Understanding American Political Parties

Democratic Ideals, Political Uncertainty, and Strategic Positioning

Jeffrey M. Stonecash

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415508445
• eBook ISBN: 9781136339202
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

How do parties respond to the electorate and craft winning strategies? In the abstract parties are the vehicles to make democracy work, but it is often difficult to see the process working as well as we think it might. Indeed, voters often struggle to see parties as the valuable vehicles of representation that so many academics describe. There is a clear discrepancy between the ideal expressed in many textbooks and the reality that we see playing out in politics.

Noted scholar Jeffrey Stonecash gives us a big picture analysis that helps us understand what is happening in contemporary party politics. He explains that parties behave the way they do because of existing political conditions and how parties adapt to those conditions as they prepare for the next election. Parties are unsure if realignment has stabilized and just what issues brought them their current base. Does a majority support their positions and how are they to react to ongoing social change? Is the electorate paying attention, and can parties get a clear message to those voters? This book focuses on the challenges parties face in preparing for future elections while seeking to cope with current conditions. This coping leads to indecisiveness of positioning, simplification of issues, repetition of messages, and efforts to disparage the reputation of the opposing party. Stonecash sheds much needed light on why parties engage in the practices that frustrate so many Americans.

Part I
American Political Parties

Democratic Ideals and Doubts

The rise of political parties is indubitably one of the principal distinguishing marks of modern government. The parties … have been the makers of democratic government…. political parties created democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.¹

If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all— Thomas Jefferson.

The two parties can’t come to a consensus even when the solution is obvious.²

A majority of Americans say it’s more important that political leaders in Washington compromise in order to get things done, rather than stick to their beliefs, even as Congress heads for a government shutdown for the second time in less than two months because of partisan disagreements.³

1
Democracy and the Ideal Role of Political Parties

The fundamental premise of democracy is that the opinions and interests of people matter. At one time emperors, kings and religious authorities were presumed to possess wisdom and to be more capable than their subjects. Elites were seen as best suited to govern and the masses should defer to them. Democracy grew as a direct challenge to this idea that elites had a monopoly on wisdom. Elites were challenged as having no inherent right to determine what policies government should enact. Individuals had legitimate and differing views and their opinions should matter when decisions were made. Rather than the people listening to and accepting the decisions of elites, the rise of democracy meant that elites are expected to listen to and treat as legitimate the views of the people.⁴

The simple proposition that people’s views matter, however, did not answer the question of how their views were to be communicated. We have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We elect and largely rely upon politicians who seek to interpret what people want, so politicians must find a way to discern public views. We could rely on mass gatherings but how can someone interpret what opinions exist in that gathering? We could rely on letter writing by constituents but who knows the opinions of those who do not write? We could elect people as individuals and try to sort out all the views of those elected, but with so many elected in America, the sorting through all these separate voices to discern what voters meant would be a challenge. The means of conveying public opinions is a fundamental challenge within democracy.

The situation is further complicated in that there are significant disagreements about what policies should be adopted. The challenge is not just to find out what “the people” want but to find a way to sort through differing views of what policies should prevail and find a way to represent them. Some believe that the federal government should play an active role in responding to social problems, while others believe that society works best if government is restrained, the national government in particular is limited, and individuals are encouraged to solve their own problems. Those who hold these opposing views do not hold them casually. They believe that the future of a free and democratic society hinges on whether their views are followed in setting policies for the society. Others hold no clear opinions on these issues, making a debate more complicated.

It is the presence of differing and strongly held views about what society should do that prompted political parties as a solution.⁵ If a group believes in their views they want their views represented because they think these policies are better for the nation. They may see a neglected social problem and think that a policy should be adopted to address it. Pollution levels are seen as too dangerous and policies are necessary to limit the ability of companies to pollute. Those who are younger or with lower incomes lack health insurance. A group may seek new government policies to respond to these perceived problems. Or a group may seek to mobilize to oppose and critique existing policies. Taxes and regulations are too high and are seen as stifling entrepreneurs. Opponents believe someone needs to call attention to the negative effects of this on society. They believe it will be beneficial to everyone to have someone present a critique of the policies in existence. The challenge in a democracy is to find others with similar views and demonstrate broad support for their position.

If they can band together and create a common identity party members can also work toward solving the problem of mobilizing support. It is not enough to just make an argument about the need to do something. The need is to find those who agree with these positions and demonstrate that there is widespread support for these views. They believe in something and see the issue as an opportunity to create support that might endure. A Democrat believes that workers should get a minimal wage rate and wants to enact a minimum wage. If they can make this a campaign focus it may garner some attention among some who might support the idea but have not seen politics as relevant and create political support. In the 1936 presidential election President Franklin Roosevelt and his Democratic Party campaigned on a minimum wage, which was eventually enacted in 1938. It created more support for President Franklin Roosevelt and made the conditions of workers part of public discussions. Republicans wanted this to remain a matter for employers and employees to work out without the mandates of a national law. This process of Democrats seeking to represent workers expanded the scope of what was considered a public matter.⁶ It also brought Roosevelt continuing support from urban workers.⁷

In the 1980s, following the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in 1973, which made abortion legal and a private decision, many conservatives thought that allowing this practice was immoral. They saw it as a matter that should not just be left to individuals but as one for which there should be a public social policy. They wanted to bring it back to the public arena and have Congress enact legislation making it illegal. Some Republican candidates agreed with them and saw this as a chance to increase their support among social conservatives. They gradually increased their comments about the importance of limiting or banning abortion and their support among social conservatives increased.⁸ An issue once banned and then allowed by the court decision was brought back to the public arena by those troubled by a decision making it legal. In advocating for limiting abortion, Republicans were seeking to attract opponents of abortion who had not previously voted Republican. The process of a party seeking support for a position brought about representation of an issue and those concerned about it. The result was more of a debate about whether abortion should be allowed.⁹

If a party can create some internal consensus on an issue they can in turn present that position to voters. This may involve considerable simplification—abortion is immoral or a woman’s decision, government intrusion is beneficial or detrimental to society—but it allows the presentation of a general principle to voters. This makes it possible to present voters with a simple message that conveys broad principles, which makes it easier for voters to connect with either party. Some voters will be reluctant to accept these two simplistic alternatives, but for the bulk of voters these alternatives may well constitute meaningful choices. The formation of a clear party position solves a communication problem.

If the party creates a clear identity it will allow them to mobilize sympathetic voters. It may get them interested enough to identify with the party, contribute to it, perhaps work for the party, and to turn out and vote for the party. To achieve these goals, the party must make sure it is focusing on concerns important to a substantial segment of the electorate. If a party focuses on matters that are not important to voters it is unlikely to prompt their support and garner their votes. The need for votes should function to keep a party focused on issues relevant to voters.

The Dynamic

If this process works as we hope, the following dynamic occurs. Party leaders hold certain beliefs about what government policy should be. These leaders interact with and listen to activists. They may conduct polls to verify whether a substantial segment of voters agree with positions they support. If they find this support, the party members discuss among themselves whether to make this a theme during the upcoming campaign. Those who are running for various offices consider how much they agree with a theme and how much they wish to be identified with the theme. Perhaps each party is comprised of those who generally share the same views about the proper role of government. Most candidates then decide to campaign on the same general theme.

Throughout a campaign each party’s candidates present their views of the role of government. The voters then render their judgment of which party they support or do not support. Out of this process comes a majority party that then assumes power over government. If during the campaign candidates of the party winning a majority express roughly the same policy positions,¹⁰ the presumption is that there is support for their proposals. The party can assume they have support from the electorate for their positions.

If this works as indicated, and a party wins the presidency, the Senate, and the House, it can contribute to overcoming one of the central problems of American democracy: separation of powers within the national government. When American institutions were formed, one of the central concerns was that American colonists had experienced national governments that were too powerful, that could intrude in people’s lives too much. Government was seen as an institution that deprived people of freedom. The solution was to create separate institutions, each with some ability to check the power of the others.¹¹ To the extent that power was dispersed it would be harder to pass legislation and intrude on personal freedoms. This separation of powers can work very well, and over time many have worried about the inability of American government to respond to problems because one party will control Congress and another the presidency, creating a stalemate.¹² If elected officials come from the same party and share the same views then they can propose and enact legislation that reflects their positions. The argument is that the party label gives voters the chance to put like-minded voters in power so something can be accomplished in response to problems.

The majority party then prepares for and conducts the next campaign with a focus on having fulfilled their policy promises. The opposing party, perhaps still believing that the majority of voters do not really support what has been done, presents critiques of what has been done. The minority party may present what they see as the flaws in the policies adopted. The voters then render their judgment, and the cycle begins again.

The result should be a process in which party leaders and candidates, with their own beliefs, interact with activists, interest groups, and voters to assess just what views exist in the public. Candidates must be attentive to what the public thinks because they need votes. They must ass...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• PART I American Political Parties: Democratic Ideals and Doubts
• PART II Parties and Political Conditions
• PART III Pursuing Party Goals
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index