DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

POSC 105

STRONG PARTIES, STRONG DEMOCRACY

(Continued)



  1. THIS MORNING:
    1. Another example of an approximation to a strong party system
    2. American political parties in practice
      1. Proposition: parties are very decentralized in terms of program development and implementation.
    3. Explanations
    4. Money and politics


  2. APPROXIMATIONS OF STRONG PARTIES IN AMERICA:
    1. The Contract With America
      1. The promise and the platform
    2. The 1994 election
      1. Gingrich's leadership approximated that of a strong party leader.
      2. Enforcement of discipline: committee assignments, fund raising.
    3. The "breakdown"
      1. Contract versus independent constituency interests and pressures.
        1. Abortion
        2. Term limits
        3. Environmental regulation
      2. The Contract in a "divided" government
      3. In a sense, voters rejected the "platform"


  3. THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM:
    1. American parties are de-centralized, somewhat loose coalitions of sovereign powers. They remind one of a feudal system of independent barons and knights.
      1. No hierarchy in the usual sense (e.g., national chairperson is not a "boss" in the usual sense of the word.)
      2. Leaders, legislative members, and candidates are independent entrepreneurs.
      3. 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 in any event, congressional candidates usually do not run on national platforms.


  4. EXPLANATIONS OF PARTY WEAKNESS:
    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. (Example: Biden)
    2. General-welfare liberalism: distrust of parties and party bosses.
      1. Perot's 1992 candidacy and Colin Powell are examples
    3. Recent trends in party development:
      1. Nomination system: primaries vs conventions and caucuses
      2. Television gives candidates independent "access" to voters.
        1. But it increases costs of running for office
      3. Campaign finance reform during the 1970s strengthened interest groups (PACs) and individual candidates and consequently weakened parties.
        1. Political Action Committees (PACs): organizations that solicit contributions from members and others and distributes to candidates
        2. "Soft money": contributions ostensibly made to parties for purposes such as "get-out-the-vote" drives, but in actuality support candidates at all levels.
        3. Spending limits and Buckley vs Valeo
        4. The effect of reforms has been to weaken parties by giving group greater access through funding opportunities.
    4. The strength of interest groups and now their PACS.
    5. All of these developments conspire to weaken parties and strengthen both individuals and interest groups.


  1. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DEVELOPMENTS - A BRIEFING:
    1. White House fund raising
    2. Webster Hubbell
    3. Donation sources
    4. China "connection"
    5. Congressional inquiries


  2. NEXT TIME:
    1. Reforms that will work
    2. Interest groups: any one who wants to know how politics at the middle level is played must understand interest groups.

Go to notes page

Go to Political Science 105 main page