E.G.

What is it about one’s home team that makes one hope it will win?  I do not understand it.  There is nothing particularly "St. Louis-y" about the St. Louis Cardinals except that the Cardinals play their home games at Busch Stadium, and the word "St. Louis" appears in the name of the team.  These rather nominal relations appear to be the extent of the Cardinals’ relation to the city of St. Louis.  If anyone involved with the Cardinals, from the owners to the players, happens to have some relation to the city of St. Louis beyond the nominal relations already mentioned, it is purely an accident.

I have to admit that I do not see any point in being a sports fan.  I see no reason for a St. Louisan to hope that a particular team will win just because it has the word "St. Louis" in its name; nor do I see any reason for a St. Louisan to stop hoping that that team will win the moment "St. Louis" is replaced by, say, "Kansas City" in the name of the team.  Yet many, many people are sports fans.  They cannot all be irrational.  So I assume that there is some good reason to be a sports fan.

I think being a member of a major political party might be something like being a sports fan.  The players, management, coach staff, and owners of a team can all change, and a loyal sports fan will keep on cheering just the same.  Likewise, a major political party can radically reverse its positions, personalities, and lines of argument, and the vast majority of voters will keep on voting and thinking in line with the same party. 

Just a few years ago, the notions of federalism and states’ rights were core Republican doctrine.  It is now obvious that today’s Republican leadership holds precisely opposite views on those subjects.  Similar reversals are observable in mainstream Republican foreign policy.  These major "flip-flops" have occurred within the space of less than a decade, so that in many respects, today’s Republican leadership holds views more like those of yesterday’s Democrats than yesterday’s Republicans.  Yet it appears that the vast majority of those who were Republicans ten years ago are Republicans still. 

This kind of loyalty is inexplicable if you think that people join parties because they share those parties’ positions on issues.  But maybe that is the wrong way to think about being a member of a party.  Perhaps being a member of a party is something like being a fan of a team; perhaps the vast majority of Republicans are simply fans of the Republican party.  This would explain why it appears that you can change almost anything you like about the Republican party, and as long as the name does not change, most Republicans will stay loyal.  After all, you can change anything you like about the St. Louis Cardinals, too, and as long as the name does not change (to "Kansas City Cardinals," for instance), most St. Louisans will stay loyal.

Similar points, of course, could be made about the Democrats.