Within the social and political sciences, pluralist theories of governance typically theorize the political process in liberal democratic societies as based upon continual conflict and competition between distinct social groups vying for increased influence and control of the State (Faulks 2000, pp. 44-47). The concerted struggle to win over the long-term loyalty and dedication of large groups or “blocks” of voters is conceived in this perspective as integral to the work of political parties.1 In their quest to “get out the votes” and “mobilize the base,” political party activists and constituents devote tremendous time and resources to the cultivation of collective or group-based identities, which ideally function to motivate people to support party-based agendas and interests. Part of the work taken up by the constituents of political parties in their quest for electoral leverage is not simply to “rally the base,” but also to define who exactly “the base” might consist of, and what precisely they stand for. This process involves the discursive construction of partisan-based identities and interests; that is, who we are and what we (don’t) want. The constitutive function behind such discursive labor places identification and division at the center of any persuasive appeal articulated by political actors. However, this emphasis on identity construction can trouble the prospects for effective democratic dialogue across such ideological differences.