Political parties and fictional societies

maxmordon · Feb 11, 2011

In the fictional society my WIP is set, the government system is a democratic bipartidist nation, with the two parties being the Tomorrow Party and the Yesterday Party. The setting is a vaguely Dieselpunkish world with a mix-mash of elements from the 40's to our current day.

The Yesterday Party are, obviously, the conservatives: They support lower taxes and smaller government and more regional power (rather than national). They also take a stance on traditional values, the family as the base of society, handicaps to foreigners and in general, more of a "survival of the fittest"-type of mentality.

A great example of the party's values at core is on the euthanasia argument: They are in favor since they consider keeping in life a person in vegetable state is a waste of resources, financial and human, that could be used on someone more useful to society.

Also, they were against labor unions. Considering it constrained the hability to the best of the best to stand out while giving the worst of the worst a handicap.

The Tomorrow Party is more nebulous in their mentality, though. Their only defining traits so far is not being from the YP and vague prospective plans that never materialize. Also, the mention of making the world better for the future generation, no matter how many generations have passed listening that same line and seeing no results. They are meant to be the "Default Liberals", but have a bit of a "smile and nod and stand next to the bloody tree/orphan/laborer."-type approach. Nonetheless, I feel this personality is not strong enough for an organization.

I have some concerns about this: Do they appear too much as caricatures of the US Republicans and Democrats? Are they too over-the-top? Have you ever encountered in a similar situation? I can only think of China Miéville's Bas-Lag books where the five or six parties of Crobuzon are more or less the same except: This panders foreigners, this is the BNP in a Steampunk world, etc.

lbender · Feb 12, 2011

Do they appear to be caricatures? Yes, without question. I actually began thinking that when I first read the names of the parties, before getting to what they thought. The true question is whether or not it's appropriate for your work. If it isn't supposed to be ironic to that degree, then you'll have to change it, even extending to the names of the parties.

MisterFuzzles · Feb 12, 2011

I think you should go for more out there names, Like the New Crobuzon parties eg: Fat Sun etc.

Also why not throw in some random political views, maybe one party has a policy for raising a dead god, or for against raising technology above a certain level?

Or why not look at some weird real life parties to get ideas? There's religious fundementalist ones, in Argentina there was socialist party that believed UFOs came from a communist future and the only way to build a socialist society was through nuclear war. Or the Natural Law Party (we had them in the UK but I think they're international) who want to use yogic flying to achieve world peace?

It depends how fantastic your world is but I think the sky is the limit for fantasy political parties in terms of names, ideologies, and policies.

PeterL · Feb 12, 2011

If I were in the society, then I would start the Today Party, which would concentrate on solving today's problems instead of wasting time trying to shape tomorrow or hail back to someone's distorted view of what was there before.

Then someone else could start the Wild Party or maybe restore the Surprise Party.

Eleni · Feb 12, 2011

Also why not throw in some random political views, maybe one party has a policy for raising a dead god, or for against raising technology above a certain level?

A great way to get away from the comparisons. Also, if your political system is too close to ours, you run risk of coming off preachy.

If I were in the society, then I would start the Today Party, which would concentrate on solving today's problems instead of wasting time trying to shape tomorrow or hail back to someone's distorted view of what was there before.

Excellent point because when we look back, most of us either idealize or decry past events. Both views are distortions of what actually happened, which is why it's impossible for things to return to how they use to be.

maxmordon · Feb 12, 2011

Alternative names ideas: The Conservative Party Vs. The Liberal Party (done to death, but gets to the point), The Patriotic Party Vs. The Progressive Party, The Prosperity Party Vs. The Peace Party. Individualists Vs. Technocrats.

I guess the point is how the country (which dwelves into Dieselpunk and Americana) manages to run thanks to the balance of those two far-off groups. But none of their stances seems well grounded on solving the problem nor finding out what produces.

Take for instance, death penalty. The Yesterday Party is in favor of public executions as long the audience pays a toll to give back the money that maintaining said prisoner costed, plus supporting the nation's Department of Correctionals. Meanwhile, the Tomorrow Party believes that public executions are abhorrent and that since a death row prisoner's life is insignificant, they might as well do scientific experiments on them that couldn't be (legally done) with other human beings. None of them think either of their ways is cruel or that death punishment per se, they just serve society in a better way. It's even hinted they cannot think of a civilized nation without death penalty.

In keeping line with the environment and a bit in touch with the faux-retro air.The Yesterday Party is somewhat Isolationist (our country is great and to remain so we must avoid bad foreign influences) and has some shades of Objetivism here and there (The individual shouldn't be holden back by society.) and in some fractions, especially on rural areas, it shows a level of Luddism.

Meanwhile, The Tomorrow Party seems to center its foreign policies in a well-meaning if naive-type of White Man's Burden (our country is great and is our duty to educate backward savage societies) and some slight touches of New Deal here and there (strong support of labor unions, mixed economy, modernization of industry).

The truth is, sadly, though, that the nation's government seems to be heavily underfunded (except when it comes to the military affairs) and any plans of change by any of the two parties is halted by the other party, corruption, lobbyism, personal and private interests.

Xelebes · Feb 12, 2011

Use names that are somehow, or dubiously, a tangent of the platform. Something like the Cosmopolitans against the Mondialists/Mundialists.

maxmordon · Feb 12, 2011

I see... so it would give them an air of "Not so different". Not unlike the Republicans and the Democrats. Both taking their name from a form of government where the power lies on the citizens.

MJNL · Feb 12, 2011

I think by applying the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" to the parties you automatically caricaturize them, regardless of the names they end up with. If you want to get away from the American party system, dash all comparisons. Focus on the people and what they want, not what party lines they'd follow if they were in the real world. Just my opinion, of course.

I suggest also studying other political parties and structures that currently exist. They don't all fit the same views as we do into the same parties, and a lot of them have gotten away from the strict dual-camp system.

Satchan · Feb 12, 2011

MJNL said:
I think by applying the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" to the parties you automatically caricaturize them, regardless of the names they end up with. If you want to get away from the American party system, dash all comparisons. Focus on the people and what they want, not what party lines they'd follow if they were in the real world. Just my opinion, of course.

Agreed. Also, not everyone in the party is going to agree completely on every issue. This happens all the time in real life...parties will have different factions within the party.

To avoid making them caricatures, you want to avoid completely demonizing one party and painting the other one as 100% right on every issue. And adding in issues that don't exist in the real world will help you avoid looking like you're making a 1-1 comparison. (ie Yesterday Party = Republicans).

Hallen · Feb 12, 2011

It's a complex beast and also a very organic one. In other words, the parties grow out of the intent of the party members and what they perceive the people want.

I'd take the pertinent issues of the day, blended with your culture, and then split up the issues between two parties.

I like some of the things you've noted above as being intrinsic to the parties. Neither are pure white, and neither are pure black. They both have their blind points.

Factions will be a very important part of each party. Sometimes they're formalized, called a caucus, other times their more random and issue based. But they do definitely exist.

To differentiate them from current US parties, I'd mix in cultural issues that don't exist in our world -- well, as much as you can. Since I don't know your world, I can't help much there. Also, I'd use cultural specific names for the parties. There's been some weird party names in the past, like the Whigs. I'd go with something like that. The more liberal group calling themselves the "Steamers" representing forward moving. The more conservative group being the "Fitters" (ie Pipe Fitters) the thing that holds the country together. (Or something like that. It's just a suggestion)

MisterFuzzles · Feb 13, 2011

Hallen said:
The more liberal group calling themselves the "Steamers" representing forward moving. The more conservative group being the "Fitters" (ie Pipe Fitters) the thing that holds the country together. (Or something like that. It's just a suggestion)

I like those names...
:snoopy:

AVbd · Feb 13, 2011

It's also interesting to think of names that seem to mean the opposite of what the party stands for. Like in Australia, we have the Liberal Party, which is in fact the conservative party (because they're named for liberal conservatism I think). Also, I don't know much about America, but didn't the Democrats and the Republicans used to be the opposite way around on the conservative/liberal scale? In any case, it's possible for a party's values to change quite profoundly over time.

And you could have an antiestablishment political movement (like libertarianism or socialism in the real world) as a way to add some more diversity to the politics while keeping the two-party system...

PeterL · Feb 13, 2011

Guelf and Ghibelline are still great names for political parties, and they can mean whatever you want.

maxmordon · Feb 13, 2011

What about using surnames of the country's presidential history? It really leaves it quite vague what are their stance. Something like The Michaelson Movement or The Smithian Society.

MisterFuzzles · Feb 13, 2011

maxmordon said:
What about using surnames of the country's presidential history? It really leaves it quite vague what are their stance. Something like The Michaelson Movement or The Smithian Society.

Hmmm, the problem is their stance would not be vague to the country's inhabitants would it? They would know roughly what those presidents stood for after all that's why the parties would be named after them. Naming them after mythical or ancient heroes however... In Britain for instance Robin Hood is generally if at all claimed by the left (he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor) however he could easily enough be claimed by libertarians (he led a band of rugged individualists who robbed from the government and forught for freedom) or the nationalists (he was a Saxon fighting back against Norman oppressors).

Another option might be to think about how the parties may have arisen in the past, were they illegal underground movements at first? Maybe members wore a yellow lily to identify themselves, call them the 'Lilists' or the 'Yellow Lilly Front'. Maybe they started off as one movement that once it achieved it's goals (representative democracy of sorts) then split so you could have the 'True Lily Party' and the 'Yellow Front (Lilyist)'.

Maybe once the Yellow Lily's reached a certain level of success or dominance the old ruling faction's supporters wanted to show their support so adopted a rival flower? A purple tulip?

Substitue flowers for animals or colours or tools or whatever.

MattW · Feb 13, 2011

maxmordon said:
What about using surnames of the country's presidential history? It really leaves it quite vague what are their stance. Something like The Michaelson Movement or The Smithian Society.

MisterFuzzles said:
Hmmm, the problem is their stance would not be vague to the country's inhabitants would it? They would know roughly what those presidents stood for after all that's why the parties would be named after them.

I like the idea of using historical names to draw support. Over in the P&CE boards we were just talking about modern interpretation of Ronald Reagan and his policies (and not so recently, but occasionally FDR). The drift in what each party supports today, and what they might have found unthinkable just 30-60 years ago is interesting at the least, and quite malleable to those who control the information and/or write the history books.

Who really knows what Michaelson really stood for, or what he was coerced into by power brokers in order to secure the successes he was known for? Who knows what backroom deals Smith made, or who he strongarmed when he was supposed to be such a great uniter?

I think there is great potential to explore such an angle.

Xelebes · Feb 13, 2011

maxmordon said:
What about using surnames of the country's presidential history? It really leaves it quite vague what are their stance. Something like The Michaelson Movement or The Smithian Society.

Those are more like philosophies within parties: Randians, Paulites, Reaganites, etc.

frimble3 · Feb 13, 2011

Maybe it would help if you didn't make the parties parallels of each other? Instead of 'Today vs. Tomorrow', or 'Cosmopolitans vs. Isolationists' which suggests that the parties began at the same time, specifically to oppose each other, why not 'Smithian Society vs. the 5th of May' or 'Freelanders vs. Micheal'sSon's' or some other not-a-matched-pair? Also, these are more general names, so their platforms aren't so apparent.
Keep in mind the stuff about parties changing their ideas and ideals as time goes on.
In Canada we traditionally had the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. The New Democratic Party has always been a minor player. Then, reformers founded the 'Reform Party', another minor player. So, along came a man who wanted to be elected Prime Minister, but neither of the two major parties wanted him. So, he took over the Reform Party.
He saw that people weren't voting for it, so he cunningly changed the name to the 'Alliance' Party (he 'allied' with the Progressive Conservatives) but still, people could see the same old 'Reformers' that they wouldn't vote for before. So, he changed the name again, to the 'Conservatives' (nothing progressive about them, this time) and finally tricked enough people to get into office.

Nateskate · Feb 13, 2011

If you're going to get political, you don't want to isolate readers. That's one danger in any overt political themes.

To some, just using the "yesterday/tomorrow" may signal a bias that turns them off- or thrills them.

Then again, in a less polarized time, there were many political novels. So, I could be wrong. Polarizing might work?

Maxx · Feb 14, 2011

maxmordon said:
What about using surnames of the country's presidential history? It really leaves it quite vague what are their stance. Something like The Michaelson Movement or The Smithian Society.

How about the Social Democrats vs the Democratic Socialists?

Teinz · Feb 14, 2011

maxmordon said:
The truth is, sadly, though, that the nation's government seems to be heavily underfunded (except when it comes to the military affairs) and any plans of change by any of the two parties is halted by the other party, corruption, lobbyism, personal and private interests.

Sounds like the US to me...

Chris · Feb 14, 2011

It seems unlikely that a political party would choose to call itself the Yesterday Party, because the name suggests regression, moving backwards, being stuck in the past, etc. Whether or not the party seems like this to outsiders, there must be intelligent people who belong to the party and support its platform, and they would almost certainly want to choose the most attractive name possible.

What about a four-party system based on the Nolan chart? One for maximum liberty, one for personal liberty but economic control, one for economic liberty but personal control, and one for maximum control.

b1_ · Feb 15, 2011

MisterFuzzles said:
Another option might be to think about how the parties may have arisen in the past

Pretty much this. Your fictional society needs a fictional history and environment, and from that you will find your political parties and their names (the names will be the very last thing invented).

Political parties take on names that were relevant at the time the parties were formed. Your suggestion of Yesterday Party and the Tomorrow Party is just not realistic, unless you are writing some kind of political satire or characature - such names suggest both party's sprung fully formed at the same time to appose each other.

Have a look at some real-world political parties and their history for some ideas. For example, The Whigs/Tory (England), Republicans/Democrats/Tea Party (USA), Nationals/Liberals/Labour/Greens (Australia). Why are these political parties named as such.

Note, the Tea Party is named after a historical event in USA's history, the Boston Tea Party, a rebellious act against authority. The Whig and Tory parties are wound up in the Catholics vs Protestant struggle for England of the 17th century. The Greens in Australia formed in order to combat deforrestation in Tasmania.

AVbd · Feb 15, 2011

Chris said:
It seems unlikely that a political party would choose to call itself the Yesterday Party, because the name suggests regression, moving backwards, being stuck in the past, etc.

That's true for an English-speaking society, but other languages have different spacial frameworks; it's common for the future to be placed ‘behind’ the person conceptually, and the past in front. On the other hand, you have to take how the reader is going to perceive the words into account as well as the culture represented in the novel...

What about a four-party system based on the Nolan chart?

Four ‘major’ parties wouldn't happen, simply because you'd have one party with the most votes in power, and one party with the second most votes being the opposition; if there were significant minor parties, you'd probably see coalitions forming to give parties bigger numbers. And people tend to form ‘us versus them’ mentalities anyway. Depends on the culture again, though, I guess.

b1_ said:
Your fictional society needs a fictional history and environment, and from that you will find your political parties and their names (the names will be the very last thing invented).

Don't get too carried away by details though

.

Political parties and fictional societies

Penúltimo

ah divvint nah liek

Penúltimo

Delerium ex Ennui

Penúltimo

A Little Lost

Cake or death?

Mostly annoying

ah divvint nah liek

Sasha Boyd

Penúltimo

ah divvint nah liek

Company Man

Delerium ex Ennui

Heckuva good sport

Got the hang of it, here

Back at it again.

Sasha Boyd