Bermuda and our American neighbours have a couple of odd political couples; the PLP are Bermuda's Republicans and the UBP the Democrats.

This connection isn't a philosophical one. In some cases the parties couldn't be further apart, with significant ideological differences between the governing parties, opposite ends of the political spectrum to be precise.

The PLP remains bound to the 1960s radical left, seeing themselves as an unfinished Black Nationalist movement. The Republicans on the other hand, are driven by their fiercely fiscal and socially conservative wing. Both however seem captive to their ideologies.

The out of power parties, the UBP and the Democrats, have a little more in common philosophically. Generally speaking, the UBP are more fiscally conservative than the Democrats but share the social focus. The UBP governed much in the vein of the centrist New Democrat wing or Clinton's "Third Way" approach; a coupling of centre-right fiscal policy with a centre-left social focus.

But focusing on the current plights of the parties, as seen through their recent electoral experiences and tactical choices, reveals some striking parallels. In fact, they're impossible to ignore. This shared history of recent electoral success and failure is compelling.

Like the Republicans, the PLP command a strong Parliamentary majority but are not without a weakness that their opponents are yet to fully exploit. Some of this is to do with tactics, some the benefits of incumbency, but mostly it's due to the nature of the organisations.

The PLP's core membership, like today's Republicans, are ideologically driven and intensely focused on a couple of almost universally agreed on core issues.

Republicans are united around lower taxes and smaller government, recently complimented by "Guns, God and Gays" and the "War on Terror". The PLP's equivalent is even more simple, and obvious; black versus white.

Simple philosophies, simple messages.

The Democrats and the UBP however don't enjoy this luxury, being compilations of broader less cohesive coalitions ? alliances of diverse political philosophies and goals. Consequently these less ideological parties struggle to define themselves clearly and concisely, with a tendency to wander off into public policy minutiae; compelling stuff for policy wonks, but a turn off to voters.

These structural realities manifest themselves, both during and between elections, in vastly different ways that have largely determined the parties' political fortunes.

Ideological organisations like the PLP and the GOP prefer a polarised electorate. In both Bermuda and America this is achieved through the masterful exploitation of specific issues.

This strategy rallies their base by driving discussion into their comfort zone, oftentimes turning an opponent's seeming advantage into their biggest liability. These current governing parties are also extremely adept at demonising their opponents, with an often devastating impact.

The shared values between the PLP and the Republican Party are undeniable. Recent events alone provide a number of compelling examples.

America's 2004 campaign saw the rise of "moral issues" in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The electorate became polarised, the focus shifted and the religious right energised.

These moral issues were coupled with a devastating attack on the war record and patriotism of Democratic candidate John Kerry, arguably his greatest ? some would say sole ? asset. The Democratic challenger spent the rest of the campaign defending his war record, fighting accusations of flip-flopping and being against "people of faith".

Shortly after Bush's November victory, the proposed amendment's purpose achieved, the constitutional change ? which would never have succeeded ? was quietly and not surprisingly dropped.

Across the pond, in the waning days of the 2003 Bermuda election campaign, the PLP Government dropped a bomb, suddenly introducing mandatory term limits for all work permit holders. This proposal, also quietly revoked after the election, took the UBP off guard and positioned the PLP as the defenders of Bermudians and the UBP as pro-foreigner (despite the growing ratio of foreign to Bermudian workers during the PLP's tenure).

Alongside this was a campaign of racial demagoguery in the form of incendiary radio ads and PLP rallies, where Bermudians were advised that the UBP's black candidates were in fact just "sun-tanned" and not to vote themselves "back on the plantation". The old battle lines were redrawn, turning the UBP's asset of racial diversity into a liability. While not particularly subtle strategies, these could easily have delivered the 70 or so votes across the Island, preventing our election resulting in an 18-18 stalemate, and in George Bush's case, the critical swing state of Ohio.

The parallels continue to this day. Both countries leaders have been unable to advance an agenda, lacking political capital, albeit for different reasons.

George Bush, unable to run for re-election, is fighting early lame-duck status, while Alex Scott's installation after the Great Deception of 2003 has left him with a fractured Cabinet and no mandate.

Both leaders, perhaps unwisely, tied their political fates to hugely unpopular initiatives; Social Security privatisation and Independence. Neither issue has found traction. So George Bush went on a 60-day road show, Alex Scott sent out the BIC to sell Independence.

The more people hear the less interested they are, as evidenced by plunging poll numbers both here and in the US. In similar attempts to stop the slide and leverage the bully pulpit of their offices, George Bush held only his fourth prime time Press conference, one week later Premier Scott delivered his own prime time "Address to the Nation".

So when faced with governing parties who appear to have over-reached, what must the UBP and the Democrats do?

To be continued next week?

www.politics.bm