continuoum with the well-to-do (and all that entails) voting Republican and the poor voting Democratic. Therefore, on any given issue, you're going to run in to the party that supports second chances, safety nets, and so on and the party of strict rules.

Both sides run contrary to this on occasion on issues (the vouchers issue, for instance) and specific cases (a Republican governor's kid caught using drugs), but these issues and the invariable shouts of "hypocrisy" make them the exceptions that proves the rule.

So if the personal and the political fold together, and if expediency and ideology fold together, it's often very difficult to seperate your personal views and partisan expediency from political ideas.

That's where the Whigs and Federalists come in.

Just about any issue I can imagine that exists between Republicans and Democrats can also exist between Federalists and Whigs. The educated generally vote Whig and the uneducated Federalist. The wealthy splits their vote, allowing me even more flexibility.

So take the New Jersey 2002 senatorial election situation and put it in W/F terms. It is likely that the "everybody-should-participate" Whigs would be of the mind that democracy trumps law while the "democracy-doesn't-exist-without-law" Federalists would say that's not the case.

So I can then look at the 2002 election with Torricelli, Lautenberg, and Forrester without looking at the people involved and without looking at the parties involved.

In the case between Whigs and Federalists, where I don't have a dog in the hunt, I can say that I agree completely with the Federalists. In turn, my agreement with the Republicans in NJ'02 was not a partisan issue.

To take it to Florida is a more complicated issue. In a similar situation between the Whigs and the Federalists, my view was that the race for Florida is indeterminantly close and within the margin of error. I could see both sides of the issue and I'll be darned if I couldn't decide which one was right.

Thus, in the real world, I was relatively neutral during the recount. I obviously wanted Bush to win, but I was hard-pressed to be too critical of Gore. On the other hand, once the Florida State Supreme Court made what I considered a liberal partisan decision, I became fiercely partisan and supporting a Supreme Court ruling I otherwise wouldn't have, viewing that two wrongs in that case do make a right.

In other words, there came a point where, for both sides, partisanship was all that matters. Since (with the help of the W/F continuoum!) I had initially tried to approach the situation fairly, I hold no regrets for believing what I did and do.

(Note: This post is not a platform to rehash the 2000 elections. I chose it as an example of a highly partisan dispute. Any comments that focus solely on this tangental issue will be ignored.)


The other great advantage of the W/F continuoum for me is the ability to see how provisional politics really is. We have in this country what we view as conservative and liberal. In some ways, they make a lot of sense, and in others they make little.

Neither is pro-government or anti-government in any consistent way. Both support using government in ways that advance their agenda and oppose it in ways that set their agenda back. Republicans wear the banner of federalism except when it comes to drug policy, partial-birth abortions, gay marriage, and so on. Democrats are establishmentarian as long as that establishment is the government and not corporations or a church.

The long and short of it is that they stand for what they need to stand for in order to satisfy their bases. As Dr. Lutz said, the purpose of a political party is to get elected.

Some of their base is demographic. Democrats have to satisfy the black community and Republicans their religious one. A lot of it is ideological with socialist Democrats and puritanical Republicans.

What I found most interesting was when I was trying to put real life politicians in the W/F continuoum. One would expect most of them come into the center, as the Republicans and Democrats distribute relatively equally among the Whigs and Federalists.

The more I looked at it, the more I realized that's not necessarily the case. A lot of what our politicians purport to believe they do so out of expediency. That's one reason why so many of their views change with their demographics. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt used to be pro-life and then, magically, as the Democratic Party became nigh prohibitively pro-choice, they had changes of hearts.

I do not believe that means that Gore and Gephardt are without beliefs anymore than formerly pro-choice George H. Bush is by becoming pro-life. There has been a lot of talk of Condaleeza Rice running for the presidency and in Republican circles such as The Corner a debate (that I'd find if I had time) occured on whether or not they would accept her "becoming" pro-life (at the moment she was not on the record on that issue, whether she is now I do not know).

The argument broke down between those that felt if she took it opportunistically and those that felt as long as she took it and remained steadfast, it didn't matter as much.

The latter happens a lot more than we recognize, I believe.

While running through the politicians and their views, I stumbled on the realization that most of us have a core set of beliefs. We believe in an economically aggressive government or we oppose it. Perhaps we're somewhere in between viewing aggressive as being good as long as it is incentive-based or socially egalitarian-based, but not simply the redistribution of wealth.

We also have certain social beliefs. We are pro-life or pro-choice, we view abortion as good, neutral, or bad. We view homosexuality as something to be prohibited, tolerated, or embraced.

The more I thought about it, the less confident I was that politicians had any more than a small number of broad strokes in their personal platform and the rest of the positions they take, they often do out of expediency or, more likely, clustering.

Take "New York Governor" Jack Kemp. The real Jack Kemp is a supply-side capitalist. It's my personal belief that the rest of Kemp's beliefs spring from that. Holding the economic position that he does, I suspect that he "goes along" with Republicans a great deal because they support his supply-side agenda. More than that, I believe he takes a lot of these positions because if they're smart enough to take the right position on supply-side economics, they're probably right on drug policy, foreign policy, and so on.

The left-right continuoum has a tendency to pull everyone in. The libertarians like their four-dimensional map, but from a practical standpoint it isn't particularly useful. It's only the X-axis that matters. Once it's flattened into two dimensions, it is somewhat difficult for a person to remain out of the fray when neither party is talking to them or speaking their language with any consistency.

That's how I moved from staid libertarianism to being a Republican. My views have changed, though not so much in a specific direction. What's changed is my understanding that I was not "in between" and that for all of my views, one party represented them more than the other.

Once I accepted that I was a Republican, I noticed that my approach to new issues tended to be the Republican one. That's not to say I reflexively agree with Republicans on every issue that comes down the pike, but rather I find myself with a more open ear towards a Republican's argument than a Democrat's.

If I am ambivalent or seriously conflicted about an issue, I will more often than not (at least tentatively) side with the party that sides with me on all of these other issues. I don't do it consciously, but I look at my rightward shift on affirmative action, for instance, and I can see that it's there.

I believe that most of us do this to an extent or another and that's why even self-professed independents will, if pushed against a wall, lean one way or the other. Even if they don't particularly care for the party that better represents their beliefs, you'll hear it in their hostility towards the other party.

There's a reason that 57/43 is considered a landslide in a country where a third of the electorate professes to be moderate or independent.

Which brings me back to Whigs and Federalists. Most likely, if I existed in their world, I'd lean in one direction or another. Since I don't, however, I can have the objectivity that I lack in the here and now and allow the partisan drift to become minimized.

Federalists
Full Name: American Federalist Party
Shorthand: Federalists, AFP
Mascot: Beaver
Direction: "Right"
Regional Base: New England, Rust Belt
Presidents since World War II:
Earl Warren (1945-52)
James F. Knight (1965-66)
William B. Keller (1967-72, 1977-80)
Clifford Ellington (1985-92)
Maxwell Knight (1993-2000)
David Hockley (2000-01)

Quote:
"As the nations original party, the Federalist Party stands for America against all of its threats at home and abroad. We believe in a vigorous national defense. We believe in pro-actively handling foreign threats before they reach our shores.

It's become chic to argue that the United States needs to be more humble and tread more carefully. We reject that notion and believe that we have been blessed by God with the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. We will never apologize for that.

"Despite our prosperity, there is still much work to do at home. A truly free people cannot exist side-by-side poverty and want. As such, we believe in worker's rights, the rights to collectively bargain, and a livable minimum wage so that our children can afford clothes and school supplies.

"None of this should come at the expense of business, however. We believe that corporations make the backbone of our success and we would never want to do them harm. As such, we support reforming our legal system to a business-friendly, or as we say 'innovation-friendly', environment. For too long we've blamed problems the problems in this country on those that have made it most successful.

"There are those that say the reward for our success is to stop doing those things that have made us successful. That sounds to me the path to ruin. Our debt to ourselves and, more importantly, or children, is not to cash in our chips, but rather to continue our prosperity.

"The chief reason to the success of our nation is the moral righteousness of our cause. We spread our ideals of democracy and freedom abroad and at home we prove that liberty is not license. We reject the notion that liberty is the right to be a danger either to our safety or our moral climate. Therefore we support an aggressive criminal justice system there to assure that we remain a moral people, worthy of the prosperity and freedom that has been bestowed upon us."
-President James Maxwell Knight, January 20, 1997.

Positions:
In favor of a balanced budget
Against legal abortion
In favor of gun control
In favor of robust, or even nationalized, health care system.
In favor of tort reform
In favor of tight smoking restrictions
Ambivalent to the "seperation of church and state"
Against an unfettered free market
Against environmental regulations
In favor of a strong, security-based national defense
Against disarmament
In favor of tough drug laws
In favor of tough immigration laws

Strongly supported by:
Unions
Catholics
Military personnel
Married women
Jews
Media
African Americans
Large corporations

Strongly opposed by:
Hollywood
Feminists
Environmentalists
Homosexual groups
Small businesses
Hyper-sapiens
NRA
Immigrants


Whigs
Full Name: National Alliance Party
Shorthand: Whig, Alliance, NAP
Mascot: Platypus
Direction: "Left"
Regional Base: Pacific Coast, Southwest
Presidents since WWII:
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-60)
Albert Gore (1961-65)
Peter Mitchem (1973-77)
Martin Holt (1981-85)
Franklin R. Cale (2001- )

Quote:
"America is about more than a flag or invading a foreign land. The Constitution is more than simply something locked away under protective glass, frozen from time.

"Freedom is about more than the freedom to live a moral life. It's about determining for yourself what actually is a moral life.

"They call us Whigs. I, for once, accept that label proudly. In England the Whigs were known for standing up against the crowd. Centuries later, our party finds itself standing up against a new crown - a triumvirate of government, corporations, and the military industrial complex.

"I submit to you that the conglomeration of these three forces is the true threat to our way of life. It isn't United South America or hyper-sapiens, it is those that would tell us how we must live.

"We support a woman's right to choose, an immigrant's right to make a new life, a homosexual's right to follow his or her own destiny, and a hyper-sapien's right to simply exist. Freely.

"We support freedom of commerce. That means the consumer's right to choose - a right denied by monopolistic corporations everywhere.

"The Federalists argue that they stand for America and Freedom. Yet they support those that dirty our air and water. Yet they support a draft for their questionable wars abroad and high taxation at home - yet another choice freedom they are denying the American people.

"They say they stand for America and freedom, yet they sell it away dollar by dollar. America is about freedom and freedom is about the ability to choose and, most of all, to live freely."
-Senator Evan Edward Dobbs (NA-IL), August 10, 1996

Positions:
In favor of lower taxes
Pro-choice
Against the death penalty
Against gun control
Against affirmative action
Against tort reform
Against restrictions on smoking
In favor of environmental regulation
In favor of market competition
In favor of the League of Nations
In favor of disarmament
In favor of the "seperation of church and state"

Strongly supported by:
Hollywood
NRA
Small businesses
Trial lawyers
Immigrants
Feminists
Environmentalists
Homosexual groups
Hyper-sapiens

Strongly opposed by:
Military personnel
Married women
Jews
Media
Unions
Catholics
African Americans
Large corporations
Oil industry

So, to those of you that took the quiz, how did it do? Where did it put you and where do you think you ought to be?

For anyone interested...

1942-1943: The Freedom Squadron, a group of super-powered beings, make their debut fighting Nazis in World War II. After this, the existence of "hyper-sapiens" could no longer be denied.
1944: Franklin Roosevelt dies, Henry Wallace assumes presidency. Attorney General Earl Warren (F-CA) elected president later that year.
1945-52: President Warren drops the bomb and completes World War II.
1949: After President Warren's landslide victory, the National Republican Party and the Alliance Party merge.
1952: President Warren does not run for re-election. The newly formed National Alliance Party, dubbed the "Whigs," nominate Dwight D. Eisenhower as President with a young senator named Albert Gore as Vice President and win
1954-67: Hyper-sapiens take a higher profile. Various informal committees (or "teams") are formed to "police themselves" since it's difficult for standard law enforcement to. A colony is set up in North Dakota for those that don't wish to live in general society.
1960: Albert Gore becomes the first Vice President to be elected straight to the presidency in over a century.
1961-72: Protests across the country against "American imperialism" and in favor of sexual liberation persist around the country, cutting at the heart of the National Alliance Party. Native Americans and hyper-sapiens become exalted to living the "ideal" life.
1964: Gore's failure to become involved in Vietnam becomes central issue in campaign, which he loses to Senator James Forrester Knight (F-DE).
1965: Fidel Castro assassinated. President Knight denies involvement as his popularity soars.
1966: President Knight Assassinated, Vice President William B. Keller becomes 38th President.
1966-68: Faced with deficits, rising crime, and a civil war in Cuba, Keller's popularity lags. He proposes government licensing for hypers to use their powers in public and fines and penalties for acting without proper licenses regardless of intent. Hypers take a lower profile.
1968: President Keller wins re-election as Whig party remains split between Gore and Goldwater factions.
1968-70: General Fernando Andujar stages coup in South America, begins invading nearby countries, forms United South America (SU), and allies with the Soviet Union. When he invades Chile, Keller sends down troops and Brazile declares war against SU.
1970: Elliot Goldstein (NA-CA) becomes first hyper-sapien elected to congress.
1971-72: Chile liberated, Whig-dominated congress launches investigations into allegations that Keller bribed Brazile to wage war on SU. Clifford Ellington, leader of operations in the region, becomes a household name.
1972: President Keller faces strong primary challenge by Senator Robert F. Kennedy (F-MA) and ultimately loses to Senator Governor Peter Mitchem (NA-MD).
1973: Mitchem attempts to normalize relations with hyper-sapiens, folding their internal criminal justice system with the federal one.
1974: Hypers are hired as federal agents and the first government penatentury is set up in Alaska.
1975: Elliot Goldstein appointed Secretary of Energy and becomes first known hyper to serve in a cabinet.
1976: William Keller becomes the second president in American history to serve two non-consecutive terms when Mitchem fails to deliver on his promises of economic recovery and is seen as too sympathetic to Communists, immigrants, and hyper-sapiens.
1977: Elliot Goldstein retains his post as Secretary of Energy. At Keller's request, he compiles a list of all known hypers. Cliff Ellington appointed Secretary of Defense.
1978: Keller creats Iron Forces, a branch of the military with superior training and armor for special missions abroad and domestic cases of hyper-sapien criminal activity.
1980: Senator Martin Holt (NA-CA) wins presidency in landslide in what is largely seen as an admonishment of the increasingly unpopular President Keller, whose Vice President suffered the defeat. Before leaving office, appoints Goldstein as CIA Director.
1981: President Holt orders records on hyper-sapiens to be sealed and brings troops home from South America.
1983: Hyper-sapien "renaissance" occurs when Holt proposes allowing hypers to join the Iron Forces division.
1982-84: Chile, Paraguay, Guyana, Suriname are forcefully admitted into SU. SU forces invade Panama.
1984: Percieved as weak or uninterested in foreign policy, President Holt is defeated by Clifford Ellington.
1985: SU pushed out of Panama.
1987: USSR collapses. Southern Chile and Paraguay win independence.
1988: Ellington easily re-elected.
1989: SU President Andujar announces that he has a nuclear weapons.
1991: South American Summit held between Ellington and Andujar. Elections held in each of the SU states to determine their own status.
1992: Ellington seeks amendment to Constitution to allow him to run again. Governor Maxwell Knight (F-NJ), son of the former president, announces candidacy and becomes 43rd president.
1993: In the SU elections, only Bolivia and North Chile elects to become independent. Skeptics argue that the other states were afraid, proponents argue that it's democracy at work. In their first constitutional election, Bolivia elects a unionist and is promptly rejoined with the SU.
1994: President Knight announces the division of Iron Forces with Hyper Forces and that the two will no longer train together.
1995: SU soldiers enter Paraguay to "maintain order." After two month stand-off, they return to the SU state of Peru.
1996: President Knight wins re-election.
1997: Civil war erupts between Venezuela and United South America.
1998: In a long battle between hyper-sapiens, Washington DC is destroyed. Fortunately, due to the prolonged nature of the battle, only a few hundred are killed before everyone is evacuated.
1999: Venezuela wins its independence.
2000: Despite winning a majority of the popular vote (51%), Secretary of State Kenneth Patterson comes up short in the electoral college. During investigations of vote tampering in Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas, Patterson is assassinated by an SU national and shortly after, his opponent declared the victor. President Knight announces his resignation and Vice President David Hockley takes office as the 44th president for the shortest term of any president in US History (24 days).
2001: After the most controversial election in United States history, Senator Franklin Cale (NA-OK) assumes office of the presidency. Then the story begins...

What creates a political party? Is it a single set of coherent beliefs? Or is Jane Galt right and for the Republicans it's a set of ideas and Democrats it's a set of groups? Even looking at the supposedly ideologically consistent Republican Party, it's not hard to tilt the axis a little and see how a great deal of it is circumstancial.

I once took a Constitutional Design class by Dr. Donald Lutz at the University of Houston, where we learned quite a bit about constitutional design, political parties, and how people generally align.

On the first or second class, he asked "There is only one function of a political party. What is it?"

Some people suggested to advance ideas, but they were shot down. Others suggested to provide a platform for candidates, and Dr. Lutz said that they were closer. The answer, he explained, was simply to win elections.

In systems with a large number of parties, you often see groups that represent a narrow political interest. In the United States, such a system would likely include a Feminist Party, a Fundamentalist Party, a Libertarian Party (that actually matters), an Environmentalist Party, a Black Caucus Party, and so on.

That gave me an idea.

I was working on a story at the time which involved two parties that I did not feel comfortable making Republican and Democratic parties because of the unique circumstances of the world they're living in (see questions 6-8 of the quiz).

At the same time, I didn't know what these parties stood for, precisely, and that always bothered me, even though it was a relatively minor thing until Election 2000 (which in my world was even MORE debated than our own, and determined such before the Florida Fiasco). I'd named the parties the Federalist Party and the National Party.

President Maxwell Knight was a Federalist serving out the remainder of his second term. He followed the more controversial Federalist President Clifford Ellington. The 2000 election revolved around a National Party Senator Franklin R. Cale of Oklahoma and Federalist Secretary of State Ken Patterson.

Beyond that, I had no idea what the party's were for except that the Federalist Party was more pro-military, anti-hypersapien, and the demeanors of Knight and Ellington were largely conservative and establishmentarian.

I considered making the Federalist Party a rip-off of the Republicans and the Nationals the Democrats, but I decided to have a little more fun with it. I later considered making the Nationals de-facto libertarians, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized they'd never win elections that way.

So when Dr. Lutz taught me about the interest-group parties, I felt that interest groups were probably the best way to form new parties. If I could switch enough of them around, it might seem more random, but perhaps I can figure out unifying ideals around each party.

So I made a list of the interest groups in the existing parties and then put them in a pool to figure out how to divide them.

There were a number of routes I could have gone, but many of them seemed slight variations of the Christian/Business vs. Minority/Women breakup we have now.

I looked at other paradigms. Could the US be seperated into Social Democrat and Christian Democrat? Given the history of central Europe compared to our own, it seems unlikely two parties would spring up in the US that late. I also considered a variation of England and Australia's Labor Party for us. What if in the late 19th century, the unions had been more successful and able to overthrow one of the existing parties?

Eventually, I looked at the America's early Federalist party and did some reading up on why they won and why they dissipated. There I found what I was looking for (which was perfect since I'd already named one of my party's Federalists). The Federalists were in many ways the bridge between British Aristocracy and American Democracy.

What if we'd never entirely crossed that bridge? What if, during the Adams/Jackson years, something happened? So I changed up history and Adams became the last Democratic-Republican president. Jackson, in his anger at being denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote, was successfully recruited by a (non-existent) historical figure named Edmund Fox to join the Federalists.

The Federalist Party was revived and the Democratic-Republicans were decimated. The Whigs originally gathered in opposition to Andrew Jackson, though I eventually took the name National Republicans (used by John Quincy Adams in the real world in his race against Andrew Jackson) and they became stand-ins for the Whigs.

Flash forward roughly 100 years and the National Republican Party was perpetually in the outs against Federalist President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Eventually, a new progressive party called the Alliance Party formed, hindering the NRP further by splitting the FDR vote until eventually they both merged into the National Alliance Party shortly before FDR's death.

They were referred derisively as the Whigs. The original British Whigs were those protesting against the crown and the American Whigs were named such because of their view of Andrew Jackson as a proto-king. Eventually, not sure what to call themselves, they decided Whigs was somewhat better than Allianceers or Nationalists and ran with it.

The first National Alliance President was Columbia University president and former military commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected in 1952.

Okay, so now that I knew the history of how the Federalist and Whig Parties became the dominant two, what would this history suggest that they stood for? In a roughly similar timeline, the Whigs would be the Republicans and Federalists the Democrats.

So I looked over my list of interest groups and realized that a number of them hinged on the protests of the 60's. I also realized that the next three post-Eisenhower presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) were all definitely Federalists and decided that the 60's protests would be aimed at them, and NAP would be taken over by protesters. the only difference would be that the Federalists would neutralize the racial protests pretty quickly, alienating the South and solidifying the black vote.

So I looked at the 60's protesters: feminists, anti-war, and later environmentalists and homosexuals, and put them in the Whig camp. If the Federalists are American proto-aristocrats, then immigrants would largely also fall with the Whigs.

Pro-war folks and big government folks were natural Federalists. As were those uncomfortable with the sexual revolution. So Federalists included New Dealers, unionists, and Catholics. Their actions during the civil rights struggle solidified them the black and Jewish votes as well.

So the ball ricochets back to the Whigs, and since big government people are Federalists, small government people are Whigs, which makes sense because this is the party of Senator Taft and the anti-New Dealers of yesterday.

To make a long story a little less long, the system was largely left with a consolidated, pro-America, pro-government party in the Federalists and the Whigs, who were in many ways merely a reaction to it. As such, and much like today's Democratic Party, they are often a disparate combination between free marketers and former hippies.

I also had to figure out regional strengths and weaknesses. The aristocratic Federalists are strongest in the East and the Rust Belt (Michigan and Illinois through New Jersey). The Whigs are strongest off the Pacific Coast (California being a stronghold) and do well generally in the west and mid-west. That said, the Federalists are the dominant party and it's generally quite tough for the Whigs to take a presidential election.

When choosing mascots for each party (since the elephant and donkey need not apply), I chose the beaver for the Federalists and more fittingly the platypus for the Whigs.

The party divisions in the world are somewhat messy. They're also exacerbated by the "hyper sapiens" which have a definite effect on the political climate and help meld disparate parts of the Whigs together.

This is all a relatively minor part of the story - a story I'll likely never actually get to write - but it has a profound effect on how I view contemporary American politics in this world. I'll post on that part next.

I actually wrote this to (a) test out how Quizilla works and (b) to see what my answer was.

If you've got a few minutes, take this 9-question quiz to determine whether, in my alternate history, you would be a member of the National Alliance ("Whig") Party or the Federalist Party.

Three warnings, though:
1) This quiz may be the strangest political one you've taken to date. You'll see what I mean when you get to questions 6-8 and get the results.

2) I wrote it late at night, so forgive spelling and gramatical errors.

3) I'll explain what in tarnation this is and how it's relevent to the real world (to me, anyhow) tomorrow afternoon.

4) My answers are in the "read more" section.

[Read More!]