Politics As Power

In conventional analysis, one of our political parties is in favor of a very strong military and in favor of government imposition of particular standards of comprehensive morality but opposed to government regulation of the economy and the other party favors a (somewhat) weaker military and more vigorous civil liberties, but greater economic intervention. Libertarians like to make fun of this. Neither party makes any sense!, they say. One party supports economic but not social liberty, while the other supports social but not economic liberty. Neither party has genuine internal philosophical cohesion, they say.

I say, that is only true if, like most libertarians, you insist upon framing every single issue in terms of the word "liberty." It's a perfectly good word. In general, more liberty is a good thing. But the thing is, there are other ways to see the world. And there's one alternative way to view politics that makes the standard partisan division in most every liberal democracy look a lot more sensible: power.
In 2008, women voted twelve net points more Democratic than men (+13 vs. +1). Non-whites voted 80 net points more Democratic than whites (+68 vs. -12). The young voted 32 net points more Democratic than those over 30 (+34 vs. +2). The poor (<$50,000 per year) voted 22 net points more Democratic than the rich (+22 vs. tie). Non-Christians voted 55 net points more Democratic than Christians (+52 vs. -3). The unmarried voted 37 net points more Democratic than married persons (+32 vs. -5). Union household members voted 16 net points more Democratic than non-union household members (+20 vs. +4). Those who don't own a gun voted 57 net points more Democratic than gun owners (+32 vs. -25). GLBT voters were 35 net points more Democratic than straight people (+43 vs. +8). Urban voters were 36 net points more Democratic than rural voters (+28 vs. -8). All of these are power dynamics: the more Democratic groups has, or has historically had, less power than the more Republican group. Down the line. (Note: rural voters are drastically overrepresented in the U.S. Senate.)

We have two parties in this country. One of those is the coalition of the historically downtrodden, oppressed, powerless. The other is a coalition of the historically well-off, the powerful. That pits the rich against the poor, and since the inevitable result of laissez-faire is that the rich get richer etc., the side that favors the powerless favors economic intervention. It pits the dominant religious ethic against those who deviate from it, and the side that favors the powerful favors (in this country) Christianity, and supporting it using the state. The military thing is a little less obvious; the military's plenty powerful, but it's not clear exactly who they're oppressing or who is rebelling against them. Accordingly, one side is strongly pro-military, and the other side is sort of tepidly pro-military.

It's about power.

It's not about liberty.

It's not really about cohesive political ideologies.

It's about power.