Elanso

From a reader: Jonah, Your analysis of this year's race is, of course, correct.  But it's worth noting that what's really happening is that the peculiar circumstances of 2008 are bringing to the foreground a dynamic that's existed for a long time.  Political parties, wherever they exist, tend to be driven either by ideology or identity--if not entirely than predominantly.  In fractured party systems it is readily apparent (in Israel just about every available idea or constituency has or had its own political party).  In a two-party system in a large country it might not be so clear. The Democratic Party has been identity-driven for most of its existence.  Ask a Democrat about his and he will tell you who it stands for--women, minorities, the poor--in old times, it was 'the common man' or 'the working man' or 'the little guy.'  Ask a Republican and he will usually tell you what the party stands for.  This doesn't mean that Democrats don't have ideas or Republicans don't have constituencies, but notice this--when Democrats speak ideologically they have to link it to identities.  So, tax increases or expansion of government programs are justified because such things help women, minorities, and the poor.  Conversely, Republicans feel the need to justify any constituency service in ideological terms--eg. we're not fighting for these tax breaks for investors to help the investors themselves, but because the cumulative effect of lower taxes will stimulate the economy to the benefit of all. This isn't just a left-right thing.  In other countries left-wing parties might be purely ideological and conservative parties might be identity-based.  Indeed it's hard to think of a party that was more identity based than the pre-WWII Conservative Party in Britain--its members were Conservative in exactly the same way they were C of E.