Does the U.S. have a "natural governing" party?

[Del Tachi]

The Canadian Liberals have been called their nation's "natural governing" party by commentators (the LPC controlled the nation for 70 years of the 20th Century).

While no party has been as dominant in the United States (Republicans and Democrats split about 50/50 for controlling the White House during the last Century), do either of the two American political political parties represent the "median" mode of political leadership/orientation in the U.S.?

I will argue it's the Democrats who get to carry this mantle.  Their coalition, while necessarily very diffuse and non-coherent, is larger than the Republicans' more ideologically-animated base.  This helped the party hold huge majorities in Congress for most of the 20th Century, but also hurts the Democrats in that they need once-in-a-generation-type charismatic leaders (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) to unite all the constituencies of their coalition.     

[RINO Tom]

I'm not sure if I would jump on board with the terminology yet, but I WILL argue that conservatism naturally thrives when critiquing liberal ideas; in other words, a healthy society involves conservatives keeping liberals in check.  Want to feed everyone because going hungry is bad?  Good idea, now let us make it more practical.  Want to pass a law that stops discrimination because discrimination is bad?  Good idea, but we need to tweak it so that it doesn't trample over individual liberties.  This, of course, is not happening in our society right now, and it is part of why the GOP seems so dysfunctional, IMO.  When a conservative party is forced to be too dynamic or promote itself as something too "active," you mostly wind up with something not conservative at all, but rather reactionary.

[Brother Jonathan]

The Liberals in Canada and the Conservatives in the UK are uniquely situated to be considered natural parties of government because both nations basically vest all powers in a single body, their respective House of Commons. You only have to win one election to have power. Both have, in practice, powerless executives and very weak upper chambers. In the US, we have two chambers with similar powers and a powerful executive, all elected separately in staggered terms, so really the very concept of a natural party of government is pretty much foreign to the US. The last time we really could there was one was when the Democrats held the House for decades, and even then it's a stretch at times thanks to the divisions within the Congressional caucus. In a system with many national institutions, independent of one another, with two "big tent" parties, we really just aren't well suited for a national party of government. Our politics are too coalitional and our system too devolved and fractured to allow for such domination absent a massive realignment.

[Lechasseur]

The Canadian Liberals have been called their nation's "natural governing" party by commentators (the LPC controlled the nation for 70 years of the 20th Century).

While no party has been as dominant in the United States (Republicans and Democrats split about 50/50 for controlling the White House during the last Century), do either of the two American political political parties represent the "median" mode of political leadership/orientation in the U.S.?

I will argue it's the Democrats who get to carry this mantle.  Their coalition, while necessarily very diffuse and non-coherent, is larger than the Republicans' more ideologically-animated base.  This helped the party hold huge majorities in Congress for most of the 20th Century, but also hurts the Democrats in that they need once-in-a-generation-type charismatic leaders (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) to unite all the constituencies of their coalition.     

And in most of Western Europe, the conservatives or the Christian Democrats were the natural governing party, and then in Scandinavia it was the Social Democrats.

The US is one of the rare countries where there wasn't a (fairly recent) "natural governing party" (at least in the last 70 years or so).

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Canadian Liberals have been called their nation's "natural governing" party by commentators (the LPC controlled the nation for 70 years of the 20th Century).

While no party has been as dominant in the United States (Republicans and Democrats split about 50/50 for controlling the White House during the last Century), do either of the two American political political parties represent the "median" mode of political leadership/orientation in the U.S.?

I will argue it's the Democrats who get to carry this mantle.  Their coalition, while necessarily very diffuse and non-coherent, is larger than the Republicans' more ideologically-animated base.  This helped the party hold huge majorities in Congress for most of the 20th Century, but also hurts the Democrats in that they need once-in-a-generation-type charismatic leaders (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) to unite all the constituencies of their coalition.    

And in most of Western Europe, the conservatives or the Christian Democrats were the natural governing party, and then in Scandinavia it was the Social Democrats.

The US is one of the rare countries where there wasn't a (fairly recent) "natural governing party" (at least in the last 70 years or so).

Not really its just been like that since 2006

1932-1980: the Dems were the natural governing party
from 1980-2006: The Republicans were the natural governing party(GOP had a defacto trifecta from 1981-1987)

[Brother Jonathan]

The Canadian Liberals have been called their nation's "natural governing" party by commentators (the LPC controlled the nation for 70 years of the 20th Century).

While no party has been as dominant in the United States (Republicans and Democrats split about 50/50 for controlling the White House during the last Century), do either of the two American political political parties represent the "median" mode of political leadership/orientation in the U.S.?

I will argue it's the Democrats who get to carry this mantle.  Their coalition, while necessarily very diffuse and non-coherent, is larger than the Republicans' more ideologically-animated base.  This helped the party hold huge majorities in Congress for most of the 20th Century, but also hurts the Democrats in that they need once-in-a-generation-type charismatic leaders (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) to unite all the constituencies of their coalition.    

And in most of Western Europe, the conservatives or the Christian Democrats were the natural governing party, and then in Scandinavia it was the Social Democrats.

The US is one of the rare countries where there wasn't a (fairly recent) "natural governing party" (at least in the last 70 years or so).

Not really its just been like that since 2006

1932-1980: the Dems were the natural governing party
from 1980-2006: The Republicans were the natural governing party(GOP had a defacto trifecta from 1981-1987)

The Democrats were certainly the natural party of government for a time, I do agree with that, but fact that the 1981 to 9187 GOP trifecta was only de facto rather than de jure speaks to the fact that our political parties are too broad and our electoral system to fractured to actually allow for one party to consolidate its hold over government to the extent that some European/Westminster system parties can. The US became more conservative in the 1980s, so both parties shifted rightward, which helped get some of Reagan's agenda through Congress. 

[Sumner 1868]

The Canadian Liberals have been called their nation's "natural governing" party by commentators (the LPC controlled the nation for 70 years of the 20th Century).

While no party has been as dominant in the United States (Republicans and Democrats split about 50/50 for controlling the White House during the last Century), do either of the two American political political parties represent the "median" mode of political leadership/orientation in the U.S.?

I will argue it's the Democrats who get to carry this mantle.  Their coalition, while necessarily very diffuse and non-coherent, is larger than the Republicans' more ideologically-animated base.  This helped the party hold huge majorities in Congress for most of the 20th Century, but also hurts the Democrats in that they need once-in-a-generation-type charismatic leaders (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) to unite all the constituencies of their coalition.    

And in most of Western Europe, the conservatives or the Christian Democrats were the natural governing party, and then in Scandinavia it was the Social Democrats.

The US is one of the rare countries where there wasn't a (fairly recent) "natural governing party" (at least in the last 70 years or so).

Not really its just been like that since 2006

1932-1980: the Dems were the natural governing party
from 1980-2006: The Republicans were the natural governing party(GOP had a defacto trifecta from 1981-1987)

The Democrats were certainly the natural party of government for a time, I do agree with that, but fact that the 1981 to 9187 GOP trifecta was only de facto rather than de jure speaks to the fact that our political parties are too broad and our electoral system to fractured to actually allow for one party to consolidate its hold over government to the extent that some European/Westminster system parties can. The US became more conservative in the 1980s, so both parties shifted rightward, which helped get some of Reagan's agenda through Congress.  

Republicans were also essentially dominant in practice between 1946 and 1958; even in years they didn't hold the Congress; because of the "conservative coalition" with Dixiecrats like Byrd.

[Brother Jonathan]

The Canadian Liberals have been called their nation's "natural governing" party by commentators (the LPC controlled the nation for 70 years of the 20th Century).

While no party has been as dominant in the United States (Republicans and Democrats split about 50/50 for controlling the White House during the last Century), do either of the two American political political parties represent the "median" mode of political leadership/orientation in the U.S.?

I will argue it's the Democrats who get to carry this mantle.  Their coalition, while necessarily very diffuse and non-coherent, is larger than the Republicans' more ideologically-animated base.  This helped the party hold huge majorities in Congress for most of the 20th Century, but also hurts the Democrats in that they need once-in-a-generation-type charismatic leaders (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) to unite all the constituencies of their coalition.    

And in most of Western Europe, the conservatives or the Christian Democrats were the natural governing party, and then in Scandinavia it was the Social Democrats.

The US is one of the rare countries where there wasn't a (fairly recent) "natural governing party" (at least in the last 70 years or so).

Not really its just been like that since 2006

1932-1980: the Dems were the natural governing party
from 1980-2006: The Republicans were the natural governing party(GOP had a defacto trifecta from 1981-1987)

The Democrats were certainly the natural party of government for a time, I do agree with that, but fact that the 1981 to 9187 GOP trifecta was only de facto rather than de jure speaks to the fact that our political parties are too broad and our electoral system to fractured to actually allow for one party to consolidate its hold over government to the extent that some European/Westminster system parties can. The US became more conservative in the 1980s, so both parties shifted rightward, which helped get some of Reagan's agenda through Congress.  

Republicans were also essentially dominant in practice between 1946 and 1958; even in years they didn't hold the Congress; because of the "conservative coalition" with Dixiecrats like Byrd.

That's fair as well. I guess we should probably draw a distinction between a natural ideology of government and a natural party of government. But again, the fact that we have a system where a Democrat can be President while the GOP or GOP+Conservative Dems can control Congress means we really can't have a natural party of government.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What the US has is "party systems" and dominant ideologies. Currently we're in either a conservative party system or a #populist party system depending on the extent to which 2020 is a reversion to the mean from 2016. Before that you had a liberal (American definition, naturally) party system for much of the twentieth century. And so on. The dominant ideologies aren't necessarily those of one and only one of the two major parties, of course.

[Lechasseur]

The Canadian Liberals have been called their nation's "natural governing" party by commentators (the LPC controlled the nation for 70 years of the 20th Century).

While no party has been as dominant in the United States (Republicans and Democrats split about 50/50 for controlling the White House during the last Century), do either of the two American political political parties represent the "median" mode of political leadership/orientation in the U.S.?

I will argue it's the Democrats who get to carry this mantle.  Their coalition, while necessarily very diffuse and non-coherent, is larger than the Republicans' more ideologically-animated base.  This helped the party hold huge majorities in Congress for most of the 20th Century, but also hurts the Democrats in that they need once-in-a-generation-type charismatic leaders (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) to unite all the constituencies of their coalition.    

And in most of Western Europe, the conservatives or the Christian Democrats were the natural governing party, and then in Scandinavia it was the Social Democrats.

The US is one of the rare countries where there wasn't a (fairly recent) "natural governing party" (at least in the last 70 years or so).

Not really its just been like that since 2006

1932-1980: the Dems were the natural governing party
from 1980-2006: The Republicans were the natural governing party(GOP had a defacto trifecta from 1981-1987)

The thing is in those parties I've mentioned in Europe dominated their countries for decades in a way that neither party has managed in the US in 70 years.

Like for example in Belgium, the Christian Democrats held the prime minister's office constantly between 1958 and 1999, with the exception of a brief break in the 1970s but even there were still in government.

Or Germany where in the last 70 years the Christian Democrats have been in power for 50.

Then for the opposite side of the spectrum, I think the Social Democrats in Sweden have held power for at least 60 of the last 80 years.

That's the type of domination we're talking about.

[parochial boy]

The Liberals in Canada and the Conservatives in the UK are uniquely situated to be considered natural parties of government because both nations basically vest all powers in a single body, their respective House of Commons. You only have to win one election to have power. Both have, in practice, powerless executives and very weak upper chambers. In the US, we have two chambers with similar powers and a powerful executive, all elected separately in staggered terms, so really the very concept of a natural party of government is pretty much foreign to the US. The last time we really could there was one was when the Democrats held the House for decades, and even then it's a stretch at times thanks to the divisions within the Congressional caucus. In a system with many national institutions, independent of one another, with two "big tent" parties, we really just aren't well suited for a national party of government. Our politics are too coalitional and our system too devolved and fractured to allow for such domination absent a massive realignment.

Typically, the UK is considered to have an especially strong executive, because the executive (almost) always consists of a single party that holds a legislative majority, giving in an almost unparalleled room to manoeuvre among western democracies. Compare to the US, or France, where a cohabitation is possible - or most European countries where cross party coalitions are either unstable or succesful based on compromise

The thing is in those parties I've mentioned in Europe dominated their countries for decades in a way that neither party has managed in the US in 70 years.

Like for example in Belgium, the Christian Democrats held the prime minister's office constantly between 1958 and 1999, with the exception of a brief break in the 1970s but even there were still in government.

Or Germany where in the last 70 years the Christian Democrats have been in power for 50.

Then for the opposite side of the spectrum, I think the Social Democrats in Sweden have held power for at least 60 of the last 80 years.

That's the type of domination we're talking about.

For the most part, I'd agree - although with Belgium notably, you have the fact that any government basically requires the input of the entire political spectrum, which tends to benefit CD's as being broadly in the centre of it, rather than because they are especially electorally succesful (especially in recent decades). I'd also shout out Spain and Portugal as not having a natural party of government  -  in part because democracy was only restored fairly recently, but also because they are relatively unusual in that left wing parties are able to win an outright majority of the vote. And of course, there's Italy, which has been basically all over the place since mani pulite blew their political spectrum apart.

[Brother Jonathan]

The Liberals in Canada and the Conservatives in the UK are uniquely situated to be considered natural parties of government because both nations basically vest all powers in a single body, their respective House of Commons. You only have to win one election to have power. Both have, in practice, powerless executives and very weak upper chambers. In the US, we have two chambers with similar powers and a powerful executive, all elected separately in staggered terms, so really the very concept of a natural party of government is pretty much foreign to the US. The last time we really could there was one was when the Democrats held the House for decades, and even then it's a stretch at times thanks to the divisions within the Congressional caucus. In a system with many national institutions, independent of one another, with two "big tent" parties, we really just aren't well suited for a national party of government. Our politics are too coalitional and our system too devolved and fractured to allow for such domination absent a massive realignment.

Typically, the UK is considered to have an especially strong executive, because the executive (almost) always consists of a single party that holds a legislative majority, giving in an almost unparalleled room to manoeuvre among western democracies. Compare to the US, or France, where a cohabitation is possible - or most European countries where cross party coalitions are either unstable or succesful based on compromise

True, in practice, but by executive here I was referring to the Monarch as head of state rather than the Prime Minister as head of government. Same structure in Canada, where the Governor General serves as a representative of the Monarch. In fact I think the power vested in the Prime Minister is one of the reasons both nations can have such dominant parties at different times, because one person in effect sets the agenda in a way no other country's political system really allows.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, and anyone who argues otherwise is twisting the term beyond meaning.

[Lechasseur]

The Liberals in Canada and the Conservatives in the UK are uniquely situated to be considered natural parties of government because both nations basically vest all powers in a single body, their respective House of Commons. You only have to win one election to have power. Both have, in practice, powerless executives and very weak upper chambers. In the US, we have two chambers with similar powers and a powerful executive, all elected separately in staggered terms, so really the very concept of a natural party of government is pretty much foreign to the US. The last time we really could there was one was when the Democrats held the House for decades, and even then it's a stretch at times thanks to the divisions within the Congressional caucus. In a system with many national institutions, independent of one another, with two "big tent" parties, we really just aren't well suited for a national party of government. Our politics are too coalitional and our system too devolved and fractured to allow for such domination absent a massive realignment.

Typically, the UK is considered to have an especially strong executive, because the executive (almost) always consists of a single party that holds a legislative majority, giving in an almost unparalleled room to manoeuvre among western democracies. Compare to the US, or France, where a cohabitation is possible - or most European countries where cross party coalitions are either unstable or succesful based on compromise

The thing is in those parties I've mentioned in Europe dominated their countries for decades in a way that neither party has managed in the US in 70 years.

Like for example in Belgium, the Christian Democrats held the prime minister's office constantly between 1958 and 1999, with the exception of a brief break in the 1970s but even there were still in government.

Or Germany where in the last 70 years the Christian Democrats have been in power for 50.

Then for the opposite side of the spectrum, I think the Social Democrats in Sweden have held power for at least 60 of the last 80 years.

That's the type of domination we're talking about.

For the most part, I'd agree - although with Belgium notably, you have the fact that any government basically requires the input of the entire political spectrum, which tends to benefit CD's as being broadly in the centre of it, rather than because they are especially electorally succesful (especially in recent decades). I'd also shout out Spain and Portugal as not having a natural party of government  -  in part because democracy was only restored fairly recently, but also because they are relatively unusual in that left wing parties are able to win an outright majority of the vote. And of course, there's Italy, which has been basically all over the place since mani pulite blew their political spectrum apart.

What's mani pulite?

[parochial boy]

The Liberals in Canada and the Conservatives in the UK are uniquely situated to be considered natural parties of government because both nations basically vest all powers in a single body, their respective House of Commons. You only have to win one election to have power. Both have, in practice, powerless executives and very weak upper chambers. In the US, we have two chambers with similar powers and a powerful executive, all elected separately in staggered terms, so really the very concept of a natural party of government is pretty much foreign to the US. The last time we really could there was one was when the Democrats held the House for decades, and even then it's a stretch at times thanks to the divisions within the Congressional caucus. In a system with many national institutions, independent of one another, with two "big tent" parties, we really just aren't well suited for a national party of government. Our politics are too coalitional and our system too devolved and fractured to allow for such domination absent a massive realignment.

Typically, the UK is considered to have an especially strong executive, because the executive (almost) always consists of a single party that holds a legislative majority, giving in an almost unparalleled room to manoeuvre among western democracies. Compare to the US, or France, where a cohabitation is possible - or most European countries where cross party coalitions are either unstable or succesful based on compromise

The thing is in those parties I've mentioned in Europe dominated their countries for decades in a way that neither party has managed in the US in 70 years.

Like for example in Belgium, the Christian Democrats held the prime minister's office constantly between 1958 and 1999, with the exception of a brief break in the 1970s but even there were still in government.

Or Germany where in the last 70 years the Christian Democrats have been in power for 50.

Then for the opposite side of the spectrum, I think the Social Democrats in Sweden have held power for at least 60 of the last 80 years.

That's the type of domination we're talking about.

For the most part, I'd agree - although with Belgium notably, you have the fact that any government basically requires the input of the entire political spectrum, which tends to benefit CD's as being broadly in the centre of it, rather than because they are especially electorally succesful (especially in recent decades). I'd also shout out Spain and Portugal as not having a natural party of government  -  in part because democracy was only restored fairly recently, but also because they are relatively unusual in that left wing parties are able to win an outright majority of the vote. And of course, there's Italy, which has been basically all over the place since mani pulite blew their political spectrum apart.

What's mani pulite?

Big corruption scandal in Italy in the early 90s, particularly about the way parties were funding. It took out a huge number of economic and political big wigs and basically wiped out most of the existing political parties, notably Christian Democracy, who had been the dominant political force post World War 2.

[Former President tack50]

The Liberals in Canada and the Conservatives in the UK are uniquely situated to be considered natural parties of government because both nations basically vest all powers in a single body, their respective House of Commons. You only have to win one election to have power. Both have, in practice, powerless executives and very weak upper chambers. In the US, we have two chambers with similar powers and a powerful executive, all elected separately in staggered terms, so really the very concept of a natural party of government is pretty much foreign to the US. The last time we really could there was one was when the Democrats held the House for decades, and even then it's a stretch at times thanks to the divisions within the Congressional caucus. In a system with many national institutions, independent of one another, with two "big tent" parties, we really just aren't well suited for a national party of government. Our politics are too coalitional and our system too devolved and fractured to allow for such domination absent a massive realignment.

Typically, the UK is considered to have an especially strong executive, because the executive (almost) always consists of a single party that holds a legislative majority, giving in an almost unparalleled room to manoeuvre among western democracies. Compare to the US, or France, where a cohabitation is possible - or most European countries where cross party coalitions are either unstable or succesful based on compromise

The thing is in those parties I've mentioned in Europe dominated their countries for decades in a way that neither party has managed in the US in 70 years.

Like for example in Belgium, the Christian Democrats held the prime minister's office constantly between 1958 and 1999, with the exception of a brief break in the 1970s but even there were still in government.

Or Germany where in the last 70 years the Christian Democrats have been in power for 50.

Then for the opposite side of the spectrum, I think the Social Democrats in Sweden have held power for at least 60 of the last 80 years.

That's the type of domination we're talking about.

For the most part, I'd agree - although with Belgium notably, you have the fact that any government basically requires the input of the entire political spectrum, which tends to benefit CD's as being broadly in the centre of it, rather than because they are especially electorally succesful (especially in recent decades). I'd also shout out Spain and Portugal as not having a natural party of government  -  in part because democracy was only restored fairly recently, but also because they are relatively unusual in that left wing parties are able to win an outright majority of the vote. And of course, there's Italy, which has been basically all over the place since mani pulite blew their political spectrum apart.

Actually I would argue that the PSOE, in a way, is the natural governing party of Spain. They have been in charge for 23/43 years Spain has been a democracy which I guess in terms of time is not that much though it is still 53% of the time.

However more importantly they are the only party that has managed to eventually win a regional election in all regions of Spain at some point and the only party that gets decent to good results everywhere in the country, from rural Castille to Barcelona and the Basque Country

[Lechasseur]

The Liberals in Canada and the Conservatives in the UK are uniquely situated to be considered natural parties of government because both nations basically vest all powers in a single body, their respective House of Commons. You only have to win one election to have power. Both have, in practice, powerless executives and very weak upper chambers. In the US, we have two chambers with similar powers and a powerful executive, all elected separately in staggered terms, so really the very concept of a natural party of government is pretty much foreign to the US. The last time we really could there was one was when the Democrats held the House for decades, and even then it's a stretch at times thanks to the divisions within the Congressional caucus. In a system with many national institutions, independent of one another, with two "big tent" parties, we really just aren't well suited for a national party of government. Our politics are too coalitional and our system too devolved and fractured to allow for such domination absent a massive realignment.

Typically, the UK is considered to have an especially strong executive, because the executive (almost) always consists of a single party that holds a legislative majority, giving in an almost unparalleled room to manoeuvre among western democracies. Compare to the US, or France, where a cohabitation is possible - or most European countries where cross party coalitions are either unstable or succesful based on compromise

The thing is in those parties I've mentioned in Europe dominated their countries for decades in a way that neither party has managed in the US in 70 years.

Like for example in Belgium, the Christian Democrats held the prime minister's office constantly between 1958 and 1999, with the exception of a brief break in the 1970s but even there were still in government.

Or Germany where in the last 70 years the Christian Democrats have been in power for 50.

Then for the opposite side of the spectrum, I think the Social Democrats in Sweden have held power for at least 60 of the last 80 years.

That's the type of domination we're talking about.

For the most part, I'd agree - although with Belgium notably, you have the fact that any government basically requires the input of the entire political spectrum, which tends to benefit CD's as being broadly in the centre of it, rather than because they are especially electorally succesful (especially in recent decades). I'd also shout out Spain and Portugal as not having a natural party of government  -  in part because democracy was only restored fairly recently, but also because they are relatively unusual in that left wing parties are able to win an outright majority of the vote. And of course, there's Italy, which has been basically all over the place since mani pulite blew their political spectrum apart.

Actually I would argue that the PSOE, in a way, is the natural governing party of Spain. They have been in charge for 23/43 years Spain has been a democracy which I guess in terms of time is not that much though it is still 53% of the time.

However more importantly they are the only party that has managed to eventually win a regional election in all regions of Spain at some point and the only party that gets decent to good results everywhere in the country, from rural Castille to Barcelona and the Basque Country

Well, tbf, I think the left's strength in the first two decades to a large degree was a reaction to Franquism.

But you look at the the Spanish governments since the mid 90s and it's been the right half the time and the left the other half.

If anything it seems to be the Western European country that's managed to keep a healthy balance between left and right (I know the right is divided right now, but we'll see how long it takes for the right to come back).

And then for the second part, I know Spain is different due to the ethnic minority regions like Catalonia and the Basque Country, but you could use that argument to say that the Democratic Party was the "natural governing party" in the US until 1994.

[DaWN]

No, and anyone who argues otherwise is twisting the term beyond meaning.

To be frank, even to apply it to the Tories here is twisting it quite a bit. I can't fathom the reaching one would have to do to apply the term to the US.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, and anyone who argues otherwise is twisting the term beyond meaning.

To be frank, even to apply it to the Tories here is twisting it quite a bit. I can't fathom the reaching one would have to do to apply the term to the US.

Yeah, a party that had been out of power for 13 years as late as a decade ago and could barely win anything other than razor-thin majorities until last year is not a "natural governing party".

I'm really starting to hate Atlas' tendency to stretch a concept beyond all possible usefulness.

[Lechasseur]

No, and anyone who argues otherwise is twisting the term beyond meaning.

To be frank, even to apply it to the Tories here is twisting it quite a bit. I can't fathom the reaching one would have to do to apply the term to the US.

Yeah, a party that had been out of power for 13 years as late as a decade ago and could barely win anything other than razor-thin majorities until last year is not a "natural governing party".

I'm really starting to hate Atlas' tendency to stretch a concept beyond all possible usefulness.

No, and anyone who argues otherwise is twisting the term beyond meaning.

To be frank, even to apply it to the Tories here is twisting it quite a bit. I can't fathom the reaching one would have to do to apply the term to the US.

Well, tbf, the Blair years were the only time in the last century where the Tories spent more than 6 years out of power, and that was to a large degree because Tony Blair was good at appealing to middle class voters who traditionally voted Conservative.

While since WWII the Tories have had 3 stints where they spent more than 10 years in power:
1951-1964
1979-1997
And 2010-present

So I think describing the Conservative Party as the UK's "natural governing party" is a fair description.

[politicallefty]

I don't think we have a natural governing party right now, but I do think you can mark two eras of natural governance. In the US, I think you have to look largely at the domestic sphere, and in that respect domestic politics are largely fought along the terms of whoever controls the House. I have to imagine that's due to the more hierarchical nature of the House and the power of the Speaker as a singular voice.

I think the most significant era and one of marked natural governance was Democrats coming to power in light of the Great Depression. I would argue that they were the natural governing party of this country from then until the Republican Revolution of 1994. You really have to look at the domestic agenda. During that time period, apart from a couple pieces of legislation, domestic policy was set by the Democratic House. Not everything they wanted was achieve of course, but that's true of most governing parties. Even the Reagan years failed to finally achieve what Republicans wanted and finally got with the 1994 landslide: welfare reform.

I don't think we've had a natural governing party since then. Like most, I think this current recent era is very volatile.

[HillGoose]

I mean I'd guess so but I think it changes like, historically and stuff. Before 1860 it was Democrats, 1860-1932 it was the Republicans, 1932-1968 it was the Democrats, since then it's been the Republicans again.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

You might be able to say the Democrats due to their domination of Congress through most of the 20th century. I don’t see a good argument for it being the Republicans.

[jaymichaud]

No. A natural governing party is a party that's won a good 80-100% of every countries' elections (Fianna Fail, ANC, Japan's Liberal Democratic Party, Sweden and Denmark's social democrats).

I could see the Democrats becoming this if the white/christian/rural/boomer vote continues to decline through the century, though.

[brucejoel99]

In the sense that the Democrats & GOP have largely supported the same liberal political economic system & we don't have other serious competing parties (like other nations do), then I think it's a fair argument for making a very specific point. Hell, (capital-L) Libertarians make it all the time.

I don't think it's the best &/or most accurate way to describe modern American politics, though, since the Democrats & GOP individually tend to have comparable levels of power. The Democrats have nowhere near the influence to be able to unilaterally change the system to be consistently weighted in their favor across the board, & vice versa when the GOP is in charge. Moreover, in a case where either party starts losing influence, they simply change tactics. There's no foreseeable future where either party becomes a "natural governing" party akin to the Canadian Liberals.