DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

POSC 105

MORE ON POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRACY





  1. THIS MORNING:
    1. Responsible party system
    2. The American party system: political feudalism


  1. THE IMPORTANCE OF PARTIES:
    1. Reprinted from the last set of notes.
    2. Three propositions:
      1. Strong political parties are essential to democracy. In fact, the stronger the party system, the stronger the democracy.
      2. Weak parties have contributed to the stalemate that (many argue) characterizes American national government.
      3. Surprisingly the absence of strong parties explains why Americans are frustrated and cynical about politics, even though they may not think in these terms.


  2. STRONG PARTY SYSTEM IN THEORY:
    1. Political parties are organizations with these characteristics:
      1. Unlike "interest groups," parties strive to control government as a whole.
      2. They nominate candidates for office.
      3. They are in essence public agents, although legally they have many "private" rights.
    2. The characteristics of a responsible or disciplined party system:
      1. Organize elections and educate and mobilize the voters (e.g., create excitement, encourage turnout, etc.)
      2. Programs and platforms: present a philosophy of government and a general program of action. If platforms are clearly spelled out, they give voters a choice.
        1. Example: the Contract With America
      3. Recruit, train, and support legislative members committed to the party's general philosophy and program.
      4. Governance: The "winning" party runs government roughly according to its platform and is thus held accountable for the consequences.
        1. It can be held accountable because it disciplines legislative members: that is, legislative members follow the commands of party leaders or lose their "power."
        2. Shadow government: the opposition party "waits in the wings," offering the electorate an alternative program. It too has control over legislative members.
        3. Discipline allows voters to reward or blame parties for policy successes and failures.
    3. Parties in the U.S. do not fit this description. Nevertheless, as noted last time the political system has briefly approximated a responsible party system.
      1. Newt Gingrich and Congress 1995 is a good example.


  3. THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM:
    1. American parties are de-centralized, somewhat loose coalitions of sovereign powers. They remind one of a feudal or tribal system of independent powers.
      1. Party organization:
        1. Local (precinct, neighborhood) organizations.
        2. County parties
        3. State parties
        4. National party
          1. National convention
          2. National committee
          3. National party chairs
          4. Staff
        5. Congressional election parties.
      2. No hierarchy in the usual sense (e.g., national chairperson is not a "boss" in the usual sense of the word.)
        1. On paper the president is head of his party, but the amount of control varies.
      3. Leaders, legislative members, and candidates are independent entrepreneurs.
        1. Example: Clinton's failures in 1993-94; Gingrich's problems in 1996-97.
      4. No binding platform
        1. Key elements of their programs are frequently implicit, not explicitly stated.
        2. There is debate about how closely presidents follow the platform. But for practical purposes congressional candidates do not run on national platforms.
    2. Summary: American parties are usually called weak, non-disciplined


  4. EXPLANATIONS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM:
    1. Constitutional system, especially federalism and independently elected legislative members, creates numerous power centers.
      1. Separate constituencies

    1. Candidate-centered campaigns: candidates (e.g., senators and representatives) have their own sources of support and power and do not rely on the central party organization.
    2. General-welfare liberalism: distrust of parties and party bosses.
      1. Perot's candidacy and Colin Powell are examples


  1. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
    1. Trends in party development:
      1. Nomination system: primaries vs conventions and caucuses
      2. Television gives candidates independent "access" to voters.
      3. Money and politics
    2. Campaign finance reform during the 1970s strengthened interest groups (PACs) and individual candidates and consequently weakened parties.
      1. Disclosure, spending limits, FEC.
      2. Political action committees: organizations that solicit contributions from members and others and distributes to candidates
      3. "Soft money": contributions ostensibly made to parties for purposes such as "get-out-the-vote" drives, but in actuality support candidates at all levels.
      4. The effect of reforms has been to weaken parties by giving group greater access through funding opportunities.
    3. The strength of interest groups and now their PACS.
    4. All of these developments conspire to weaken parties and strengthen both individuals and interest groups.


  1. NEXT TIME:
    1. The structure of American political parties and understanding politics.
    2. Interest groups
    3. Reading:
      1. Patterson, We the People; chapter on parties as described last time.





Go to American government page

Go to Notes page.

Copyright © 1997 H. T. Reynolds