Political Parties and Their Functions

A government based on the separation of powers, such as that of the United States, divides responsibilities for making public policy. The president and the leaders of the House and Senate are not required to cooperate with one another. Political party organiza- tions are the major means for bridging the separate powers to pro- duce coordinated policies that can govern the country effectively.

6.2 A History of U.S. Party Politics

Outline the history of the U.S. political party system.

The two major U.S. parties are among the oldest in the world. In fact, the Democratic Party, founded in 1828 but with roots reach- ing back into the late 1700s, has a strong claim to being the oldest party in existence. Its closest rival is the British Conservative Party, formed in 1832, two decades before the Republican Party was organized in 1854. Several generations of Americans have supported the Democratic and Republican parties, which have become institutionalized in our political process.

The Emergence of the Party System Today we think of party activities as normal, even essential, to American politics. It was not always so. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties, and none existed when the Consti- tution was written in 1787. It was common then to refer to groups pursuing some common political interest as factions. Although factions were seen as inevitable in politics, they were also consid- ered dangerous. One argument for adopting the Constitution— proposed in Federalist No. 10 (see Chapter 2)—was that its federal system would prevent factional influences from controlling the government.

The debate over ratification of the Constitution produced two factions. Those who backed the Constitution were loosely known as Federalists, their opponents as Antifederalists. At this stage, the groups could not be called parties because they did not sponsor candidates for election. We can classify George Washington as a Federalist because he supported the Constitution, but he was not

192 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

a factional leader and actually opposed factional politics. During Washington’s administration, however, the political cleavage sharpened between those who favored a stronger national govern- ment and those who wanted a less powerful, more decentralized national government.

Members of the first group, led by Alexander Hamilton, pro- claimed themselves Federalists. Members of the second group, led by Thomas Jefferson, called themselves Republicans. (Although they used the same name, they were not the Republicans as we know them today. Indeed, Jefferson’s followers were later known as the Democratic Republicans.) Disheartened by the political split in his administration, Washington spoke out against ‘‘the baneful effects’’ of parties in his farewell address in 1796. Nevertheless, parties already existed in the political system. For the most part, from that time to the present, two major political parties have competed for political power.

The Current Party System: Democrats and Republicans By 1820, the Federalists were no more. In 1828, the Democratic Republican Party split in two. One wing, led by Andrew Jackson, became the Democratic Party. The other later joined forces with several minor parties and formed the Whig Party, which lasted for two decades.

In the early 1850s, antislavery forces (including Whigs and antislavery Democrats) began to organize. They formed a new party, the Republican Party, to oppose the extension of slavery into the Kansas and Nebraska territories. It is this party, founded in 1854, that continues as today’s Republican Party. In 1860, the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln and successfully con- fronted a Democratic Party deeply divided over slavery.

The election of 1860 is considered the first of three critical elections under the current party system.6 A critical election is marked by a sharp change in existing patterns of party loyalties among groups of voters. This change, which is called an electoral realignment, lasts through several subsequent elections.7 When one party in a two-party system regularly enjoys support from most of the voters, it is called the majority party; the other is called the minority party.

critical election An election that produces a sharp change in the existing pattern of party loyalties among groups of voters.

electoral realignment The change in voting patterns that occurs after a critical election.

A History of U.S. Party Politics 193

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

The 1860 election divided the country between the northern states, which mainly voted Republican, and the southern states, which were overwhelmingly Democratic. The victory of North over South in the Civil War cemented Democratic loyalties in the South, particularly following the withdrawal of federal troops after the 1876 election. For forty years, from 1880 to 1920, no Republi- can presidential candidate won even one of the eleven states of the former Confederacy.

A second critical election, in 1896, transformed the Republi- can Party into a true majority party when, in opposition to the Democrats’ inflationary free silver platform, a link was forged between the Republican Party and business. Voters in the heavily populated Northeast and Midwest surged toward the Republican Party, many of them permanently.

A third critical election occurred in 1932, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the Democratic Party to majority party status by uniting southern Democrats, northern urban workers, middle- class liberals, Catholics, Jews, and white ethnic minorities in the ‘‘Roosevelt coalition.’’ (The relatively few blacks who voted at that time tended to remain loyal to the Republicans, the ‘‘party of Lincoln.’’) Democrats held control of both houses of Congress in most sessions from 1933 until 1995. In 1995, Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in forty years. They retained control after the 1996 elections—the first time that Republicans took both houses in successive elections since Herbert Hoover’s presidency. In 2007, Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate after a decade of Republican dominance, though the Republicans regained control of the House after the 2010 elections. Neither chamber changed hands in the 2012 elections.

The North-South coalition of Democratic voters forged by Roosevelt in the 1930s has completely crumbled. Since 1952, in fact, the South has voted more consistently for Republican presi- dential candidates than for Democrats, and rural voters have become decidedly more Republican.8 The majority of southern senators and representatives are now Republicans. However, the Democratic coalition of urban workers and ethnic minorities still seems intact, if weakened. Some scholars say that in the 1970s and 1980s we were in a period of electoral dealignment, in which party loyalties became less important to voters as they cast their ballots. Others counter that partisanship increased in the 1990s in a gradual process of realignment not marked by a single critical

electoral dealignment A lessening of the importance of party loyalties in voting decisions.

194 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

election.9 We examine the influence of party loyalty on voting later in this chapter.

6.3 The American Two-Party System

Explain why two parties dominate the history of American politics.

The critical election of 1860 established the Democratic and Re- publican parties as the major parties in our two-party system. In a two-party system, most voters are so loyal to one or the other of the major parties that independent candidates or candidates from a third party (which means any minor party) have little chance of winning office. Third-party candidates tend to be most successful at the local or state level. Since the current two-party system was established, relatively few minor-party candidates have won elec- tion to the U.S. House; very few have won election to the Senate, and none has won the presidency. However, we should not ignore the special contributions of certain minor parties, among them the Anti-Masonic Party, the Populists, and the Progressives of 1912. In this section, we study the fortunes of minor or third par- ties in American politics. We also look at why we have only two major parties, explain how federalism helps the parties survive, and describe voters’ loyalty to the two major parties today.

Minor Parties in America Minor parties have always figured in party politics in America. Most true minor parties in our political history have been of four types:10

• Bolter parties are formed from factions that split off from one of the major parties. Seven times in thirty-seven presidential elections since the Civil War, disgruntled leaders ‘‘bolted the ticket’’ and challenged their former parties. Bolter parties have occasionally won significant proportions of the vote. However, with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party in 1912 and possibly George Wallace’s American Inde- pendent Party in 1968, bolter parties have not affected the outcome of presidential elections.

two-party system A political system in which two major political parties compete for control of the government. Candidates from a third party have little chance of winning office.

The American Two-Party System 195

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

• Farmer-labor parties represent farmers and urban workers who believe that they, the working class, are not getting their share of society’s wealth. The People’s Party, founded in 1892 and nicknamed the ‘‘Populist Party,’’ was a prime example of a farmer-labor party. The Populists won 8.5 percent of the vote in 1892 and became the first third party since 1860 to win any electoral votes. Flushed by success, they endorsed William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic candidate, in 1896. When he lost, the party quickly faded. Farm and labor groups revived many Populist ideas in the Progressive Party in 1924. The party died in 1925.

• Parties of ideological protest go further than farmer-labor par- ties in criticizing the established system. These parties reject prevailing doctrines and propose radically different princi- ples, often favoring more government activism. The Socialist Party has been the most successful party of ideological pro- test. Even at its high point in 1912, however, it garnered only 6 percent of the vote, and Socialist candidates for president have never won a single state. In recent years, the protest par- ties have tended to come from the right, arguing against gov- ernment action in society. Such is the program of the Libertarian Party, which stresses freedom over order and equality. In contrast, the Green Party protests from the left, favoring government action to preserve the environment.

• Single-issue parties are formed to promote one principle, not a general philosophy of government. The Free Soil Party of the 1840s and 1850s worked to abolish slavery. The Prohibi- tion Party, the most durable example of a single-issue party, opposed the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The party has run candidates in every presidential election since 1884. Recently, however, its platform has grown to include other conservative positions, including the right to life, limiting im- migration, and withdrawal from the World Bank.

Minor parties, then, form primarily to express discontent with the choices offered by the major parties and to work for their own objectives within the electoral system.11

How have minor parties fared historically? As vote getters, they have not performed well. However, bolter parties have twice won more than 10 percent of the vote. More significant, the Re- publican Party originated in 1854 as a single-issue third party

196 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

opposed to slavery in the nation’s new territories; in its first elec- tion, in 1856, the party came in second, displacing the Whigs. The age of these exceptions is suggestive: although surveys repeatedly show over half the public saying they want a third major party, voters tend not to support them at the polls.12

As policy advocates, minor parties have a slightly better record. At times, they have had a real effect on the policies adopted by the major parties. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators all originated in third parties.13

Most important, minor parties function as safety valves. They allow those who are unhappy with the status quo to express their discontent within the system and contribute to the political dia- logue. Surely this was the function of Ralph Nader’s candidacy with the Green Party in 2000. If minor parties and independent candidates indicate discontent, what should we make of the numerous minor parties that took part in the 2012 election? Not much. The number of third parties that contest elections is much less important than the total number of votes they receive. Despite the presence of numerous minor parties in every presidential elec- tion, the two major parties usually collect over 95 percent of the vote, as they did in 2012.

Why a Two-Party System? The history of party politics in the United States is essentially the story of two parties that have alternating control of the govern- ment. With relatively few exceptions, Americans conduct elections at all levels within the two-party system. This pattern is unusual in democratic countries, where multiparty systems are more com- mon. Why does the United States have only two major parties? The two most convincing answers to this question stem from (1) the electoral system in the United States and (2) our historical pattern of political socialization.

In the typical U.S. election, two or more candidates contest each office, and the winner is the single candidate who collects the most votes, whether those votes constitute a majority or not. The two principles of single winners chosen by a simple plurality of votes produce an electoral system known as majority representation (despite its reliance on pluralities rather than majorities). Think about how American states choose representatives to Congress. A state entitled to ten representatives is divided into ten congressional

majority representation The system by which one office, contested by two or more candidates, is won by the single candidate who collects the most votes.

The American Two-Party System 197

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

districts; each district elects one representative. Almost always, the ten representatives are Democratic and Republicans. Majority rep- resentation of voters through single-member districts is also a fea- ture of most state legislatures.

Alternatively, a legislature might be chosen through a system of proportional representation, which would award legislative seats to a party in proportion to the total number of votes it wins in an election. Under this system, the state might have a single statewide election for all ten seats, with multiple parties presenting their lists of ten candidates. Voters could vote for the entire party list they preferred, and the party’s candidates would be elected from the top of each list, according to the proportion of votes won by the party. Thus, if a party got 30 percent of the vote in this example, its first three candidates would be elected.

Although this form of election may seem strange, more demo- cratic countries use it than use our system of majority representa- tion. Proportional representation tends to produce (or perpetuate) several parties, because each can win enough seats nationwide to wield some influence in the legislature. In contrast, our system of elections forces interest groups of all sorts to work within the two major parties, for only one candidate in each race stands a chance to be elected under plurality voting. Therefore, the system tends to produce only two parties.

The rules of our electoral system may explain why only two parties tend to form in specific election districts, but why do the same two parties (Democratic and Republican) operate within every state? The contest for the presidency is the key to this question. A candidate can win a presidential election only by amassing a ma- jority of electoral votes from across the entire nation. Presidential candidates try to win votes under the same party label in each state in order to pool their electoral votes in the electoral college. The presidency is a big enough political prize to induce parties to harbor uncomfortable coalitions of voters (southern white Protestants allied with northern Jews and blacks in the Democratic Party, for exam- ple) just to win the electoral vote and the presidential election.

The American electoral system may force U.S. politics into a two-party mold, but why do the same two parties reappear from election to election? After more than one hundred years of politi- cal socialization, the Republicans and Democrats today have such a head start in structuring the vote that they discourage challenges from new parties. In addition to political socialization within the

proportional representation The system by which legislative seats are awarded to a party in proportion to the vote that party wins in an election.

198 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

public, the two parties in power write laws that make it hard for minor parties to get on the ballot, such as requiring petitions with thousands of signatures.14

The Federal Basis of the Party System Focusing on contests for the presidency is a convenient and in- formative way to study the history of American parties, but it also oversimplifies party politics to the point of distortion. Even during its darkest defeats for the presidency, a party can still claim many victories for state offices. Victories outside the arena of presiden- tial politics give each party a base of support that keeps its ma- chinery oiled and running for the next contest.15

Party Identification in America The concept of party identification is one of the most important in political science. It signifies a voter’s sense of psychological attachment to a party, which is not the same as voting for the party in any given election. Scholars measure party identification simply by asking, ‘‘Do you usually think of yourself as a Republi- can, a Democrat, an independent, or what?’’16 Voting is a behav- ior; identification is a state of mind. For example, millions of southerners voted for Dwight Eisenhower for president in 1952 and 1956 but continued to consider themselves Democrats. The proportions of self-identified Republicans, Democrats, and inde- pendents (no party attachment) in the electorate since 1952 are shown in Figure 6.1 (p. 200). Three significant points stand out:

• The proportion of Republicans and Democrats combined has exceeded that of independents in every year.

• The proportion of Democrats consistently exceeds that of Republicans but has shrunk over time.

• The proportion of independents has nearly doubled over the period.

Although party identification predisposes citizens to vote for their favorite party, other factors may cause voters to choose the opposition candidate. If they vote against their party often enough, they may rethink their party identification and eventually switch. Apparently this rethinking has gone on in the minds of many southern Democrats over time. In 1952, about 70 percent of

party identification A voter’s sense of psychological attachment to a party.

The American Two-Party System 199

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

white southerners thought of themselves as Democrats, and fewer than 20 percent thought of themselves as Republicans. In 2012, white southerners were only 24 percent Democratic, 35 percent Republican, and 41 percent independent.17 Much of the nation- wide growth in the proportion of Republicans and independents (and the parallel drop in the number of Democrats) stems from changes in party preferences among white southerners and from the migration of northerners, which translated into substantial gains in the number of registered Republicans.18

Who are the self-identified Democrats and Republicans in the electorate? Figure 6.2 shows party identification by various social groups in 2012. The effects of socioeconomic factors are clear.

FIGURE 6.1 Distribution of Party Identification, 1952–2012

Democrats

Independents

Republicans

0

10

19 52

19 54

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19 56

19 58

19 60

19 62

19 64

19 66

19 68

19 70

19 72

19 74

19 76

19 78

19 80

19 82

19 84

19 86

19 88

19 90

19 92

19 94

19 96

19 98

20 00

20 02

20 04

20 08

20 12

Pe rc

en ta

ge

Year

In every presidential election since 1952, voters across the nation have been asked, ‘‘Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or what?’’ Most voters think of themselves as either Republicans or Democrats, but the proportion of those who think of themselves as independents has increased over time. The size of the Democratic Party’s majority has also shrunk. Nevertheless, most Americans today still identify with one of the two major parties, and Democrats still outnumber Republicans. Sources: National Election Studies, Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/ nesguide.htm. The 2012 figure is based on the January 11–16, 2012, survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, kindly supplied by senior researcher Dr. Leah Melani Christian. The few respondents (typically under 5 percent) who gave other answers were excluded from the graph.

200 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

Percentage

RepublicansDemocrats Independents

18–29 30–41 42–53 54–64

65+

North central Northeast

West South

Black Hispanic

No high school High school

Post high school, no degree

Advanced degree College degree

$30,000–$74,999 $75,000–$99,999

Over $100,000

Under $30,000

Female Male

Unaffiliated Catholic

Other Protestant

Other White

PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY EDUCATION

PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY RELIGION

PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY GENDER

PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY ETHNICITY

PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY REGION

PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY AGE

PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY INCOME

0 20 40 60 80 100

FIGURE 6.2 Party Identification by Social Groups Respondents to a 2012 election survey were grouped by seven socioeconomic criteria—income, education, religion, gender ethnicity, region, and age—and analyzed according to their self-descriptions as Democrats, independents, or Republicans. As income increases, people are more likely to vote Republican. The same is true for education, except for those with advanced degrees. Protestants are far more likely to be Republican than those without religious affiliation, while women, Hispanics, and all nonwhite groups are more likely to be Democrats. Party identification varies little by region. The main effect of age was to reduce the proportion of independents as respondents grew older. Younger citizens who tend to think of themselves as independents are likely to develop an identification with one party or the other as they mature.

Source: Data are from the January 11–16, 2012, survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, kindly supplied by senior researcher Dr. Leah Melani Christian. Rounding errors were adjusted to total to 100 percent for each group.

The American Two-Party System 201

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

People who have lower incomes and less education are more likely to think of themselves as Democrats than as Republicans. However, citizens with advanced degrees (such as college faculty) are more Democratic. The cultural factors of religion and race produce even sharper differences between the parties. Those who are unaffiliated with a religion are strongly Democratic compared with other reli- gious groups, but are mainly independent. Non-Hispanic whites are markedly more Republican than those in other ethnic groups. In addition, American politics has a gender gap: more women tend to be Democrats than men. The youngest citizens are more apt to be Democrats than Republicans, but most are independents. People tend to acquire party identification as they age.

The influence of region on party identification has changed over time, and strong regional differences no longer exist. Because of the high proportion of blacks in the South, it is still predomi- nantly Democratic (in party identity, but not in voting because of lower turnout among low-income blacks). Despite the erosion of Democratic strength in the South, we still see elements of Roose- velt’s old Democratic coalition of socioeconomic groups. Perhaps the major change in that coalition has been the replacement of white European ethnic groups by blacks, attracted by the Demo- crats’ backing of civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

The ethnic composition of the United States is inexorably becoming less white, and nonwhites today are generally more Demo- cratic than Republican. Estimated at 65 percent in 2010, the non- Latino white population is projected to be only 55 percent in 2030. The Latino and nonwhite share of the population, estimated at 36 percent in 2010, is projected to be 45 percent by 2030.19 Given that blacks, Asians, and Latinos are strongly Democratic, the Republican Party faces problems in the partisan implications of demographic change.

Studies show that about half the citizens in the United States adopt their parents’ party. But it often takes time for party identi- fication to develop. The youngest group of voters is most likely to be independent, but people now in their thirties and forties, who were socialized during the Reagan and first Bush presidencies, are more Republican. The oldest group is not only strongly Demo- cratic but also shows the greatest partisan commitment (fewest independents), reflecting the fact that citizens become more inter- ested in politics as they mature.20 While overall partisanship has been declining in the United States, that is true elsewhere too (see ‘‘Politics of Global Change: Fewer Citizens Are Partying’’).

202 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

Politics of Global Change

Fewer Citizens Are Partying As shown earlier in Figure 6.1, the proportion of Americans who identify with the Republican or Democratic parties has declined over time while the proportion of independents has increased. This chart shows a similar decline in formal party members for most European countries where citizens formally belong to political parties. Among nineteen European countries that provide available data over time, only Greece and Spain show an increase in party members as a percent of the electorate. (Similar data exist for party identification in European countries.) Citizens everywhere seem less likely to party.

Source: Ingrid van Biezen, Peter Mair, and Thomas Poguntke, ‘‘Going, Going, … Gone? The Decline of Party Membership in Contemporary Europe,’’ European Journal of Political Research, 51 (January, 2012), 24–56.ª2011 Ingrid van Biezen, Peter Mair, and Thomas Poguntke, European Journal of Political Research. ª2011 European Consortium for Political Research. Reproduced by permission.

Critical Thinking Why might voters around the world be less likely to join political parties today than thirty years ago? How might this affect gover- nance if the trend continues in the future?

–11.21 –10.3

–5.99 –5.05

–4.09 –3.45

–3.2

–2.97 –2.91

–2.22

–0.57

–3.17

–12 –10

Gain (green) or loss (red) in party members as a percent of the electorate over years shown

–8 –6 –4 –2 0 2 4

–4.54

3.16 3.41980–2008

1980–2008 1990–2008 1980–2008 1994–2007 1980–2009 1980–2007 1993–2008 1980–2008 1980–2008 1978–2009 1980–2008 1980–2007 1980–2008 1993–2008 1977–2007 1980–2006 1980–2008 1980–2008

Greece Spain

Hungary Portugal Slovakia

Netherlands Germany

United Kingdom Ireland

Denmark France

Belgium Italy

Sweden Czech Republic

Switzerland Finland

Norway Austria

–7.66

–1.81 –1.27

–1.05

The American Two-Party System 203

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

Americans tend to find their political niche and stay there.21

The enduring party loyalty of American voters tends to structure the vote even before an election is held, even before the candidates are chosen. Later we will examine the extent to which party iden- tification determines voting choice. But first we will look to see whether the Democratic and Republican parties have any signifi- cant differences between them.

6.4 Party Ideology and Organization

Compare and contrast the Democratic and Republican parties on the basis of ideology and organization.

George Wallace, a disgruntled Democrat who ran for president in 1968 on the American Independent Party ticket, complained that ‘‘there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference’’ between the Democrats and Republicans. Decades earlier, humorist Will Rogers said, ‘‘I am not a member of any organized political party—I am a Demo- crat.’’ Wallace’s comment was made in disgust, Rogers’s in jest. Wallace was wrong; Rogers was close to being right. Here we will dispel the myth that the parties do not differ significantly on issues and explain how they are organized to coordinate the activ- ities of party candidates and officials in government.

Differences in Party Ideology George Wallace notwithstanding, there is more than a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties. In fact, the difference amounts to many billions of dollars—the cost of the different gov- ernment programs supported by each party. Democrats are more disposed to government spending to advance social welfare (and hence to promote equality) than are Republicans. And social wel- fare programs cost money, a lot of money. Republicans, however, are not averse to spending billions of dollars for the projects they consider important. Although President George W. Bush intro- duced a massive tax cut, he also revived spending on missile defense, backed a $400 billion increase in Medicare, and proposed

204 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

building a space platform on the moon for travel to Mars. One result was a huge increase in the budget deficit and a rare Wall Street Journal editorial against the 2003 GOP ‘‘spending spree.’’22

Reflecting the influence of the tea party, however, the Republican Party in 2012 fervently opposed government spending, whereas Democrats still supported spending for social programs and to stimulate the economy.

Voters and Activists. Party activists think of themselves in more ideological terms than those who are less interested in politics. In a recent study, 37 percent of Democrats who cared less about the 2012 presidential election called themselves moderate and only 34 percent labeled themselves liberal. Among Democrats who cared a great deal about the election, the percentage of self-identified liberals rose to 48 percent. Among less-interested Republicans, 37 percent called themselves moderate, while 57 percent labeled themselves conservatives. Among Republicans who cared a great deal about the election, a whopping 85 percent called themselves conservative.23

Platforms: Freedom, Order, and Equality. For another test of party philosophy, we can look at the party platforms—the state- ments of policies—adopted in party conventions. Although many people feel that party platforms do not matter very much, several scholars have demonstrated that winning parties tend to carry out much of their platforms when in office.24 Party platforms also matter a great deal to the parties’ convention delegates. The word- ing of a platform plank often means the difference between vic- tory and defeat for factions within a party.

The platforms adopted at both parties’ conventions in 2012 were similar in length (about 26,000 words for the Democrats and 31,000 for the Republicans) but strikingly different in content. The Republi- cans mentioned ‘‘free’’ or ‘‘freedom’’ more than three times as often (73 to 19), while the Democrats referred to ‘‘equal’’ or ‘‘equality’’ or ‘‘inequality’’ more than four times as much (23 to 4). Republicans talked more about order than Democrats, mentioning ‘‘crime’’ or ‘‘criminals’’ more often (33 to 26) and swamping the Democrats with talk about ‘‘marriage’’ (21 to 4) and ‘‘abortion’’ (20 to 4). Republicans also drummed on ‘‘spending’’ almost five times as frequently (29 to 6), while Democrats talked more about ‘‘discrimination’’ (18 to 9 mentions). The 2012 Republican convention called for amendments

party platform The statement of policies of a national political party.

Party Ideology and Organization 205

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

to the Constitution that reflected their values, including an amendment requiring a supermajority for any tax increase, an amendment defining marriage as ‘‘the union of one man and one woman,’’ and a human life amendment to protect the unborn. The Democratic convention reaf- firmed their support for the Equal Rights Amendment to secure women’s rights and noted that they supported campaign finance reform, by constitu- tional amendment ‘‘if necessary.’’25

Different But Similar. Republicans and Democrats have very different ideological orientations. Yet many observers claim that the parties are really quite similar in ideology com- pared with the different parties of other countries. Although both Republicans and Democrats favor a market economy over a planned economy more than parties else- where, Republicans do so more strongly than Democrats. A major

cross-national study of party positions in Western countries since 1945 concludes that the United States experiences ‘‘a form of party competition that is as ideologically (or non-ideologically) driven as the other countries we have studied.’’26

National Party Organization American parties parallel our federal system: they have separate national and state organizations (and functionally separate local organizations). At the national level, each major party has four main organizational components:

• National convention. Every four years, each party assembles thousands of delegates from the states and U.S. territories (such as Puerto Rico and Guam) in a national convention for the purpose of nominating a candidate for president. This

Clashing Visions

Debates provide candidates with opportunities to highlight their own strengths and their opponents’ weaknesses, although style sometimes trumps substance. During the presidential debates in 2012, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama attempted to differentiate themselves and their visions of America while appealing to undecided voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

national convention A gathering of delegates of a single political party from across the country to choose candidates for president and vice president and to adopt a party platform.

SA U

LL O

EB /

A FP

/ G

et ty

Im ag

es

206 Chapter 6 Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections

Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

 

 

presidential nominating convention is the supreme governing body of the party. It determines party policy through the plat- form, formulates rules to govern party operations, and desig- nates a national committee, which is empowered to govern the party until the next convention.

• National committee. The national committee, which governs each party between conventions, is composed of party offi- cials representing the states and territories, including the chairpersons of their party organizations. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has about 150 members, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has approximately 450 elected and appointed members. The chairperson of each national committee is chosen by the party’s presidential nom- inee, then duly elected by the committee. If the nominee loses the presidential election, the national committee usually replaces the nominee’s chairperson.

• Congressional party conferences. At the beginning of each ses- sion of Congress, Republicans and Democrats in each cham- ber hold separate party conferences (the House Democrats call theirs a caucus) to select their party leaders and decide committee assignments. The party conferences deal only with congressional matters and have no structural relationship to each other or to their respective national committee.

• Congressional campaign committees.Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate also maintain separate congressional campaign committees, each of which raises its own funds to support its candidates in congressional elections. The separa- tion of these organizations from the national committee tells us that the national party structure is loose; the national committee seldom gets involved with the election of any individual mem- ber of Congress. Moreover, even the congressional campaign organizations merely supplement the funds that senators and representatives raise on their own to win reelection.

It is tempting to think of the national party chairperson sit- ting at the top of a hierarchical party organization that not only controls its members in Congress but also issues orders to the state committees and on down to the local level. Few notions could be more wrong.27 In fact, the RNC and DNC do not even really direct or control presidential campaigns. Prospective nomi- nees hire their own campaign staffs during the party primaries to

national committee A committee of a political party composed of party chairpersons and party officials from every state.

party conference A meeting to select party leaders and decide committee assignments, held at the beginning of a session of Congress by Republicans or Democrats in each chamber.

congressional campaign committee An organization maintained by a political party to raise funds to support its own candidates in congressional elections.

Get professional assignment help cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.

Why choose our academic writing service?

• Plagiarism free papers
• Timely delivery
• Any deadline
• Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
• Subject-relevant academic writer
• Adherence to paper instructions
• Ability to tackle bulk assignments
• Reasonable prices
• 24/7 Customer Support
• Get superb grades consistently