Political parties' tools and procedures

[Beorning]

A issue I've been wondering for some time now is: in what way political parties operate in countries other than mine?

Here are some examples of things that Polish political parties do - let's call these things: tools and procedures. Are they employed by parties in other countries?

• A party-wide ban for party members on commenting on some matter. A recent example would be when a strong documentary regarding Catholic Church's child abuse came out - and all of the members of the ruling party received an order from the party leadership not to comment on it. Other parties do that, too.
• "Message of the day" bulletins. Basically, parties regularly send bulletins to the members that include the leadership-approved party line, opinions the party members should tell the media etc. At least two biggest Polish parties are known to use this kind of bulletins.
• Paying people to go to various websites and post comments, news etc. that promote the party's agenda. Our ruling party is often being accused of doing that - but I wouldn't be surprised if other parties did something like this, too...

So, do these things exist in other countries? I'm really curious.

[Skynet]

The US has similar things, but nothing official.

In regards to bans on certain topics...

The Republican Party has toyed with the ideas of "loyalty oaths" to make Congress members pledge to do certain activities, but nothing has been formalized. But generally speaking, the funds from lobbyists dictate what political parties will say or promote; if a donor feels that their preferred candidate is going out of line, they'll pull their funds and given them to the other candidate. You will rarely if ever see a Democrat who is anti-abortion, for example. Or a Republican who acknowledges the existence of systemic racism. As for how this is enforced Democrats and Republicans will quickly turn on their own if they divert too loudly and openly. Look at what happened with Ilhan Omar who criticized AIPAC's political influence in lobbying.

It's more 'soft influence' to set a united narrative which is informally enforced via a combination of peer pressure and corporate donations.

The Democrats and Republicans have official websites (democrats.org and gop.com) which set out a party platform 4 years or so illustrating what issues to focus on and their overall stance. The Republicans heavily rely upon the goodwill of Fox News for what to promote, and President Trump relies on them as a primary news source for determining several policies. The Democrats have a similar relationship to MSNBC. But even MSNBC is not entirely liberal; they won't cover how Democrats are still in the hands of oil companies, or how SOPA-PIPA benefited corporations and control of the internet under the guise of combating piracy because all of the cable news networks are funded by corporations who aren't fond of the rich being taxed.

As for paying people to post comments ten-cent style, it wouldn't surprise me but if this occurred it'd be a big scandal. Bots do a much better job than real people, and lots of Americans are already riled up enough about political issues to cheerlead for their party anyway.

[Beorning]

The Republican Party has toyed with the ideas of "loyalty oaths" to make Congress members pledge to do certain activities, but nothing has been formalized. But generally speaking, the funds from lobbyists dictate what political parties will say or promote; if a donor feels that their preferred candidate is going out of line, they'll pull their funds and given them to the other candidate. You will rarely if ever see a Democrat who is anti-abortion, for example. Or a Republican who acknowledges the existence of systemic racism. As for how this is enforced Democrats and Republicans will quickly turn on their own if they divert too loudly and openly. Look at what happened with Ilhan Omar who criticized AIPAC's political influence in lobbying.

Huh. That... doesn't sound too good. But is there such a thing like a literal "Do not comment on topic X" ban? As in, when a hot / inconvenient topic / issue / scandal pops up in the media and the party leadership outright forbids its members to comment on it (with possible disciplinary actions against those members that do anyway)?

The Democrats and Republicans have official websites (democrats.org and gop.com) which set out a party platform 4 years or so illustrating what issues to focus on and their overall stance. The Republicans heavily rely upon the goodwill of Fox News for what to promote, and President Trump relies on them as a primary news source for determining several policies. The Democrats have a similar relationship to MSNBC. But even MSNBC is not entirely liberal; they won't cover how Democrats are still in the hands of oil companies, or how SOPA-PIPA benefited corporations and control of the internet under the guise of combating piracy because all of the cable news networks are funded by corporations who aren't fond of the rich being taxed.

This sounds a bit better than what we have here in regards to the "message of the day" bulletins. They literally give the party members the verbatim instructions as to what to think and say. Because of that, it seems to me like there's less and less point in journalists trying to ask the politicians for opinions. They all speak the same thing... sometimes *literally*.

As for paying people to post comments ten-cent style, it wouldn't surprise me but if this occurred it'd be a big scandal. Bots do a much better job than real people, and lots of Americans are already riled up enough about political issues to cheerlead for their party anyway.

So, have there been any accusations regardings American parties using bots?

[Kitteredge]

This sounds a bit better than what we have here in regards to the "message of the day" bulletins. They literally give the party members the verbatim instructions as to what to think and say. Because of that, it seems to me like there's less and less point in journalists trying to ask the politicians for opinions. They all speak the same thing... sometimes *literally*.

The Republicans definitely have an internal set of messaging instructions that is circulated somehow. They don't advertise them, but the internal consistency is extremely high. Whenever an unexpected event comes up, you can tell when talking points come out and are distributed to those going onto talk shows and so on. There's a hitch where no one knows how to react, then suddenly everyone is on point. You see it even on message boards when the rank and file start parroting the same spin.

The Democrats are very poor at message discipline.

[Skynet]

1. Huh. That... doesn't sound too good. But is there such a thing like a literal "Do not comment on topic X" ban? As in, when a hot / inconvenient topic / issue / scandal pops up in the media and the party leadership outright forbids its members to comment on it (with possible disciplinary actions against those members that do anyway)?

This sounds a bit better than what we have here in regards to the "message of the day" bulletins. They literally give the party members the verbatim instructions as to what to think and say. Because of that, it seems to me like there's less and less point in journalists trying to ask the politicians for opinions. They all speak the same thing... sometimes *literally*.

2. So, have there been any accusations regardings American parties using bots?

1. Nothing so droll or eye-catching. The press will seize on such a thing and affiliated channels will use it to paint the other side as anti-free speech or authoritarian.

2. A sizeable percentage of Trump's Twitter followers who were banned from the platform turned out to be bots. The Russian government and business groups such as the Internet Research Agency have been known to create and deploy bots which repeat divisive political slogans with the purpose of mobilizing conservative rhetoric. As for US parties directly, a group of Democratic tech experts in Alabama sought to copy these aforementioned propagandists to help their own party in a deeply conservative state. Local politics have taken notice of the effectiveness of the Putin administration's operations in sowing strife.

The Republicans definitely have an internal set of messaging instructions that is circulated somehow. They don't advertise them, but the internal consistency is extremely high. Whenever an unexpected event comes up, you can tell when talking points come out and are distributed to those going onto talk shows and so on. There's a hitch where no one knows how to react, then suddenly everyone is on point. You see it even on message boards when the rank and file start parroting the same spin.

The Democrats are very poor at message discipline.

I just recalled that in the 1980s Jerry Falwell and notable evangelical pseudo-Christians used an extensive mailing list to contact Americans across the nation. Before the Civil Rights era white religious fundamentalists tended to not get involved in politics; they viewed Washington DC as a modern-day Soddom which will only taint Christians who get involved. But the federal mandated racial integrations drove racial fears of white children sharing space with those of other races, so many whites-only private schools like Bob Jones University where formed to get around federal laws which only applied to public schools at the time. When Roe V. Wade expanded abortion rights, this already resentful and radicalized ethnoreligious group was primed to be mobilized into direct action which President Reagan seized upon.

The Democrats did not have anything so direct. In attempting to be a big tent and diverse party, they're more likely to have groups which can be at odds with each other. One example is how affirmative action actually hurts East and Southeast Asian students given that US views them as a "model minority" who is already well-educated and financially stable, even though this is not true of all ethnicities of said regions. But on the other hand said policies help applicants from black and Hispanic backgrounds, who have more positive views of the programs.

The GOP's singular focus on specific racial, religious, and ideological groups means that they can be more consistent. And thus more authoritarian and punishing of those who violate their "loyalty oaths."