A FUNNELING GAME

Before this blogger gets into the meat of next challenge that the Whig Party faced in the 1850s, he believes a word on political parties seems to be wise.  In providing that “word,” this blogger is reminded of his high school teaching days.  One image he used to describe politics, especially at the national level, was to point out that a lot of coalescing needs to occur before a government, especially a democratic government, is apt to issue a policy, be it judged effective or not.

          He would first ask his students to think of the top three things they would like government to do – he would say, just go idealistic and disregard the likelihood of the government doing it.  He would give the students some time to think and have them jot down their thoughts.  Perhaps they might want a free lunch program, a more readily available park, or, in a public school system, an improved teacher hiring policy, whatever. 

Then without looking at their fellow students’ lists, how likely would their list match with those of the others’?  It could be, despite some overlap, that most lists would be different.  They then would be asked to think about what led them to include what they listed.  It could be their grade level (usually twelfth graders), their family’s income, their social relationships, their personal skills, or ambitions, etc.  In short, there is a myriad of potential causes. 

If a choice is seen as important or essential, how does one get the government to provide or help develop a desired end?  How students answer that question goes a long way in giving one an insight into how realistic students’ views of governance are.  Since, this blogger does not have a class of students before him, let him just say that one needs to organize with like-minded others to be politically effective.

Hopefully that would be with many other voters or people with political assets (money or influence).  If the student can organize those people, as an interest group, they would present a coordinated approach to governmental policy makers or policy enforcers and present their demands.  If they can make such demands from a position of power, then they are in the running to get what it is they seek.

And their chances would increase if their interest could be matched up with others – beyond their group – so as to bring to bear more political “weight” to their petition.  Or stated another way, a lot of politics is a matter of funneling demands and, in that process, one can detect a pattern.  That is, beyond the efforts of any one such group, there are strategies that have proven to be more effective.

First, it’s identifying those immediate people a person knows or knows of who might share his/her concern.  Here, basic communication skills help as the initial person or group goes about organizing its politicking.  Perhaps some of those like-minded people need a bit of convincing that their shared desire is legitimate, important, and worth pursuing. 

If the demand takes on a wider audience, an interest group can be formed on a more formal basis.  Here, designated ties can be formed or identified and a level of formality either established or, if already in place, utilized.  All this is important since achieving any satisfaction – in the form of government action – usually calls for the use of resources that the government owns or to which it has access. 

Students need to see that resources are scarce and the satisfaction of one set of demands will very likely lead to others either not having their wants or needs being satisfied or being limited.  Hence, this state potentially – even likely – casts others, who don’t share in the sought-after demand, as potential adversaries.  And that introduces the notion of political conflict. 

That is a competitive arena materializes or an existing one grows by the introduction of any new group joining an existing conflict. And if the demand is important enough, allies might be called on to join the fight.  But as one seeks help from “friendly” others, this might bring together entities not seeking the same or exactly the same ends.

Why would others help?  Because these others might be sympathetic to the initial demand, but in fighting their own battles, might expect some exchange of resources with any other groups to which they choose to associate.  Negotiations are probably needed to smooth out those elements that might conflict with potential allies.  That is, this is all part of the funneling process and what happens is that goals or ends might very well be altered, trimmed, or otherwise changed in order to solicit the help of others.

This whole process can take many pages to describe, but the purpose here is to give the reader a lens by which to evaluate the Whig Party.  Let it suffice to point out that at any stage of funneling, political assets or resources can assist the efforts of any participant.  And generally, the most prominent assets are the ability to deliver votes, money, and expertise.  And the more one is apt to secure these assets, the more one is apt to win individual conflicts. 

Therefore, to understand a lot of what makes up politics is to appreciate this general political process that seems to reoccur with varying details among a whole slew of conflicts at any given time.  And that process is:  first like-minded individuals identify their commonality and begin to organize, second, if sufficiently strong, they formalize their commonality into an organized interest group, third, they identify related interest groups to form alliances, and they, in turn, fourth, associate themselves into a political party. 

At each stage, compromising is called for to make the alliance a mutually felt advantage.  Of course, if an actor on his/her/its own account has sufficient political assets – say, a multinational corporation – it can skip these various stages, except one.  That one is being aligned with a political party.  In that case, the entity doesn’t need to compromise as long as each of those entities understands that if it remains in its own political lane, it need not elicit the help of others.

What the above should indicate is that the ability of one to predict how others will behave – especially in carrying through any negotiated agreements – is central to establish the level of assured expectations upon which each level of commitment demands.  If one cannot count on how perspective or existing allies will behave, one is ill suited to establish or continue any such relationship.

The last posting indicated that the Whig case illustrated not so much what a political party should do, but what it should not do.  And the above stages can give one insight about what that would be.  This blogger apologizes to readers who see the above as elementary, but it is offered to allow all readers to see what this blog will claim was central to the Whig’s shortened history.  Through its failure to survive, it provided all other political parties a bit of a lesson.

If one sees a functioning political party as an organization that has under its leadership a grand alliance of interest groups, then one has a basis by which to evaluate the Whigs – not on moral grounds, not on necessarily federalist grounds, but on very practical grounds.  As a matter of fact, this might sound to readers of this blog as applying a counter message from what the blog usually promotes.  That is, it likely sounds as if this blogger has adopted a natural rights view.  All he can say is that even a federalist has to account for basic political realities.

And with that short political lesson, this blog is ready to reenter the mid-1800s.  As it has been pointed out, the nation was facing a slew of issues.  Becoming more strident was the issue of slavery.  But in addition, there was a significant level of anti-immigration sentiment (spurring the political movement of the Know-Nothings) and the demands of the business class and how it, as a sector of the economy, felt a level of antagonism toward the land-based interests of the agricultural sector.

And one more factor should be pointed out.  Unlike the political landscape of today, with a legal structure governing the operation of political parties, there were few limitations or disincentives for third parties springing up in the years leading up to the Civil War.  Today, due to party registrations, voter registration restrictions, and public funding (i.e., the use of tax dollars that usually go to major party presidential candidates), third party efforts are much harder to get started.[1]  This was not the case in the 1850s.

The sum-total was that the demand on the Whigs to get it right, even though it was the “other” major party, was even more strident than would have been the case if the structural elements supporting a major party were in place.  Of course, they further confounded their situation by lacking any sort of party discipline and by suffering a string of losses at the polls.  The next posting will look at how this party’s reaction to the next big challenge, that being the Kansas-Nebraska controversy of 1854.

---

[1] In terms of matching funds, see “Public Funding of Presidential Elections,” Federal Election Commission/United States of America (n.d.), accessed August 26, 2021, https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/ .