7

In America at least, there tends to be far less unity within liberal factions when compared to conservative ones. One just has to point to the last few presidential elections.

2008: There was a significantly tougher struggle between Obama and Clinton compared to McCain and other Republicans.

2012 The democratic party unites around Obama fairly effectively. (Although this is the outlier compared to the last few presidential elections.)

2016: Again, although there was a struggle between Trump and Republican party veterans, but the struggle between Clinton and Bernie was far, far worse.

2020: Trump faced practically no opposition while again the Democratic party was greatly divided via the Bernie vs Biden struggle.

Not even taking into account official elections, there just tends to be way more in-fighting within liberal groups socially compared to conservative ones. Conservatives always seem to be on a united front: Being Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anit-Immigration, etc, are common among nearly all American conservatives. On the other hand, there are very few issues that all liberals agree on. Why is this the case?

SmartBulbInc
  • 333
  • 1
  • 5
  • 57
    I'm not at all convinced that the premise continues to be true, even if it was for a number of years. Witness the large number of votes it took to elect a speaker and the many viable candidates for the GOP Presidential candidate. – ohwilleke May 30 '23 at 21:28
  • 11
    Just looking at Presidential elections hardly seems to be a good way to judge a party. – Barmar May 30 '23 at 21:36
  • @ohwilleke I would tend to believe you that the premise is likely not true, there is something to be said if the question is changed slightly to speak about the perception of in-fighting, or taking the fight to the public. – David S May 30 '23 at 21:40
  • Vote to close. Please read Federalist #10, which explains the dangers of political factions. The definition of a faction is in the second paragraph. Liberals have an assortment of smallish factions which often squabble amongst themselves, limiting their power (as Madison intended). Conservatives have unified into one single faction, whose members operate in lockstep for the singular purpose of increasing party power as a whole (which Madison considers a grave threat). – Ted Wrigley May 30 '23 at 21:55
  • 1
    @TedWrigley I'm a little confused why you want to vote to close. How does my question violate the rules of the site? – SmartBulbInc May 31 '23 at 02:25
  • @SmartBulbInc: You've framed the question in a way that makes it sound as though you think Democrats should be more factional (like Republicans), not less. It's not a neutral question by any means, though the pro-factionalism bias may not be clear to most people. Read Federalist #10, understand the problem with the question from that perspective, revise, and I'll withdraw my close vote. – Ted Wrigley May 31 '23 at 03:13
  • 1
    @TedWrigley I agree that the question is not particularly neutral, but it sounds like you're asking OP to change their opinion about factions and agree with Madison before you're willing to withdraw your close vote, which seems inappropriate. I would suggest instead highlighting language in the post that you feel makes it not neutral (for example, phrases like "in-fighting" and "brought to it's knees" have negative connotations and portray liberal factions in a negative light) – T Hummus May 31 '23 at 05:33
  • @TedWrigley Also it sounds like you could write an interesting answer about how conservatives have unified into a single faction while liberals have not – T Hummus May 31 '23 at 05:35
  • 1
    @THummus: A close vote is just a close vote; it doesn't matter unless at least five people agree. If the question stays open I might write an answer, but I still think the question is misguided. And sorry; it's my right and responsibility to tell him what I think is wrong with his question and ask him to make changes. Poor questions breed poor answers, and who needs that... – Ted Wrigley May 31 '23 at 05:51
  • 9
    @TedWrigley: IMHO the question deserves to be closed as opinion-based (and/or the "promote/discredit" custom reason), not as "go read Federalist #10." Close votes are means of enforcing site policy (and Federalist #10 is not a site policy). You shouldn't just cast them for whatever reason you feel like. That's what downvotes are for. – Kevin May 31 '23 at 06:22
  • @TedWrigley That was not my intention at all. I was merely pointing out my observation, not at all implying that liberals should be more factional. Also, I don't believe that my language was un-neutral; perhaps a little too expressive though. If need be, I will edit the question to better reflect neutrality if that is a requirement. – SmartBulbInc May 31 '23 at 06:32
  • 2
    @SmartBulbInc "there are tons of views that nearly all conservatives share" ... not true at all. Simple google searches for each of the main topics show that there are splits among conservatives. Sure those are the views of conservatives, in general, but there are many dissenters. I believe your questions is invalid on its face, and/or you are indeed pushing a point. Note that I don't wish to start or continue a debate about this, I am simply explaining my VtC. – CGCampbell May 31 '23 at 10:30
  • 1
    @TedWrigley I agree with Kevin. Using Federalist 10 to explain your down vote is appropriate. Close voting because the question is pushing an opinion is appropriate. But close voting because OP disagrees with Federalist 10 is inappropriate, and that's what your comment sounded like. – T Hummus May 31 '23 at 11:49
  • I don't really understand the reason for the closing of this question. "In-fighting," might have been a little too dramatic of a word, which I apologize for. But, in itself, it does not imply that liberals are inherently inferior to conservatives for disagreeing publically with each other on a more frequent basis. It could just as easily mean that liberals are more accepting of dissenting views, or that conservatives are more likely to bend their beliefs to fit a collective. – SmartBulbInc May 31 '23 at 18:39
  • 3
    I’m voting to close this question because it seems to be based on a flawed premise. – SQB Jun 01 '23 at 08:40
  • 1
    @SQB is that a reason to close a question? Typically I would prefer to see an answer that challenges the flawed premise, and lo and behold there are multiple upvoted answers doing just that. – Jared Smith Jun 01 '23 at 14:01
  • 3
    @SmartBulbInc RE: close votes you have to understand that we get rants disguised as questions, leading questions that make it clear that the OP is looking for a specific answer they already have in mind, or questions that presume a partisan viewpoint all the time. You may not have intended it, and indeed I disagree with the close voters, but it smells a little fishy the way you've written it. – Jared Smith Jun 01 '23 at 14:07
  • @JaredSmith to me, yes. I could've gone with "opinion based" as well, because the premise is opinion based. It's hard to quantify the amount of infighting and any cut-off point will be arbitrary and will no doubt leave one party at a disadvantage. To top that off, the querent's examples are limited to presidential elections, while the rest of the question is not. 1/2 – SQB Jun 02 '23 at 08:24
  • @JaredSmith And lastly, querent seems to conflate liberals with the Democratic Party and conservative with the Republican Party which is another flawed premise in the sense that a part of your Democratic Party is a touch conservative to say the least while parts of the Republican Party are more libertarian rather than conservative. 2/2 – SQB Jun 02 '23 at 08:26
  • @SQB FWIW I think "opinion based" is a better close reason here if one is needed. I don't think I'd vote to close this personally, but as I said in my comment to the OP I can hardly blame people that do, and I haven't voted to reopen it either. – Jared Smith Jun 02 '23 at 14:02

7 Answers7

70

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran virtually unopposed for the Democrat party nomination. His only opponent — Bill Bradley — did not win any primaries and Gore’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention was unanimous. George W. Bush on the Republican side faced 7 other challengers.

So just from a this evidence, it would appear to be the opposite of your premise. I personally don't believe either party is more or less prone to infighting than the other. Each party has their own factions and internal squabbles. It just often appears that one or the other has more unity, depending on how well the leadership within can hold the party line together more effectively at any given time.

Wes Sayeed
  • 12,075
  • 3
  • 27
  • 48
  • 10
    True. Ever since the advent of the Tea Party and more recently the rise of right fringe and conspiracy extremists who do not share much common ground with anybody outside their conspiracy bubble, Republicans are one party only in name. The leadership has a harder time keeping the party together against the centrifugal forces than the Democrats. The current budget fight is another example. – Peter - Reinstate Monica May 31 '23 at 08:21
  • 10
    Also Trump was a huge ideological break from previous GOP candidates. He basically made a coup against the GOP leadership by embracing right-branded overt populism instead of any sort of coherent conservatism, constitutionalism, or classical liberalism a la American founding. – lazarusL May 31 '23 at 20:46
  • 2000 should probably also not count for this exercise as Gore was essentially the incumbent. – Michael Richardson May 31 '23 at 21:08
  • @MichaelRichardson; I disagree. In 1992 George H.W. Bush was regarded as Reagan's 3rd term but he still had to run against 3 other Republican candidates to secure the nomination. On the Democrats' side, Hillary Clinton was the heir-apparent in 2008 before Obama swooped in and stole her crown. So really, it kind of bolsters my argument :-D – Wes Sayeed May 31 '23 at 21:33
  • 1
    @MichaelRichardson; OK, I read up on the 1992 election and it seems Bush 41 won the nomination handily with 73% of the vote. That's pretty much a cake walk. But he did still have to show up for a Republican debate, which is more than Al Gore had to do. – Wes Sayeed May 31 '23 at 21:56
  • "Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination" -- no, he had an opponent, Bill Bradley, who won 522 delegates to Gore's 3,007. – nanoman Jun 01 '23 at 05:16
  • 3
    @nanoman; You are correct. Gore’s nomination was unanimous at the DNC, but none of Bradley’s delegates were allowed to vote for him because he didn’t win any primaries. There was one debate between them and I missed that. I’ve updated my answer to reflect it. – Wes Sayeed Jun 01 '23 at 09:41
  • 1
    We also see I believe five Republican candidates for the 2024 presidential season already, and just look at what drama is unfolding in Texas, where the GOP-controlled House of Representatives just impeached the Republican State Attorney General after he allegedly tried to obtain state funds to pay off personal debts. – A. R. Jun 01 '23 at 15:25
  • 2
    This is the correct answer. A large part of the reason Trump even got nominated in 2016 was precisely because there was so much division among the more mainstream Republican candidates. Several of Trump's early "wins" in the primaries were with significant minorities of the actual votes cast, just the others were split up between several other candidates (but especially Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz.) Trump won the 2016 primary with the lowest percentage of the primary votes of a GOP nominee in nearly half a century. – reirab Jun 01 '23 at 21:55
33

Because there is only one observable 'past'. And a multitude of proposed 'futures'.

First, let me make a frame change. The question implies the standoff between the Liberalism and the Conservatism, while the two are orthogonal concepts that can co-exist.

I suggest comparing the Conservative vs. the Progressive¹.

By its very definition, Conservatism is a social vision that promotes the traditional values. The 'traditional' stands for the way it used to be in the past.
Broadly speaking, Conservatism is all about keeping things the way they used to be.

A person who follows the Conservative philosophy envisions the Past as great. And they would naturally wish to keep things the way they are.
In case if the current political institutions and practices do not match person's views, such person would would advocate for reinstating the old practices and make the observable reality Great Again.

Naturally, there is only one (or a very limited number of) "Great Past" in a particular place, so the broad variety of people (who may have different views on other aspects of life) would fight for similar political/social values.

The Progressivism, by definition, offers changes. These changes can be naturally different, be it Right- or Left-leaning, adding or lifting restrictions or rights, etc.

Which makes many Progressive ideas incompatible with each other. So people who follow the Progressive ideas debate over whose ideas are to prevail.

Which would lead us to observe far less unity among the Progressives.

¹) although they could co-exist as well, but it looks like a forced compromise, not as a political doctrine.

Reading

Be Brave Be Like Ukraine
  • 17,223
  • 11
  • 64
  • 117
  • 3
    There might be just one past, but there are many different ways to interpret it – Justas May 31 '23 at 11:24
  • 2
    @Justas, exactly. This is why the Conservatives "have more unity" yet not "are unanimous". – Be Brave Be Like Ukraine May 31 '23 at 12:22
  • 3
    @Justas and also, people might like some aspects of the past but not all, and might disagree on which aspects of the past are worth keeping and which should be changed. – Esther Jun 01 '23 at 14:33
  • 4
    In the old USSR, there were many pasts, but only one future. – Walter Mitty Jun 01 '23 at 15:23
  • @Esther this is very close to the 'interpretation' aspect mentioned in the first comment. – Be Brave Be Like Ukraine Jun 01 '23 at 17:16
  • 1
    The word 'liberal' has multiple definitions and the one the question is using is not the same as the one you're using. In America, what is considered 'liberal' in modern contexts is precisely what you describe as 'progressive' and 'progressive' tends to carry the connotation of being simply the more extreme wing of the left (e.g. the "Progressive Caucus.") Classical liberalism (which is more what you appear to be referring to) is not just different, but almost completely unrelated and, in many instances, the opposite of modern U.S. liberalism, especially in the realm of economics. – reirab Jun 01 '23 at 21:27
  • 1
    Classical liberals in the context of modern U.S. politics are normally known as libertarians, not liberals. (And the lower-case 'l' is intentional there, referring to the ideology, not necessarily the actual Libertarian Party. While they are a minority, most libertarians who actually get elected in the U.S. do so as Republicans, though they have many differences from other factions of the Republican Party.) – reirab Jun 01 '23 at 21:34
23

This is kind of true even outside America.

The reason is that "liberals" tend to be less authoritarian and more democratic than conservatives.

So "liberal" parties in a democracy tend to allow more expression of diverse opinions inside and outside the party that also often generates heated open (public) debates. This may sometimes seem like in-fighting. And sometimes it does become so when people become too emotional about some issue. But this is seen as normal and healthy - the ability to be comfortable with different opinions and maintain a relationship with someone who may have some different views is considered an important attribute to have in a multi-cultural society and a democracy.

In fact, this kind of "in-fighting" is sometimes even seen in the legislative houses of democracies (especially in younger non-western democracies). Some examples:

Due to the nature of democracy to allow different opinions, such occasional flare-ups of emotions are actually considered normal.

Conservative parties on the other hand tend to be more authoritarian, and dissent or deviation from the party leaders public political stands is often seen as an attack on the party leadership itself. Thus, in conservative parties divergent views are actively discouraged or only shared and discussed in private.

sfxedit
  • 8,898
  • 1
  • 23
  • 50
  • "dissent or deviation from the party leaders public political stands" Do you think this argument holds in times of cancel culture? – Shadow1024 Jun 05 '23 at 20:30
  • @Shadow1024 That's an interesting observation - the cancel culture has indeed made leaders of political parties across the political spectrum more sensitive to criticism and thus contributed to more authoritarian tendency. This seems more true in the US - we now see some US media outlets that leaned towards liberal and progressive politics now sometime take hard-line stance in favour of Democrats, ignoring neutrality, and becoming more "Fox" like. (Note though that doesn't all together negate what I said - conservative political philosophy is more naturally inclined to authoritarianism.) – sfxedit Jun 05 '23 at 20:41
  • I've seen a few studies in which the highest tolerance for dissenting views was actually among moderate conservatives, (lowest chance of stopping talk to someone who expressed totally opposite views), while the least tolerant were far left. This shouldn't work in right-wing unity favor, except maybe getting disagreements look less serious. I wonder rather about different mechanism - which side is getting all people who dream about being revolutionaries and rejecting old establishment? – Shadow1024 Jun 05 '23 at 20:59
  • @Shadow1024 As someone else pointed, from an international perspective both the US Democrats and Republicans seem to be a party of moderate conservatives. As long as the party is dominated by moderates (or centrists as some prefer to be called), that's good for both the party and the nation. It's when the extremes - the far left or the far right - hijack the party and / or the political agenda that we see the kind tension we see currently in US politics. I believe that apart from the political ideology, how a party looks at dissent also depends on the party leaders personality. – sfxedit Jun 05 '23 at 21:34
  • As someone having international perspective (Polish), Republicans are indeed a moderate conservatives with odd fetish towards guns and lack of health insurance, while Democrats (as long as big business donors are not harmed) are willing to go far left even by the most left leaning EU countries standards (defund the police, most draconian COVID-19 policies, late abortion, sex change treatment for kids, etc). At least paying lip service to such policies is likely to attract some revolutionaries, while compromising for median voter is likely to make those revolutionaries unhappy. – Shadow1024 Jun 06 '23 at 15:11
  • @Shadow1024 defund the police, most draconian COVID-19 policies, late abortion, sex change treatment for kids, etc - none of these can be really claimed to be agendas of the "left" around the world. They are particular to US politics only, and even within the Democrats don't have any unified positions on these subject. – sfxedit Jun 07 '23 at 08:03
2

Throughout the 20th century, conservatives were as diverse and subject to infighting as liberals. Just in the last half of the century conservatives often split into Free Market activism, Libertarianism, small-town conservatism, religious conservatism, southern segregationists, militia separatists, military jingoists, and advocates of corporatism, all with their own idiosyncratic interests and agendas. Those groups still exist today, obviously, but any infighting between them seems to have dropped out of the public eye. So why did that happen?

The short answer is that beginning sometime in Clinton's second term Conservatives gave up on trying to balance different policy agendas — they gave up on expressing policy at all, in fact — and shifted to an entirely media-centered strategy. This involved Karl Rove style (i..e., ad hominem) attack ads, swiftboating strategies, scandal-hacking, fear-mongering and rabble-rousing, all backed by the (then new) FOX Network, with its strong conservative propaganda arm obscured under a pretense of straight news. They created an echo chamber of people who repeated the same talking points while steadfastly refusing to discuss anything of material substance, and who constantly shifted blame away from the party to others, all to present an image of power and unity. Anyone who broke ranks was ostracized and punished as disloyal; anyone vocal outside the group was demonized as bad, or traitorous, or dangerous.

They became a faction in Madison's sense — read Federalist 10 — with all the negative weight that term carries.

Don't think the apparent lack of infighting is real. As we saw in the Trump administration and in McCarthy's troubled speakership, as soon as conservatives gain power they all begin to privately squabble over their differences, rendering them almost incapable of governance. That factional emphasis on a facade of unity selects for the worst kind of candidates: those most shamelessly willing to publicly lie for the party's benefit while privately pushing selfish aims. It's not conducive to real leadership.

Ted Wrigley
  • 69,144
  • 23
  • 179
  • 235
  • 1
    You make a good point - conservatives are a spectrum of thoughts too, but some are now unable to find any space for their voice to be heard by the public. – sfxedit Jun 01 '23 at 22:18
-1

Why are American liberals more prone to in-fighting than conservatives?

I actually agree with the premise.

I believe it's because American liberals are more committed to certain ethical tenets that American conservatives are not committed to.

One of those ethical tenets is a commitment to facts and truth. Facts are things that are widely known or proved to be true. Truth is an accurate description of reality.

To rise above the lying and disinformation and bending the "truth" to fit one's ideology, which is something liberals accuse the conservatives of doing, liberals need to steer clear of that themselves. Especially when it's so easy to push a dishonest narrative that will be accepted unquestionably by our base.

So, the infighting among liberals is a consequence that we're more committed to truth than the other side. We're more willing to call out other liberals for mispresenting fact, even if we're both fighting for the same ends.

If more conservatives were like Liz Cheney or Adam Kitzinger, so that they had a real nasty fight among the GOP about T**** (I can't even utter the name) and T****ism and what it's doing to the party and to the nation, then you would not see as much of a difference in the degree of infighting between liberals and the GOP. But we're not seeing hardly any introspection in the GOP.

The used to call this the GOP 11th Commandment. The Dems didn't have such.

robert bristow-johnson
  • 1,496
  • 10
  • 24
-2

Perhaps it is a psychological result of the situation in the last two decates, where the conservatives see themself as the weaker side, albeit still capable of scoring wins sometimes, and so they understand the importance of consolidation. Admitting that you are a weaker side also let (American) Right to adopt "Don't punch Right" approach. The rationale being, you are not 100% in agreement with another conservative who happen to be trending currently, but they are better than any liberal, and if you show in-fighting then liberals win, since they do that by default.

On the other hand, liberals also see themselves as a stronger side, so they aim to get the best piece of the pie which they see as already won, so the only question is who gets to eat it among fellow liberals. this may go such great lengths that they will occassionally lose to the weaker conservatives because of this. Perhaps this is not even seen as a problem because they feel they may score whenever they like it, so it may be better to yield to a conservative (and spend a term bashing them) than to a fellow, but a different flavor of, liberal.

The apparent difference is strength seems to be due to the fact that the great majority of media (news outlets, cinema, arts and music, video games) is now liberal-leaning, a lot of being virtually a loudspeaker for their programmes.

alamar
  • 16,107
  • 3
  • 44
  • 78
  • 5
    The balance of power between the Republican party and the Democratic party in the United States was rather equal in the past two decades. The leadership of senate and house of representatives shifted several times, and their majorities were always hair-thin. – Philipp May 31 '23 at 08:20
  • This is where "see themselves" part comes into play. – alamar May 31 '23 at 08:28
  • 4
    Even if, as you claim, that dissent is expressed behind closed doors to manage public perceptions, doesn't that make it less democratic, as that implies that only few people decide the politics of the conservatives? Doesn't this lack of openness impede the growth of the political ideology and increase authoritarianism? – sfxedit May 31 '23 at 14:30
  • Sounds like a second question - consider asking it. – alamar May 31 '23 at 15:55
-9

I'd argue that there is more fighting in the left-wing party, because that is where liberals face the most severe challenge to their politics, and where the liberal powers-that-be seek to cause the most upset in order to prevent socialist reform and rig the choices on the ballot.

Trump may be terrible, yes, but I guarantee most liberals would prefer him to Sanders.

The liberals in all major Western nations have a tactic of disabling the democratic system by seizing control of all major parties on the ballot.

Bankrolling the politicians they want on the ballot, and causing chaos and selectively smearing those they don't want, means that important political questions are decided before the ballot slips are printed and offered to the electorate.

Even with Trump they're trying the same tactics, after what they consider one dreadful round with him. What they can't understand is how criminals charges and smears are increasing his popularity rather than decreasing it.

I should also be clear about smears, especially as regards Trump. They aren't always untrue. It's the selective revelation of them to the public at a particular time, the slant and degree of media publicity, and the disciplinary effect they have on politicians who are more inclined to submit to rich interests with intelligence networks in exchange for quiet and successful careers, which is how such smears are used as a means of political control.

Steve
  • 6,258
  • 12
  • 30
  • What you are describing is political practices that are common today with every political party, and nothing unique only to the "liberals". Or do you claim that conservatives do not do these things due to their political ideology? – sfxedit May 31 '23 at 13:14
  • 1
    @sfxedit, given that I'm arguing that the liberals seek to control all options on the ballot, why shouldn't it be common to every party? Your "conservatives" are frequently just ordinary liberals, provoking a fuss over some trivia amongst themselves (both to manufacture the appearance of choice, and to distract), whilst joining in violent rejection of anything like socialist reform. – Steve May 31 '23 at 13:49
  • You sidestepped my question completely - do you claim that conservatives (whether ordinary liberals or otherwise) don't do these things too to capture power or preserve it? – sfxedit May 31 '23 at 14:33
  • @sfxedit, I didn't sidestep the question, I attacked it head on by denying the validity of the distinction you're making between "conservatives" and liberals. If the resulting question was only whether the liberals really do what my answer already said they do - infest all major parties and attack the availability of any other option on the ballot - then my position hasn't changed. – Steve May 31 '23 at 14:42