How Conservative is the Republican Party?

How Conservative is the Republican Party?

Conservative	Not conservative	Conclusion
FOREIGN POLICY. The Republican Party still remains a very conservative party with regards to foreign policy and this was fuelled by the revival of neo conservative activism during the Bush administration and these sentiments are still very much active within the party today. Conservatives have a realist approach to foreign policy in which they only intervene when American interests are threatened. This is still seen today among the Republican Party’s criticism of the Obama administration slow approach to the threat of the Islamic State in the Middle East. The GOP are in agreement on how to deal with ISIS – while some such as Rick Santorum are suggesting deploying 10,000 ground troops others believe that air strikes should be intensified, so although there may be different strategies – overall the party remains conservative in that they agree that intervention in the middle east is still needed. Similarly, Conservatives continue to support the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, which they agree is necessary to keep American lives safe.	In the aftermath of the Edward Snowden leaks on the mass data collection programmes being conducted by the NSA some Republican figures have spoken out against it – most notably Rand Paul who launched somewhat of a filibuster lasting 10 hours to delay its renewal and has promised that he will delay the bill as much as possible. Paul has also been a strong opponent of drone strikes – which Republicans strongly support – whereby he filibustered the appointment of John O. Brennan as CIA director to raise awareness on the issue of drone strikes. With the emergence of ISIS the GOP have become increasingly blamed for it’s creation by invading Iraq back in 2003 which destabilized the country and paved the way for ISIS – as a result, the Iraq war still casts its long shadow over the Republican Party and they’ve become increasingly war wary as seen from the fact that in 2013 they voted against military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.	Rand Paul seems to be the only one with such strong opposition to the PATRIOT Act, and overall the Republican party remains very in favour of it as well as the leadership in the Senate – Mitch McConnell has been pushing for the GOP to vote for the renewal of the Patriot Act since the GOP dominated House has already passed it.
TEA PARTY. Under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s the Republican were established as a fiscally conservative party and such sentiments remain strong within the party to this day. The underlying belief of fiscal conservatives is to greatly reduce government spending and cut back in taxation as well as achieve a balanced budget – the emergence of the Tea Party in recent years has further reinforced these sentiments and therefore the GOP remain a fiscally conservative party. The Republicans ‘conservative’ stance is perhaps most evident from their opposition to Obamacare, which ultimately requires high taxation and GOP opposition intensified to a point where in 2013 there was a shutdown by the Tea Party. Further evidence that the GOP remain a conservative party is seen by the 2015 budget which was approved by the GOP dominated Congress, proposing $5.3 trillion in spending cuts and a balanced budget (first time since 2001), which will make it easier to scrap Obamacare. They opposed Obama’s Stimulus Package in 2009.	However, the GOP have been criticised for not being conservative enough. For instance, during the Bush era public expenditure went up incredibly as a result of No Child Left Behind. The GOP also agreed to tax hikes in 2013. The 2015 budget has been criticised for two of the most fiscally conservative members – Ted Cruz + Rand Paul – as not going far enough as the budget also proposed $38 billion being pumped into the defence budget, thus undoing previous fiscal achievements in 2013 when significant cuts were made to the defence budget. Arguably moderate sentiments within the Republican party remain strong.	The days of compassionate conservatism from the Bush era are over and the party’s fiscally conservative principles have been reinforced by the emergence of the Tea Party movement. Tax hikes were agreed upon in 2013 to end the shutdown. The 2015 budge is as fiscal as fiscal gets – its massive spending cuts and aims to repeal Obamacare epitomise the very fact that the GOP remain a very conservative party. +John Boehner banned earmarks in the House which is seen as wasteful spending by fiscal Conservativism.
SOCIAL ISSUES. Under Reagan the Republican party also became an established socially conservative party and such sentiments are still seen today by their opposition to things like gay marriage and abortion rights. The Republicans, whose core supporters and members are typically Evangelical Christians want to promote traditional family values and the ‘nuclear family’. There have been recent attempts in the House to pass a bill to instruct doctors performing late term abortions to ensure the best survival of the foetus which is all a part of larger attempts by the Republicans to ban abortions starting at the 11th week of pregnancy. Moreover, Republicans continue to strongly oppose gay marriage.	As Bill O’Reilly from Fox News made it clear in May – ‘it’s a tough time for social conservatives in America’ who are now officially in the ‘smear zone’ because views on issues like gay marriage are gradually changing in the US and becoming increasingly accepted. As a result, social conservatives are now in the ‘smear zone’ according to O’Reilly who are unable to get things done – this is seen from several losses over issues like gay marriage such as repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, US v Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. As a result, there have been calls within the GOP to quit being so anti-gay marriage because they run at risk of alienating young voters (who usually support gay marriage) – Jeb Bush for instance says he supports gay marriage. GOP struggling with a changing political and social shift on gay marriage.	However, they may indeed be struggling with the changing social and political climate- but they continue to remain fully social conservative as further illustrated by the ongoing Obergefell v. Hodges case in which Marco Rubio commented saying it was ridiculous to assume gay marriage is protected by the constitution.
IMMIGRATION REFORM. The Republican Party’s conservative principles are evident from their tough stance on immigration reform in which they continue to believe that comprehensive immigration reform is not a sensible approach to dealing with the issue and believe deportations should intensify, they also see comprehensive immigration reform as being a way of rewarding (by granting amnesty) criminals who have broken the law by coming to the US illegally. This tough stance on immigration reform continues to be evident within the conservative Republican party whereby they filibustered the DREAM Act in 2010 and were outraged by Obama’s executive order last year. Similarly, conservatism within the GOP on this issue is seen at a state level whereby some states have adopted very strict anti-immigration laws such as Alabama HB 56 and Arizona SB 1070 and a Texas legislature dominated by Republicans have put on hold Obama’s executive order.	However, in recent years there has been increasing efforts by the Republican party to work in conjunction with the Democrats on achieving immigration reform, for instance, the Gang of 8 Bill was a bipartisan measure led by Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Chuck Schumer which sought to introduce a path to citizenship, it was one of the several other attempts at comprehensive immigration reform in recent years. Also, John Boehner, the Republican House Speaker put forward a 3 week extension bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, thus allowing for Obama’s executive order to go through, and was supported by a dozen GOP House Representatives.	However, Boehner’s bill ultimately failed and a shorter version (1 week) was passed instead due to the GOP House voting against it. Similarly, the Gang of 8 bill also failed due to a lack of GOP support. The GOP remain seriously in opposition to a path to citizenship.
2016 RACE. The 2016 presidential race is dominated by conservatives – such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio with not a moderate in sight.	Previous two elections the GOP presidential candidates were Mitt Romney and John McCain – two moderates, and right now Jeb Bush is considering running for presidency which could consolidate moderate sentiments within the party	Romney and McCain lost – moderate conservatism is a declining force.

To what extent is the system of constitutional checks and balances an obstacle to effective government?

To what extent is the system of constitutional checks and balances an obstacle to effective government?

Checks and balances refer to specific powers each branch of the federal government possess to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful – such as the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review over the legislature and executive, the president’s ability to veto Congress’ legislation and Congress’ power to overridden Presidential vetoes. In order to have ‘effective’ government, the government must carry out some core functions such as legislate, provide effective defence, protect civil liberties and ensure state power and. However, as seen in recent years with the growing gridlock and infringement of civil liberties and states rights (according to the right), the system of checks and balances has hindered effective government.

One of the roles of the federal government is to effectively legislation, however, with increasing polarisation and the 113^th Congress going down in history as being the most polarised, the system of checks and balances has allowed for consistent gridlock to a point where 2013 was the least productive legislative year since 1948. It’s the role of legislature to ‘check’ the power of the executive and ensure it does not become too powerful, however, combined with polarisation this has led to consistent gridlock over legislation, particularly with regards to immigration reform. The Obama administration set out their aims in 2009 to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, however, legislating this has been hindered in recent years due to a range of congressional powers such as its ability to launch a filibuster and its ‘power of the purse’. This has led to legislation being slow and failing, as seen from the DREAM Act being filibustered to death in 2010 and the Gang of 8 bill being killed off by the House Speaker. However, the existence of checks and balances does not necessarily lead to ineffective government or gridlock because if Congress is gridlocked or obstructionist the President is free to initiate executive orders to circumvent Congress as seen by Obama’s one in November 2014 which sought to help five million illegal immigrants. However, even in this case constitutional checks remain and they hinder effective government, for instance, Congress has the ‘power of the purse’ whereby it is in charge of granting funding for the President’s executive order and this had hindered effective government when earlier this year the Department of Homeland Security came close to shutting down and the Texas legislature put Obama’s executive order on hold.

Another role of the government is to provide effective defence, however, this too has been hindered through checks and balances, thus preventing effective government. Congress passed the Case Act and War Powers Act during the 1970s to limit the executive’s role as Commander in Chief and prevent the President from becoming too imperial. Since Congress has the power to declare war, the president must seek approval before taking military action abroad. This prevents the president from effectively dealing with international crises, as he must wait for the approval of Congress and this check has led to a lot of criticism in recent events. With the threat of the Islamic State growing in the Middle East, Obama has had to submit reports to the Senate requesting more authorisation for military action in the Middle East, however, as a result the government’s response has arguably been slow. A CBS News poll found that only 54% of American’s are satisfied with President Obama’s response to ISIS. Similarly, the issue over the PATRIOT Act and Congress’ power of the purse has hindered effective government – with the Patriot Act set to expire on the 1^st June the House voted to continue funding it but in the Senate this vote was blocked by a filibuster. However, even such existing legislation like the War Powers is not an obstacle to effective government since the President does not always have to abide by it during a time of a huge crisis as illustrated by the 2011 Libya bombings whereby no congressional authorisation was granted to the President. However, Libya was an anomaly in the process and launching military action abroad without Congress’ approval rarely happens, today with ISIS Obama’s response has without a doubt been slow as a consequence of checks and balances put in place.

Another key function for effective government is to protect civil rights and liberties, however, this too has been hindered due to the system of checks and balances, which have allowed for civil liberties to be eroded through Congress’ ability to legislate. For instance, the clearest example is the Patriot Act, which according to many liberals (and some Republicans such as Rand Paul) is a clear infringement upon American’s citizens right to privacy – which is an established right under Griswold v. Connecticut – by enabling the NSA to conduct mass data collection programs of phone and internet data. The legislature’s attempts at renewing the law this year is a clear indication of how checks and balances can lead to civil liberties being eroded. However, checks and balances in this case can also provide for the protection of civil liberties. For instance, the Supreme Court’s check of judicial review on the legislature enables them to continue protecting civil rights as illustrated by US v. Windsor which struck down the Defence of the Marriage Act, thus allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the US Army and Hollingsworth v. Perry whereby California’s Proposition 8 (which sought to ban gay marriage) was struck down, both of these are instances of checks and balances protecting civil liberties which is key to effective government. The Citizens United and SpeechNow.org cases v. FEC are also other examples of rights and liberties being entrenched through judicial review. However, the Supreme Court is arguably stepping in too much due to judicial activists who are flaunting about judicial review excessively to a point where they’re acting as a quasi-legislative body, thereby hindering effective government and generating an image of an ‘imperial judiciary’.

Moreover, the protection of state rights and powers as detailed in the 10^th Amendment is fundamental to an effective government but Congress’ ability to legislate and the executive’s ‘check’ to tell Congress what to do through the state of the union has also hindered this according to conservatives. The passage of Obamacare, for instance, has been described by the right as being a clear infringement of state rights and is therefore unconstitutional as it can be viewed as the scope of federal government expanding too far to a point where control over health (a local issue) is being taken away from the control of states as it is forcing states to set up health care exchanged for the uninsured and expand Medicaid eligibility, all of which enforces the rhetoric of ‘government creep’. However, as with the argument illustrated above in this case too the system of checks and balances provides for effective government as through judicial review it can also lead to states rights being protected. For instance, in Shelby County v. Holder states rights were expanded by striking down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, thereby expanding states control over their voting practices and preventing the federal government from getting too involved. Federalism is indeed an important aspect to having effective government, but even judicial review can infringe upon states rights as illustrated by the 2012 Sebelius case which ruled that Obamacare was in fact constitutional (the right still argue its an infringement of states rights), and a further example includes US v. Arizona which struck down section key sections of SB 1070.

Finally, Congressional check on the President is Congress’ power to confirm all appointments made by the President. The president is in charge of nominating Supreme Court justices, some roles to the Executive Office of the President and departments within the federal bureaucracy such as the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. But, this is check is well known to lead to gridlock and so, prevent effective government. For instance, when John O. Brennan was nominated to be the director of the CIA Senator Rand Paul filibustered his appointment for 13 hours. On the other hand, although this is indeed a check, which without a doubt hinders government there, are other effective checks that allow the government to effectively function. For instance, the power of investigation is a check held by Congress over the executive (and federal bureaucracy) which allows Congress to investigate the actions of the executive and it’s various departments. This has proved to be very effective in recent events when the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the CIA and it’s treatment of suspected terrorists which subsequently led to the release of the CIA torture report, revealing how the CIA have conducted secret operations in order to torture suspected terrorists. It’s important for the government’s actions to be scrutinised and open for transparency and through the power of investigation, this allows for an effective government to function.

As demonstrated above, the while in some cases the constitutional system of checks and balances can lead to an effective government such as through congressional oversight, other times it leads to gridlock between the branches. It can also lead to civil rights being eroded as well as states rights.

Are midterms 'merely' a referendum on the president?

To what extent are midterm elections merely a referendum on the performance of the President?

Midterm elections are indeed a referendum on the president as it is ultimately the record of the president that is being judged. A CBS News exit poll found that during the 2014 midterms 54% of voters said the president Obama’s record ultimately influenced their vote and 34% said they wanted to make a statement in opposition to Obama. The 2010 midterms were also a referendum on the president whereby through the Republicans Pledge to America agenda it was Obama’s record on Obamacare that was being judged, similar ‘referendums’ have also taken place during Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidency.

Midterms are merely a referendum on the president since their outcome impacts upon the President’s standing authority. The fate of the President’s legislative agenda, appointments and other plans he may have all rests on the composition of Congress. If the electorate are pleased with the presidents record they will ‘reward’ him by voting for his party, however, as witnessed by the 2014 midterms the electorate were disappointed by Obama’s record and handed the Senate (6 seats lost from the Democrats) and House of Representatives (lost 13 seats) to the Republican party. According to surveys during the 2014 midterm elections it was Obama’s record on the economy, which many Americans still think is lagging, healthcare reform came in second place and the issue of illegal immigration and strategy against ISIS in the Middle East landed fourth and second place. On the other hand, arguably the midterm elections are a reflection of the national mood in the country rather than a referendum on the President. For instance, in 2002 the coattails effect was most evident when Bush’s Republicans made significant gains in Congress rather than followed the typical trend whereby the President’s party makes losses two years in. This ‘national mood’ was reflective of the national unity in the aftermath of the September 11^th terrorist attacks in New York City. However, even the ‘national unity’ justification for GOP gains in 2002 were seen as a referendum on the President since the electorate were arguably rewarding President Bush for his immediate and authoritative response to the terror attacks through a ‘war on terror’ as well as the introduction of the PATRIOT Act.

The low turnouts at midterm elections illustrate the very fact that midterm elections are a referendum on the president. The 2014 midterms turnout was just at 36.3% (state wise, the highest was in Maine at 59% and lowest in Indiana at 32%). These low turnouts illustrate voter apathy is a consequence of dissatisfaction with the President given the fact that the turnouts are nation wide, not just limited to a number of smaller states – it is ultimately the whole nation that is judging the President. However, the simple fact remains that during the midterm elections the electorate is voting for a representative in Congress, not the President. Voters are judging the record of their incumbent and in recent years there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with Washington politicians particularly because of increasing polarisation and gridlock as illustrated by the 2013 government shutdown, with Congress only having an 11% approval rating. This has led to wide disillusionment towards Congress nation wide, this disillusionment can arguably seen by the fact that the front runners at the 2012 presidential election were not Washington insiders but outsiders instead – Obama having served only 3 years in the Senate and Romney as governor of Massachusetts. So, it’s disillusionment with Congress that is causing the low turnouts – not the President’s record. However, voter apathy is nation wide and so it implies that it’s a national referendum on the president. Moreover, incumbency rates in the House and Senate remain incredibly high at 95% and 82% respectively suggesting that voters are not dissatisfied with Congress but are with the President, hence the low turnouts.

The increasingly nationalised nature of midterm elections suggests that they are a referendum on the president as the opposition party tends to campaign on issues surrounding the president’s record. There has been an increase in ‘wave elections’ driven by national concerns since 1994 when there was widespread distrust of Bill Clinton and the Republicans fought the midterms with the Contract With America, in 2006 there was the Democratic Six for 06 agenda which judged George W. Bush’s slow and poor response to Hurricane Katrina and his justification for the Iraq war and in 2010 republicans fought with the Pledge to America in which Obama’s record on Obamacare was judged. The 2014 midterms have also gone down in history as being the most nationalised, concerning the economy in particularly. However, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill once said ‘all politics is local’, and this certainly remains true today regardless of nationalised elections. Midterm elections are largely fought on local issues concerning the state or district, for example, this is epitomised by initiatives and propositions, which has nothing to do with the President whatsoever. During the 2014 midterms several states, such as Alaska, held propositions to legalise marijuana. During midterm elections members of Congress campaign as independent candidates; rarely ever mentioning the party’s name, this is because the elections are fought on local – not national issues concerning the president. So, although there is indeed a local element, there is also a national element whereby the electorate very often judges the president.

Midterms are a referendum on the president because of the fact that the rate of incumbency has decreased in recent years. If incumbency rates were high it would mean representatives in Congress are being judged approvingly, ut since they’re low less representatives are keeping seats leading to a change in the composition of Congress which effectively impacts upon the President’s agenda. Incumbency rates have only decreased slightly, they still in fact remain exceptionally high and have done so since the 190s. In 2014 the incumbency rate in the Senate was at 82% and 95% in the House of Representatives. The fact incumbency rates are high is a clear sign that voters are not judging the President but are in fact expressing their approval for their current state or representative.

To conclude, midterms are indeed ‘merely’ a referendum on the president. While a lot of the time they seem to be judging the record of the president, particularly through wave elections, they also have many other elements which are not concerned with the president such as propositions and initiatives and ultimately judging the record of their congressional representative.

Reforming the presidential primaries system

Reforming the presidential primaries system (essay plan)

Reform needed	Not needed	Conclusion
PARTY DIVISIONS. The nomination process produces a civil war mentality within each party; mutual disagreements can turn to insults and intensify to a point where it truly appears that the party is divided. The most notable example would be the rivalry between Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama in the 2008 primaries, such divisions destroy party morale, take a while to heal and discourage people from politics.	Even if divisions do arise they can easily be ‘healed’ after the election as Obama did by appointing Clinton as Secretary of State. Or through the later stages of the election process, such as the National Party Conventions, which once again enthuse the party faithfuls and allow for wounds to be healed, for instance, Bill Clinton’s speech at the Dem NPC reassured everyone that he and Hilary will be glad to have Obama as President.	Party wounds are healed too late which can lead to candidates losing elections, though this has not happened in recent years it is very well likely.
TOO LONG. The primary process is far too long, on average the incumbent president and the challenging candidates spend at least 10 months campaigning for the nomination. The 2016 nomination process began in 2015 with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Hilary Clinton announcing their intentions to run. Critics argue that by the time this long process ends, voters become apathetic, bored and unwilling to engage in issues since they’ve been over-exposed to them through the long campaigning.	The fact that it is long process is a good thing as it emphasises the fact that the nomination process is a grueling process for a grueling office. This ensures that the primaries are an effective weeding-out process in which weaker candidates stand no chance (as was the case with Jimmy Carter). Rick Perry, for instance, in 2012 was a top-tier candidate when he announced his candidacy (Aug ’11), but as the campaigning began he was revealed to be a weak and clearly unprepared for high national office and was forced to pull out of the race less than 6 months later.	Primaries have got exceptionally low turnouts (15.9%) nation wide, highest was in Wisconsin at 30.9% and lowest in Maine at 5.6%, evidently voters become disinterested in politics during this long process.
FRONT LOADING. Primaries are supposed to be a lengthy process but as a result of frontloading this is no longer the case. In the 2008 primaries a total of 20 states frontloaded to the first week of February. Candidates who are less known don’t have much time to build up their campaign teams nor raise enough money and are thus, more likely to lose. Also, the last states may feel disenfranchised, as arguably the winner will already be announced in the frontloaded primaries.	The frontloading tend reversed in 2012 in which significantly less portion of states frontloaded. The U.S is a large country and it is inevitable the primary process is going to be long regardless of frontloading. Also, by cutting the primary season shorter the presidential candidates are selected faster, thus allowing them to campaign as presidential candidates rather than nominees.	Regardless, frontloading disenfranchises states and eliminates lesser known candidates from the process and only allows the political elite to prosper through endorsement by political patrons like the Koch Brothers who pledged to spend $889 in 2016 endorsing certain candidates.
PEER REVIEW. Primaries lack peer review, prior to reform in the 1970s party bosses in smoke filled rooms selected nominees and these bosses knew the qualities required to make a good presidential candidate. However, today this no longer happens and voters are unaware of the characteristics and qualities required, instead of judging governing skills voters arguably look more at campaigning skills.	However, professional politicians do still have a say in the nomination process as seen by the introduction of superdelegates who amount of 20% of the total vote. Also, it is less elitist this way. And arguably, campaigning skills are just as vital in time when everything is dominated by the media. Ordinary voters understand that it is a race for a very demanding job and so, judge governing skills as seen by the fact that many voters perceived Obama as being the stronger candidate than Clinton in 2008. It also allows for unknown candidates like Obama to have a shot at presidency rather than Washington insiders like H. Clinton.	The vote of the superdelegates isn’t very significant and there is still a lack of peer review from professional politicians who know of the qualities required to make a good president, under the current system there is a risk of a weak candidate being selected.
TOO EXPENSIVE. The primary system runs on for so long that as a result they’re very expensive, in 2012 Romney raised $156m and Obama $300m. Their nomination came at a time of economic austerity, which is ironic; proves that American elections are all about paying to play. This makes elections disproportionate to opposition as well as minor party candidates who are excluded from the process and thus, further deepening the two-party system.	It is not the nomination system that is at fault here but the various Supreme Court decisions and the power of the First Amendment. Through rulings in the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org case Super PACs have been formed allowing for an unlimited flow of money to candidates. The McCutchen v. FEC decision illustrates that the cost of elections are just a problem that cannot be solved without inflicting on the Bill of Rights and thus, the primary system is not at fault here.	However, the primary system is at fault given the fact that it is dominated by the media too much and thus, people have to resort to Super PACs in order to support their candidate.
MEDIA DOMINATED. Disproportionate influence of the media have contributed to the impression that the system is flawed. The partisan nature of radio and TV debates and the modern day emphasis on personality politics has led to a significant increase in TV debates during the nomination process, personality-based politics rather than principled discussion.	However, the primary process being dominated by the media is also an advantage as it encourages voter participation if voters are continuously hearing and seeing campaigns on TV and the radio, and as demonstrated earlier, turnouts at primaries are low.	Regardless of the media turnouts remain considerably low and seem to be decreasing each time. The media has got a disproportionate amount of influence.

Who votes Republican and Democrat

Katie Shapiro

Which demographic groups support the Republican and Democrat parties, and what attitudes and values do they share? 

Exit poll analysis reveals the key demographic groups from which the Republicans and Democrats gain support. The Democrats, for example, win a significant majority of votes from ethnic minorities and those who earn less than $50,000 and do not attend church. This article seeks to explain social and political values which are shared within and across these demographic groups to illustrate the attitudes of a ‘typical Democrat’ or ‘typical Republican’. Clearly, not every Republican or Democrat will share exactly the same beliefs as everyone else in their party. However, they are likely to hold a number of the values which characterise the party of their affiliation.

Tax, wealth distribution and the role of government

Voters earning less than the approximate median income in the USA of $50,000 tend to vote Democrat while those earning over this threshold are typically Republican voters. This helps to explain the parties’ different approaches regarding taxation and the role of government. Republicans believe in more limited government and lower taxation while Democrats believe in a bigger role for government and emphasise economic equality as a goal.

Interestingly, a Gallup poll in October 2014 showed that the economy was a priority issue for both Democrats and Republicans. However, 75% of Democrats ranked the question of income and wealth distribution as ‘very or extremely important’ (compared to 54% of Republicans) while 82% of Republicans cited the federal budget deficit as ‘very or extremely important’ (compared to 63% of Democrats). These perspectives help us to understand the opposition within the Republican Party to Obamacare and the impasse on the federal budget in 2013.

Immigration

Democrat voters are more likely to favour a legal path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the USA. In a Pew Research Center survey in February 2013, 43% of Republicans stated that better border security was a top priority (compared to 14% of Democrats) while 32% of Democrats felt that creating a legal path to citizenship was a key concern (compared to 11% of Republicans).

The Hispanic vote tends strongly towards the Democrats (71% of this group voted for Obama in 2012), but the support is not as consistent as the black vote (93% supported Obama in 2012) and displays significant variations of opinion. For example, interestingly, there are divisions on the question of immigration reform among Hispanics. While 41% of Hispanics believe that creating a legal path to citizenship should be a priority (compared to 21% of whites), a significant number of Hispanics also agree with the need for increased border security (49% said that this was as important as creating a legal path to citizenship).

Social and moral values

Republicans tend to share more socially conservative beliefs on the questions of gay marriage, abortion and the legalisation of marijuana. This can be explained by the demographics of their support. Of white evangelical Protestants, 79% voted for Romney, while only 20% backed Obama. Religiously unaffiliated voters and Jewish voters backed Obama in 2012 (70% and 69%, respectively).

Gay marriage

Overall public opinion in the USA has evolved dramatically since the ban of single-sex marriage in ten states in 2004: according to a CBS/CNN poll in September 2014, 54% of Americans are now positive towards gay marriage. However, there are clear divides on this question between Republican and Democrat voters. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 39% of Republicans or those leaning towards the Republican Party support single-sex marriage (compared to 69% of Democrats). Nevertheless, the issue provokes generational divides: 61% of Republicans and Republican leaners under 30 years favour same-sex marriage while just 27% of Republicans aged over 50 years are in favour.

Abortion

One of the main differentiators between Republican and Democrat voters is the issue of abortion, with Republicans likely to take a right-to-life position and Democrats tending towards a pro-choice standpoint. A Gallup poll in May 2014 found that 59% of Democrats felt that abortion was ‘morally acceptable’ compared to 28% of Republicans.

Marijuana

The legalisation of marijuana in states such as Colorado reflects a wider acceptance of the legalisation of marijuana in recent years across both parties. However, Republicans continue to be less supportive of this policy: a poll in April 2013 found that 37% of Republicans supported legalisation compared to 59% of Democrats.

Gun control and background checks

Republicans generally prioritise the right to own guns over the need for gun control. According to a Pew Research Center poll taken in the wake of the shootings in the school in Newtown in December 2012, 69% of Republicans said that protecting gun rights was more important than gun control, while a similar number of Democrats (72%) said gun control was most important. It is worth noting, however, that a large majority of voters in both parties back a federal law introducing background checks prior to the sale of guns. A CBS poll in June 2014 found that 98% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans supported such legislation.

The environment

Republicans and Democrats also have very different views on the urgency of climate change. When asked in 2013 whether climate change was a ‘major threat’, only 25% of Republican voters agreed, compared to 65% of Democrats. Among those Republicans who aligned themselves with the Tea Party movement, the level of scepticism was even higher, with only 10% viewing the issue as a key concern.

Conclusion

As this article outlines, there are clear areas of policy division between ‘typical’ Republican and Democrat voters. Nevertheless, we should avoid oversimplifying the differences between the two sets of voters. It should be noted, for example, that a significant number of Republicans do not view moral issues as being of high importance in determining their party allegiance.

An interesting typology outlined by the Pew Research Center labels different ideological groups within each party. For example, within the Republican Party it identifies Business Conservatives and Steadfast Conservatives. While the former group prioritises small government, the latter group focuses on moral issues — 74% of Steadfast Conservatives agree with the statement that ‘Homosexuality should be discouraged by society’, compared with 31% of Business Conservatives.

Within the Democrat Party, significant divisions are also noted. The so-called Solid Liberal (socially progressive) wing may make up the backbone of Democrat support. However, the survey identifies another important (albeit smaller) constituent within the party, the Faith and Family group, which believes that a belief in God is necessary to have ‘moral and good values’.

Katie Shapiro teaches politics at Highgate School.