Gonzalez 1

Trey Gonzalez
UWRT 1102
November 24, 2014

The Myth of Definition by Party Identity

If it seems to you that the process of deciding who to vote for is quizzical and
disillusioning you are not alone. What is happening in todays political scene can be described as
a situation in which people are being misled on a grand scale about how they truly identify in the
political sphere. People are being caught by mud-slinging commercials and sound bits and are
not acting on their own political principles but rather issues of pure propagated conflict
instigation used to attract attention and distract people from productive political discourse. The
true nature of the way political leanings are organized follows 2 variables; economic and
personal freedoms. This results in a left, a right, an authoritarian (bottom), and a libertarian
(top). What exists in the middle is known as the center, and a plurality of people fall under this
category; I would argue that most people are forced either left or right because of the way the
process has polarized in the past 4 decades when it comes to party affiliation.
The earliest examples go back to the 80s, when Reagan took the Republican party into a
new Conservative era of perceived higher morality and more focus on the ideals of the partys
image. In a speech about the nascent War on Drugs spawned by the Reagan administration,
Nancy and Ronald formally aligned a strong Christian background and a rigid moral code as
being characteristics displayed by Republicans like Reagan himself. What they do is formally
distance themselves as well as their followers from the likes of the immoral and destructive using

Gonzalez 2

specific examples of the evils of drugs such as birth defects (Reagan) and broken families. This
shifts the perception of voters from supporting Reagan purely based on policy to supporting
Reagan based on a sense of good doing. Going opposite of this person was perceived as going
opposite of this ideal of morality, and this furthered the schism based on party identification.
The effect of this was that it required the other side of the aisle to then find some peripheral
attribute of certain individuals to then define their party outside of policy positions; this was to
be the beginning of the end of political conversations and a change to more divisive and
irrelevant social conversations deciding who will make our decisions.
Furthering this schism based this morality concept was the incident during the Clinton
administration involving the adultery and perjury accusations of President Bill Clinton. The
already generalized consensus that the right was more morally intact than the left was further
ossified by Clintons actions and this effect is clear as the right side unified against Clinton; but
whats more interesting is the way this particular article depicted the scene as A deeply divided
House of Representatives (that) impeached President Bill Clinton Saturday on charges of lying
under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair (King).
This was how the event was outlined and this is how the public perceived it; however the actual
information in the form of data shared in the article detailed in fact a very closely divided floor;
the first vote rendered only 5 representatives voting across party lines for either party. What this
means is that both parties stuck to their sides rather than voted on how they felt about the
situation. This shows that rather than there being a moral majority in America like the Reagans
would have had us believe, there was a very close split almost exactly along party lines in
regards to how decisions are made. The implications of this further ossify the concept of party
identity being an individuals identity; those who fall under the blue donkey must be immoral for

Gonzalez 3

supporting that party and those who fall under the red elephant must be virtuous for simply being
on the opposite side. This is the beginning of the reverse as well in that people would associate
supporting impeachment as sign of being a Republican and the opposite as a sign of being a
Democrat; two completely different and independent positions.
American attitudes towards China viewed by party and then viewed by stance on policy
in a study done by Oklahoma University further illustrates this concept of a party schism rather
than idea schism. Viewed solely along party lines, the article says this: Self-reported
conservatives perceive significantly greater threat in Chinas rise, hold more negative views of
the Chinese government, exhibit more prejudice towards the Chinese people, and advocate a
much tougher U.S. China policy than self-reported liberals do (Gries). The important piece to
extrapolate from this quote is the adjective self-reported. This implies that these positions are
marked by a perception of these individuals that they align with a certain creed and as
subscribers adhere to a defined set of principles. However, when viewed as a purely principle
based discussion, it was reported that most Americans, labels completely aside, simply view
China as a potential threat, and that a proportionally much smaller group is on either extreme in
that they see China as either a minor threat or a major one (Gries). This further outlines the idea
that people are not acting on their beliefs on issues but rather on a perceived set of ideals in
accordance with their party. Only when the party is applied does this aisle rift become so large.
Dr. Stephen Davies is a representative of Queensland, which is the district of Australia
that houses its capitol: Brisbane. What I found most interesting is that he is also a self-declared
Libertarian; one of the first in a position of significant power in human history. Davies argues
that Libertarianism, which is largely believed to be a division of the right wing opposite of the
liberals on the left, is only opposite to Statism in that it is simply a philosophy of autonomous

Gonzalez 4

people who should advocate a smaller government role to protect this autonomy. Libertarianism
can occupy both sides of the aisle in that both sides can advocate either a smaller or a larger
government regulation of personal freedoms and economic systems. The idea that to be a
Libertarian you must adhere to a strict moral code or a loose one; or that you must be isolationist
or interventionist is unfounded; it is a philosophy completely independent of these variables and
indeed can support either case in both examples. This is another example of how identity is
blurred along party lines.
On the whole, as Fiorina would argue, the vast majority of American ideas lie in the
center of a four way spectrum, while it is portrayed as strictly a two way divide. This forces
some either way without a truly accurate representation of their ideals. This divide is portrayed
as deep to inflame the tension and create more attention for candidates when in fact it is a very
close line of divide and there is a vast majority of centerists. What results from this is political
disillusionment from true identity within the spectrum.

Gonzalez 5

Works Cited
Gries, Peter, and H. Crowson. "Political Orientation, Party Affiliation, and American." Journal
of Chinese Politcal Science 15.3 (2010): 219-44. Springer Link. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.
<http://link.springer.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/article/10.1007/s11366-010-9115-1
What Does It Mean to Be Libertarian? Perf. Dr. Stephen Davies. Learn Liberty, 2010. Film.
King, John. "House Impeaches Clinton." All Politics CNN. CNN, 19 Dec. 1998. Web. 12 Oct.
2014. <http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/>.
Reagan, Nancy, and Ronald Reagan. "Just Say No." Address the Nation. West Hall of the White
House, Washington, D.C. 14 Sept. 1986. All Politics CNN. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/speech.archive/just.say.no.html>.
Fiorina, Morris P. Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America. N.p.: Longman, 2011. Print.