3 Political Par ties

and the Par ty

System
In America democracy is unthinkable save in ter ms of a two-par ty system, because no
collection of ambitious politicians has long been able to think of a way to achieve their
goals in this democracy save in ter ms of political par ties.
John H. Aldrich (1995: 296)

Partisanship does not define eras; ideology does. Just as Richa d Nixon was the last
New Deal pr esident, it is ver y likely that Bill Clinton will be the last Republican-era
president.
Theodore Lowi (1995: xi)

● T he US Constitution
● What do the Democr ats and Repub licans Stand f or?
● How Health y? Decline , Adaptation and Re vival
● Conclusion

Chapter Summary

Political par ties ar e central to American gover nment and politics but ar e highly distinctive
compared to par ties in other liberal democracies. Par ties in liberal democracies can
generally be seen to per form cer tain impor tant functions along thr ee key dimensions:
providing sour ces of allegiance, infor mation and voting cues for the electorate; r ecruiting
candidates for of fice, financing and unning their campaigns; and pr oviding the personnel
to staf f the elected branches of gover nment. But the extent to which this is the case in
 Political Par ties and the Par ty System 47

America is unclear . Because of federalism, the separation of powers, checks and

balances and dif ferent ter ms of of fice, political pa ties have always been weak and
decentralized institutions. Without mass memberships, lacking clear ideological
differences, and unable either to devise or implement a par ty programme or manifesto,
American par ties have never per formed the str ong roles characteristic of Eur opean ones.
Moreover, proponents of ‘par ty decline’ ar gue that American par ties have weakened even
further since 1952 as new sour ces of infor mation (especially the mass media) and
alternative for ms of political par ticipation (inter est gr oups, social movements, litigation)
have emer ged to challenge par ties. Others have r esponded that the par ties have
adapted to changed conditions and, in some ar eas (such as Congr ess), r evived str ongly
since the 1980s. In par ticular, although they r emain broad coalitions of distinct inter ests,
American par ties today ar e more ideologically distinct and distant fr om each other than at
any point since the early twentieth centur y. Par tisan dif ferences – especially during an
era of divided par ty control of the White House and Congr ess – have ther efore become a
key feature of American politics. The par ty is by no means over , although its r ole and
impor tance remains in flux in a democracy whe e political par ties ar e relatively unloved
and weak institutions.

In May 2001, Senator James Jeffords landmark budget for the president that sub-
(Republican, Vermont) decided to call it quits. stantially increased defence spending while
Frustrated by the Republican Party’s conser- cutting taxes and social programmes. As a
vatism, he announced that he was becoming result of his getting too close to their Repub-
an Independent but would caucus with Sen- lican opponents for comfort, the Democrats
ate Democrats. With the 2000 election having removed Gramm from chairing a subcommit-
yielded a 50–50 split in the Senate (in the tee of the influential House Budget Com-
event of ties, Vice President Dick Cheney mittee, as a punishment. In a typically direct
would cast the deciding vote as president of response, Gramm then resigned his congres-
the Senate), the decision was profoundly con- sional seat, but ran in the special election
sequential. As a result, the following month, (similar to a British by-election) to fill it – as a
the Democrats took charge of the Senate for Republican. He won, telling his voters that
the first time in six years. The brief period of ‘I had to choose between Tip O’Neill (Demo-
undivided Republican control of the White cratic Speaker of the House) and y’all. And I
House and Capitol Hill – the first since chose y’all.’ The following year he won a
1953–54 – was brought to a dramatic end statewide race as a Republican candidate for
after just five months. It was also the first the Senate. In 1996, Gramm ran for the
time in American history that control of the Republican Party’s presidential nomination
Senate changed between elections. (this time losing to Bob Dole) before retiring
But Jeffords’ example was not unprece- from politics in 2002.
dented. In 1983, Phil Gramm, a conservative To non-Americans, such behaviour often
Texan Democrat in the House of Representa- seems peculiar, even baffling. We are typi-
tives, was disciplined by his congressional cally used to party meaning something sub-
party for disloyalty. Gramm had been a key stantial in politics and party loyalty being a
ally of the Reagan White House and congres- key condition of political success. But the
sional Republicans during crucial budget Gramm example paradoxically indicates not
negotiations over the previous two years, only the weakness of American parties, but
negotiations that ultimately resulted in a also their strength and tenacity. Although he
48 American Government and Politics

switched parties, Gramm did not run for re- either the Democratic or Republican parties
election as an ‘Independent’. Nor did he form in 1999–2000. So, if American parties are
another political party to get back into office. weak institutions, they are nonetheless
He simply joined the other main political remarkably resilient ones that have endured
party to the Democrats: the Republicans. over time in the face of tremendous social,
Party ties clearly matter in America, then, but economic and political change, and they con-
in markedly different and more subtle ways tinue to command widespread loyalty today.
from other democracies. Just as elections provide the lifeblood of
To understand the distinctive context of democracy, so democracy during the twen-
American party politics it is necessary to take tieth and twenty-first centuries has been
an imaginative leap. Imagine a Member of inconceivable without the institution of polit-
Parliament at Westminster running for re- ical parties. Parties of all stripes played a cru-
election without even mentioning which cial role in consolidating liberal democracies
party she belongs to in her campaign around the world and in providing citizens
advertisements; refusing to let the head of her with a sense of representation in government
government, the head of state or the leader of deliberations. Competition between parties
her party appear in her constituency since has been viewed as the necessary – but insuf-
this could be detrimental to her chances of ficient – condition of a genuinely democratic
victory; publicizing votes on which she regime. But to understand American parties,
defied her party as virtues of her legislative it is important to look again at that pervas-
record; raising her own campaign funds, ively influential force, the Constitution, and
through staff whose primary loyalty is to her, then to think about parties in each of three
not to the party to which she nominally distinct, albeit related, arenas:
belongs; allowing professional ‘hired guns’ –
independent political consultants – to run her ● in the electorate
campaign, from producing television ads to ● as organizations
advising which issues to stress and even ● in government.
what clothes to wear. This is the contem-
In this way, we can achieve a more rounded
porary American context of party politics: a
idea of the relative ‘health’ of American par-
profoundly decentralized and fragmented
ties and whether they are declining or reviv-
system where elections are centred relent-
ing in their ability to perform the functions
lessly on the individual candidate, not a col-
traditionally associated with parties in liberal
lective party organization.
democracies.
In some respects, this picture is not new.
Historically, American parties have usually
been described as decentralized, weak, frag-
mented and incoherent, as broad coalitions
THE US CONSTITUTION
with little in the way of obvious ideological
content or clear programmes of government. In marked contrast to the German and Italian
But the same two parties, the Democrats and constitutions (among others) political parties
Republicans, have dominated American pol- are not specifically mentioned anywhere in
itics since the Civil War, respectively the old- the US Constitution. This is partly because
est and third oldest parties in the world (the the Founding Fathers, having seen the dan-
British Conservative Party squeezing in at gers posed by political division within the
number two). No third party has seriously English government under King George III,
challenged their dominance of the party sys- feared the consequences of ‘faction’. Parties,
tem, though several have tried. All but two of in this view, were inherently divisive, self-
the 535 voting members of Congress, and all interested and narrow institutions more
but two of the 50 state governors, belonged to likely to endanger democracy than preserve
 Political Par ties and the Par ty System 49

it and more likely to pursue sectional goals until the 1970s, for instance, that the two
than the national interest. main parties established permanent national
But from the 1830s parties did develop headquarters in Washington, DC).
and, ironically, it is only parties that have The second way in which parties are
made the Constitution work effectively. We directly affected by the Constitution concerns
saw earlier how the Constitution deliberately the separation of powers and checks and bal-
sets up multiple points of conflict within and ances within the federal government. This
between different levels and branches of gov- means that presidential and congressional
ernment. Parties have traditionally been the parties co-exist, as do the Democrats and
key instruments by which these points of Republicans. In effect, then, four parties exist
conflict are overcome. If American politics at federal level: the Democratic presidential
works despite, not because of its Constitu- and congressional parties, and the Republi-
tion, political parties have a lot to do with can presidential and congressional parties.
this. In theory, at least, they constitute the The president cannot dissolve Congress and
bridge that overcomes the separations built Congress cannot dismiss the president (short
into the structural architecture of govern- of impeachment). Members of Congress are
ment, the mechanisms by which competing therefore far less beholden to the president
political actors can be induced to share inter- than a Member of Parliament at Westminster
ests and resolve conflicts. is to his or her party leader (whether prime
But the way in which parties achieve this minister or leader of the opposition). Amer-
resolution is distinctive primarily because ican lawmakers possess an independent base
their structure and functioning reflect the of political authority, and their electoral for-
constitutional design of the Founding tunes depend less on what the president does
Fathers. First, and most significantly, the than on what they themselves do for their
parties are affected by federalism. Unlike the constituents. That independence offers both
European model of relatively centralized and opportunities and constraints for their legis-
hierarchical parties, American parties are lative behaviour.
decentralized – their base is local and state, The cumulative result is that American par-
not national. Partly because, as the next ties are broad and weakly-knit coalitions. In a
chapter explains, ‘all politics is local’ in a sys- sense, of course, all parties are coalitions. In
tem that disperses rather than concentrates the UK, although parties have conventionally
power, there is little sense among Americans been viewed as relatively strong and pro-
of parties as national institutions. This has grammatic, all major parties have experi-
been compounded by American history and enced substantial internal divisions, both
political culture, so that no tradition of within and outside government. In systems
strongly ideological or class-based parties has with more proportional electoral systems, in
existed in the fashion familiar to Europe. which the prospects for one party gaining a
Traditionally, then, America’s national majority of seats in the legislature are less
parties only came together every four years, strong, most governments are formal coali-
at a national convention in the summer of a tions of two or more parties, dividing up the
presidential election year, to select a presi- spoils of office between themselves and forg-
dential candidate. After that, they effectively ing compromises among divergent interests
disappeared again. The notion of having per- in order to get legislation passed and imple-
manently organized national parties, with mented. In this sense, then, the fact that
mass memberships, identifiable ideologies, American parties are coalitions of different
clear programmes of government, and con- interests and factions is not so remarkable in
ducting activities on a continual basis with a comparative terms. What is different is that
permanent national headquarters, has tradi- coalitional politics occurs as much within as
tionally been alien to America (it was not between the parties.
50 American Government and Politics

Exhibit 3.1 Party structures

Democratic National Committee Republican National Committee

Democratic Congressional Campaign Republican Congressional Campaign
Committee Committee
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Republican Senatorial Campaign
Committee Committee
Democratic State Parties Republican State Parties
Local parties Local parties

One consequence, and also one of the baf- WHAT DO THE DEMOCRA TS AND
fling aspects, of American federalism is to REPUBLICANS ST AND FOR?
allow so many different elements to co-exist
within one or other main party. This is largely
Since the parties are broad coalitions and
because the American social base is so since American politics has proceeded within
diverse and heterogeneous. A Democrat from relatively narrow ideological confines domin-
Alabama (with a large black population ated by the tenets of classical liberalism, it
and substantial numbers of fundamentalist can sometimes appear unclear as to what the
Christians) can therefore be a very different Republicans and Democrats stand for and
creature from one from Alaska (with rela- what divides them. Traditionally, the two
tively few blacks or fundamentalists). Even main parties were not seen by analysts as
party officials from the same state can repre- particularly different – both were self-
sent very different constituencies (rural, consciously capitalist, democratic (with the
urban, suburban; densely or sparsely popu- important exception of the ‘Dixiecrats’ –
the white southern segregationist wing of the
lated; ethnically diverse or homogeneous;
Democratic Party) and anti-communist, and
agricultural, industrial, or post-industrial in
to Europeans both occupied markedly similar
economic base) and, partly as a result, profess
ideological ground (what the critic Gore
different beliefs and values. It has even been Vidal once dubbed ‘two right wings’).
suggested that rather than speaking of a two- But that traditional picture now looks
party system, it makes more sense to think of rather dated. The two main parties have not
a 100-party system (two parties for each of become the type of ideological and program-
the 50 states). matic parties that were major features of
For non-Americans, this often seems odd – European politics for most of the twentieth
an uncomfortable contrast to our usual con- century. They have, nevertheless, become
ception of what parties are, and should be, quite distinct, assuming different positions
about. But there is nothing inconsistent about on a range of economic, social and political
such diversity existing within a party. The issues – one reason why a substantial propor-
tion of Americans now classify themselves as
officeholders are elected by different constitu-
‘Independents’ rather than as partisans when
encies, at different times, to different offices,
asked about their party allegiance. Inter-
for different terms. The social base is suffi- party differences now matter at least as much
ciently heterogeneous that the decentralized as intra-party ones in American politics.
parties consistently reflect the range of views As Exhibit 3.2 shows clearly, the Demo-
of the diverse populations in their own ranks, cratic and Republicans have distinct mes-
making parties broad coalitions of interests. sages on policies such as abortion, taxes,