The Democratic party of the last thirty years has been one of the most disjoint parties ever to be in existence. It's nearly the equal of a European-style coalition party. If we were to go by pure party numbers, Democrats could pass anything they wanted to right now. (Or could, before Ted Kennedy passed away.) But it's just not that unified here.
Ah, so there's no equivalent of the whip system? or it doesn't work in the same way? Over here defying the party whip is reasonably rare; it's (in US terms) as if the DNC (or RNC) could say to members of Congress, "vote yes on HR676 or we'll suspend or eject you from the party". Not having that form of party discipline, as it's called, seems... better, actually. More democratic. Though it will tend to lead to logjams such as the current one.
There's no way you could know this, but, FYI, the accepted adjective is "Democratic". (In reality, the name of the party is the "Democratic Party", and "Democrat" as a noun is a backformation already, albeit an accepted one.) In recent years, Republicans have started using the word
"Democrat" as a diminutive adjective — kind of a pseudo-subtle epithet.
I actually wrote "Democratic" first, but then changed it to make it clearer (especially in the phrase "Democrat{,ic} majority") that I meant the party, not the abstract idea. I suppose the capital "D" flags that difference too; we don't really have that problem over here, as
Labour aren't very
conservative, and the
Conservatives aren't that interested in
labour, whereas in fact both US parties are democratic and (in the British/Australian sense) republican. (Though, of course, in Northern Ireland, "Republican" means something else again.)
Peter
Previous Topic
Index
