I have in this blog written of the function that political
parties play in our political system.
Political parties are at that level of representation which funnels
demands and supports, demands and supports not so much from individual
citizens, who are represented by more specifically oriented groups, but from
more collective entities. These other
groups are organizations and associations that solicit memberships among
particular aggregates such as business people, laborers, teachers, doctors,
lawyers, and the like. What political
parties do is organize the demands and supports favored by these “lower” level
groupings. I have also, given the
writing of E. E. Schattschneider,[1] described
that the political party that represents the advantaged groups – successful business
people, high salaried professionals, and the like – mainly provides a loose
alignment to represent these factions’ common interests. On the other hand, the party that represents
lesser advantaged citizens – laborers, low income workers, low-skilled workers,
indigent groups, etc. – provides the means by which its groups formulate
stronger alliances among these respective groups. Also thrown into the mix are very influential
individuals.
The stronger the union among the elements of a party are, the
more the individual and/or group needs to compromise. The easiest way to think of this is: the more one has access to political resources
– money, votes, expertise – the less one needs the help of others and,
therefore, the less one needs to compromise. Strong union means more compromise; strong individual entities means less compromise.
But how does a party function in our current elections? We have a presidential election on the
horizon and an understanding of how our system works should include insight
into the role parties play in the election process. Daniel M. Shea provides a telling story:
[There was] an irate House candidate
who complained to a local party leader about going it alone. Why would the party be spending so much time
and money helping the presidential candidate and offering no help to him? The party leader answered back, “You see that
big barge coming into the harbor? Look
behind, in the wake. You see those logs,
the junk and garbage being sucked along?
This year the president’s the ship and you’re the garbage.”[2]
Welcome to the world of politics. With the upcoming presidential election
approaching, civics teachers might use the performance of parties in the 2016
election to have students develop a better understanding of political
parties. Jeffrey M. Stonecash,[3] in his
study of parties, identifies a list of factors that might help a teacher
develop questions students can pursue.
The list includes: correlation
between “down-ballot” candidates and the presidential candidate (as alluded to
in the above story), incumbency success rates, geographic location (e. g., the
North vs. the South), partisanship loyalty levels, ideological biases, and
strength of local party organization.
Each of these can be discussed as to meaning and historical viability in
determining who wins and loses an election.
Stonecash’s study can provide assistance to teachers who want to
consider these types of concerns.
As for Stonecash’s findings, his analysis indicates that
correlations between presidential and House candidates, once quite high
(hovering around .80), has not been nearly so high of late. This lack of connection means that political
parties are not producing winners. To
the extent this is true, political parties do not serve as funnels; that is,
they are not functioning to generate compromises. Without compromises, or at least enough of
them, then the government cannot issue the policies to meet current
demands. Instead, geographic location
seems to have strengthened significantly.
We have areas that are steeply ensconced in policy positions and the
growing sentiment that compromise is somewhat illegitimate. Often, positions are associated with cultural
commitments and/or religious commitments.
The positive side to all of this is that voters do not seem to be
blindly following the dictates of party leaders any longer. On the other side, policy compromises are
harder to find. Have media – Limbaugh,
Fox, MSNBC – been filling-in the gap created with the lessening of party
influence? Using the results in the
upcoming election might add some information to our current state of voting
and, if any, shifts among the electorate.
The party is not over; parties will continue to serve essential roles
and functions – they organize a lot of what we call politics. But as a meaningful funnel of demands and
supports, a facilitator of compromise, one is justified to ask what its role
will be as the coming years go by. Will
2016 foreshadow more impasse with Congress and the President or a more
promising future?
[1] Schattschneider, E. E. (1960).
The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[2]
Shea, D. M.
(2015). Book Review of Party Pursuits and the Presidential-House Electoral
Connection 1900-2008, Political Science Quarterly, 130 (1),
Spring, pp. 134-136, quotation on p. 134.
[3]
Stonecash, J. M. (2013). Party pursuits
and the presidential-House electoral connection 1900-2008. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment