https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)
Because of the word "evangelical", you might assume at first glance that evangelical = conservative and mainline = liberal. On the other hand, mainline = "no change, stick to the past" = conservative, and evangelical = "new ideas" = liberal ("radical" as the antonym of mainline might be more expected here). So I don't think there's any permanent connection between the two dimensions.
In Congress, the "mainline" theory is "we need to pass legislation even if it's not perfect because that's how the country works". And the "evangelical" theory is "we shouldn't pass any legislation that isn't ours; and the country has never broken before so it probably won't break now". ... and in the specific case of "running a government", the mainline theory is right. It's why the government shutdowns never work as a tactic.
But large parts of the US government do run on auto-pilot now. Continuing spending resolutions and the like can cause spending to continue at the same rate forever even if (especially if) Congress does nothing other than vaguely agreeing to keep things running for another year.
So what does it matter? ... well, the only real way to compromise with evangelicals is to say "see, it didn't work". Or just vote them out of office, which is another way to show that it didn't work. It worked with the Prohibition movement in the 1920s. And in general, solutions are a lot more peaceful than they were in the Roman Republic, where Senators were regularly murdered on the floor of the senate.
... roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension.The general words used to describe the "second dimension" nowadays is "insider v. outsider". I want to describe this second dimension in a different way.
- On the one hand, we have "mainline". For a religion, a "mainline" religion is one where if your parents are members of the religion, then you are a member of the religion.
- On the other hand, we have "evangelical". For a religion, if your parents are a member of the religion, that doesn't make you a member of the religion. Only some affirmative act (most commonly baptism by immersion) makes you a member of the religion.
Because of the word "evangelical", you might assume at first glance that evangelical = conservative and mainline = liberal. On the other hand, mainline = "no change, stick to the past" = conservative, and evangelical = "new ideas" = liberal ("radical" as the antonym of mainline might be more expected here). So I don't think there's any permanent connection between the two dimensions.
In Congress, the "mainline" theory is "we need to pass legislation even if it's not perfect because that's how the country works". And the "evangelical" theory is "we shouldn't pass any legislation that isn't ours; and the country has never broken before so it probably won't break now". ... and in the specific case of "running a government", the mainline theory is right. It's why the government shutdowns never work as a tactic.
But large parts of the US government do run on auto-pilot now. Continuing spending resolutions and the like can cause spending to continue at the same rate forever even if (especially if) Congress does nothing other than vaguely agreeing to keep things running for another year.
So what does it matter? ... well, the only real way to compromise with evangelicals is to say "see, it didn't work". Or just vote them out of office, which is another way to show that it didn't work. It worked with the Prohibition movement in the 1920s. And in general, solutions are a lot more peaceful than they were in the Roman Republic, where Senators were regularly murdered on the floor of the senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment