Cain
Straussian
That seems like a reach. A "culture war" gets its expression through an institutionalized two-party system. Multi-polar/party systems are allowed to have more moderating influences. In the recent past, even post-Vietnam, the two parties closely resembled each other because the median voter model more or less held. Candidates could capture more votes by lurching toward the center in the general election. That model doesn't really hold as much anymore because moderate candidates cannot mobilize voters needed to win their primary election.
Again, politicians who compromise and occasionally vote, say, with the NRA, will get a reduced rating from pro gun control groups, and then their primary opponent will cudgel them with that report card. Since the district is "safe" for a political party (through gerrymandering or happenstance) you're going to get more polarization, and that's reflected more in the House than the Senate. But it's also percolated up to the presidential level.
There's an article today in The Atlantic, which I haven't finished reading, but it discusses our unique primary system:
The war in Vietnam coincided with -- and perhaps accelerated -- realignment, which, again, brought more ideological coherence to the parties. Now, you could say the war changed our presidential primary system ('68 with Humphrey).
Last edited:
