Ask Auntie Pinko
March 20, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

As a pinko liberal, social democrat, democratic socialist (take your pick, they mean the same) member of the British Labour Party, I'm confused about the progressive makeup of American political parties. Just how much in reality do liberal Democrats differ in ideology or instinct from those who may be in the Social Democrats USA or DSA? Certainly Bill Clinton was/is a huge hit with our Party over here (while Dubya worryingly appears to be a hit with our party leader).

Yours fraternally,

Chris
Bolton, England

Dear Chris,

It's nice to hear from our neighbors! Auntie Pinko has to confess, however, that it has been a long time since I've studied the constitutional history of Great Britain, and so I've forgotten a great deal of what I learned about the origins and ideologies of your major political parties. Mea culpa. However, I think I have enough of a general outline to give you some kind of meaningful answer.

First, you have to remember that the whole context and role of political parties in America is quite different from the British orientation. For those who are unfamiliar with one or the other of the two systems, the parliamentary system of representation does not include direct representation of the national chief executive. It is a "winner take all" system, in which the party or coalition that achieves a majority via election (and subsequent coalition building,) controls the entire government, including the appointment of the chief executive and all of the major governmental officials. In the direct system of representation, as practiced in America, the chief executive is elected directly, and each branch of the bicameral legislature is elected directly, which often means that control of the Executive and Legislative branches is split between the major parties.

In the parliamentary system, small parties can often exercise a great deal of very real power by being part of a coalition of parties that controls the government and selects the head of state. If they leave the coalition, there is the possibility that the coalition might lose its parliamentary majority and have to call an election (or quick throw together a new coalition.)

Minority parties in America can sometimes wield considerable influence for a short time (for example, by declaring himself an Independent and caucusing with the Democrats, Senator Jeffords of Vermont managed to keep the Senate in Democratic hands for two years, delaying the implementation of many Republican initiatives.) But because the Executive (Governor or President) is directly elected, and controls the appointment of the governmental department heads, any party that cannot muster at least 51% of the popular vote on a regular basis has little real chance of making a direct impact on our laws and policies.

This difference has contributed heavily to the evolution of the basically two-party system through which Americans choose their leadership. Because the chief executive is directly elected, they cannot be kicked out of office if they lose majority or coalition control of the rest of the government. But to get elected, they either need a party that can deliver a majority, or a lot of friends on the Supreme Court. (However, that's a recent, and, Auntie Pinko devoutly hopes, anomalous development.)

Parties don't attract and hold an electoral majority by pushing the ideological envelope, Chris. Ideological envelope-pushing can prevail for a short time if, say, a particular crisis demands a bold solution (such as FDR's New Deal.) Or if long and careful organizing has been done by a particular faction within a party, to take control of the party's direction for a time. But in the long run, the centrist backlash will correct the course of any party that has been driven too far from the mainstream of America's ability to absorb change or endure reactionary stagnation.

So America's liberal pinko socialist types have two not-very-palatable alternatives from which to choose: To opt for doctrinaire consistency, and work through the limited possibilities of a generally ineffectual minority party; or to be a minority (and generally ineffectual) faction within a majority party that is ideologically much further to the right than we are.

For doctrinaire socialism, there are the two parties you mentioned, Chris - the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America,) or the SDUSA (Social Democrats, USA.) They seem to lose a certain amount of time and energy slanging each other off and trying to prove that theirs is the only One True Socialist Way and the others are crypto-socialist imposters, but they can occasionally be united by their scorn for those who have chosen the timid, ideologically mushy route of participation in the Democratic Party.

However, if you will visit their websites, you will see that such stellar "progressive" luminaries as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abrams have espoused the SDUSA route. Their party's focus is on honing public policy initiatives that they can implement by putting a small but influential cadre of their members and associates on the boards of Unions and in mid-level government bureaucratic roles. The DUSA boasts the likes of Ron Dellums, Gloria Steinem, and Ed Asner, and maintains an uneasy semi-alliance with the Democratic Party. They focus more on grassroots-level organizing and actions.

I don't know precisely how this would relate to the current ideology of your Labour Party, but hopefully, it's enough information to formulate your own answer. Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko, Chris!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.