Two Major Parties example essay topic

American Political Parties Decline And Resurgance Essay, American Political Parties Decline And Resurgance American Political Parties decline and resurganceFew elements of the American political process have changed as much in recent years as the major political parties. For most Americans, political parties are essentially the government office-holders or aspiring office-holders who carry the party label at elections. Parties were not mentioned in the Constitution nor were they anticipated by its framers back in 1787. However two major parties – The Democrats and The Republicans -did come to the fore and it is my intention to prove that, after a century of rapid social and economic change, they continue to be an integral part of the political process and are still of meaning to most Americans. In assessing party strengths and weaknesses and their decline we must recognize that parties have to operate in diverse social circumstances, within the doctrine of separation of powers and a Federalist system of government. Parties tend, therefore, to be broadly based coalitions of interests; organized in a decentralized way as opposed to the rather disciplined hierarchical structure of many of their European counterparts.

Parties are seen as manifold entities, attempting to select candidates for official positions, promote certain objectives and policies and strive to gain government power (Epstein, 1986). Successfully operating within theAmerican system are two major political parties, the Democratic Party andthe Republican Party, and as we shall see the labels Democratic and Republican continue to mean something to most Americans. In this essay Is hall examine some of the characteristics and functions of American parties and focus upon the rise of candidate-centered campaigns and, where possible, show whether or not the party has declined. Party renewal will be discussed in the latter part of this essay. Party decline primarily refers to a reduction in the importance of party asa determinant of voters' decisions. In the U.S. a voter in any given Presidential election year may have to cast a ballot for the Presidency, aU.S. Senator, a Member of the House, State Legislature, Local and County officials.

Coupled with this ballot complexity, complications associated with demographic diversity have, since the 1960's led towards electoral fracture. This fracture has manifested itself in three main ways vis- -vis party decline: the Party in the electorate, the Party in organization andthe Party in Government. The growth in the number of independents tends to convey the sense that voters are alienated from the major parties and that they believe that they need to look elsewhere to gain meaningful representation. The electorate are now less inclined to identify with either of the two major parties; with the percentage of people identifying with the two major parties dropping from 80% in the 1950's to 70% in the 1980's – indeed one third of the electorate are now classified as independent (Epstein, 1986). As a result of weakened party identification there has been a decline in straight ticket voting (this is voting for acandidate from the same party for all the offices on the ballot). Ticket splitting between Presidential and House candidates increased from 12% to 34% in the period 1952-1980 and had been on an upward trend until the 1980 when it leveled off at around 20% for both kinds of ticket splitters.

Congressional split election results have become more common in theAmerican voting pattern, that is, in seats where one party won the Presidential race but lost the Congressional race (Wattenberg, 1994). The problem for party leaders is that they are expected to promote and develop party unity, but are given few reasons to do so. In most Western democracies the ability of party leaders to control the legislative processes predicated upon the support of a unified political party where party cohesion is strong, but, in the U.S. this has not been the case. In 1903-4 for example, 90% of the Republicans voted against 90% of Democrats on 64% of the total roll calls in the 58th Congress (Epstein, 1986). Today there is an apparent lack of party unity in the United States which is in sharp contrast to the British system.

A possible explanation for this is that in The House of Commons the party leadership can impose sanctions on errant members, such sanctions are not available to leaders inthe American Congress. Therefore, it is difficult to hold together the various stages of the legislative process, or to promote a rigid party line, which reduces substantially the chances of sustained periods of legislative activism and legislative success. The consequence of such deadlock is that the political system has divided control at both the Federal and the State level. It has been argued that ticket splitting makes it more difficult for either party to impose its will and assert itself on its own party values and on policies pursued.

It is this peeling away of a collective responsibility towards the pursuit of individual legislation that is most evident in thevoters' behavior and complements the tendency for ticket splitting by the voter. This leads to disenchantment, and this has grown into cynicism about getting acceptable government from either party. Electoral fracture has impinged on the importance of incumbency of the so called personal vote. The incumbency re-election votes have hovered between 90-94% for the House, 90% for the State legislature, and 65% (1976) to 93% (1982) in Senate elections. This would seem to indicate that the weaker theparty ties, the greater the personal vote. It is thus important for the incumbent to stress personal achievements rather than those of the party; as a result the party then becomes distant, voters think less of their party and turn round their voting choices.

In addition, one could also attribute lack of party identification to a similarity in ideology between the two parties in that, until the mid 1960's to early 1980's, neither party offered a clear-cut alternative; there was no collective reference point ora benchmark to adhere to or develop from. People were therefore ambivalent towards the parties. Since the mid 1980's, however, the Republican Party has become more focused and conservative in its posture. Clear differences in terms of government regulation of business, social policy and budget deficits became noticeable during Reagan's presidency. Epstein also refers to the concept of the youthful cohort of voters who are less likely to identify with the old party label and who have become more volatile in their loyalties – thus offering a generational explanation ofparty decline, where these changes led to the replacement of party supporters who lived through the Great Depression and New Deal (1930's). Party decline can also be seen within the party organization.

At the turn of the century business leaders were to the forefront in seeking to weaken and reduce the party machine by reducing the symbolic strength of the party within the American political system. By the 1970's more than three quarters of all States used non-partisan ballots in elections. The second bout of reform spawned a number of institutional changes; with the introduction ofthe direct primary being the most important one. The demise of organizational strength and the disaggregation of their electoral base contributed substantially to the rise and persuasiveness of individualism among candidates running for office. One could argue that American parties now have more grass than roots, given the fickleness ofparty allegiance. Citizens are now conceptualizing issues only in terms of candidates, and less in party terms.

Whilst the Party still stands for broad principles, when it comes to specific policies, candidates stand aloof from the parties. So in this sense, yes, the candidate centered campaign has obscured the enduring strength of the Party. Indeed Peele, etal (1992), alludes to this point; that strong leadership overshadows the parties and hence issues become further personalized and personified. So visible was this that in the period 1952-1980 a contest between Presidential candidates and political parties took place when a series o strong candidates contributed to the erosion of the electoral importance of parties, thus reinforcing the rise of candidate-centered campaigns over the past thirty years.

This transition from a party-dominated system of campaign politics to acandidate-centered one during the mid twentieth century further weakened the parties, especially at the level of local party organization where most of the parties' activities had previously been conducted. This is evidenced by the fact that since 1968 the proportion of conventions' delegates selected via primary elections has risen from one third to four fifths, showing us that nomination of candidates is heavily dependent on accumulation of primary votes. Therefore the party, as an institution, is being pushed out of the public spotlight (Wattenberg, 1994). The direct primaries, new regulations, a new civil service structure and other reforms deprived party bosses of their ability to hand pick potential nominees and reward party workers with government posts and contracts, thus reducing the traditional party role. In addition social mobility, education, declining immigration and growing national identity contributed to the dilution of the closely knit, ethnic neighbourhoods that spawned the core of the party machine, depriving local Party Committees of their core support. The collective effort of such changes meant that electoral politics were shifting from a manpower intensive, party-focused system into candidate-centred money driven enterprise.

Prior to the 1970's, Political Action Committees (P.A.C. s) played a minor role, but they have increasingly been providing candidates with a greater share of their campaign funds. P.A.C. s' contributions in 1982 accounted for 30% of money given to general election candidates for the House, and 17%of the money given to candidates for the Senate; effectively making them the second largest source of campaign contributions. P.A.C.'s challenged the traditional party functions of recruiting candidates, helping candidates devise strategies for campaigns and the mobilisation of votes – again obscuring the parties' relevance. So much so that during the period 1950-1980 neither party could claim full credit for the nations " achievements nor accept responsibility for any failures (Peele et. al, 1992). It has been argued that the party in government suffers from overload, in that the increased democratisation of American society has inhibited the decision making process where failure to provide coherent programmes and alack of compromise between Congress and the Presidency tends to negate the relevance of the party. Congressional majorities are limited substantially in power, given the bicameral system, and the majority group often has to reject Presidential initiatives, as to accept them would recognise Presidential prowess and thus indirectly support his re-election, and vice-versa. This does convey to us the structural constraint of the separation of powers, with parties unable to suppress candidate-centred politics and their campaigns. The campaigns themselves have been transformed by the mass-media.

Since the 1960's the media have become the primary link between voter and candidate. Many voters evaluate candidates in personal terms more than in terms of issues. With careful use of the media the candidate has a good opportunity to change voter perception. Television in particular plays a large role in creating candidate impressions and rarely do T.V. advertisements mention acandidates' party affiliation; their prime focus is on personal attributes.

A lessening of party influence can also be seen in the way campaigns are managed, where aspiring candidates are now counselled by an elite group of specialists and professionals. These individuals are accountable to their employers – the candidates – and not the nations' citizens or voting public. As Rousseau would put it, the particular will (the elite) will prevail over the general will (the electorate). Epstein (1986), however, argues that many candidates run a campaign based on personal appeal rather than party appeal, yet they are financed and resourced by the party.

Therefore, parties do play an important role, even in candidate-centred campaigns. The first attempt at party reform came in the McGovern-Fraser Committee of 1967, and later commissions opened up the process to the rank- and-file members thus leading to increases in size and representation. The embryo of Democratic reform developed from a progressive movement leading to the proliferation of Presidential primaries and to the lengthening of theparty's selection process. The Republican Party adopted a similar reform programme which was foisted upon them by Democratic Governments and Democrat-controlled legislatures. Reforms made it difficult for party regulars to actually attend State or National Party Conventions, thus increasing the signif ance of issues and encouraging candidate activists to play a bigger role in the politics of the party. The Democratic National Committee was given the power to require State Party Committees to conduct party activities in compliance with National Party rules, copperfasteningthe flow of authority; with flows up from local and State Party Committees and down from the National Committee and National Convention thus invigorating, enhancing, and adding coherency to National State / Party relations.

The emphatic trouncing of the Republicans in the 1974 and 1976 elections heralded in party renewal for the Republicans. These changes were substantially influenced by the candidate-centred nature of American elections. The emphasis now in both parties was to assist their candidates campaign rather than replace them. The domination of Federal elections by parties was now impossible through the Federal Election Campaign Act (F.E.C.A.) of 1974 which limited party expenditure on candidates, thus reinforcing the candidate-cent redness of American elections.

Party renewal led to the reconstruction of the party organisation; they were now fiscally solvent, more diversified and more professional. However, P.A.C. fundraising accounted for the final source of party revenue and contributed substantially towards the organisational and infrastructural investment of the party. Party roles have now changed through the reforms, the new-found strength and modernisation, candidate recruitment, campaign finance and recruitment for the House and Senate, State and local offices. The party organisation has become more cohesive and high-profile in Congressional elections. These changes have taken place within thecandidate-centred system but have not reduced its relevance.

Epstein (1986), however sounds a cautionary note and argues that the increased political role of financial resources cannot of itself account for the development and rise of candidate-centred politics as a substitution for party decline. Reform and renewal have indeed changed the role of theParty, however, many Americans still retain Democratic and Republican identification. Partisanship has declined substantially from the perspective of its ability to structure the vote. Ticket splitting has increased with only a small majority of the electorate now actually believing that they should vote strictly on the basis of party labels. Though having become less central in voting decisions, parties do provide cues for voters even in the absence of candidate-centered appeals.

Decline is obviously visible but not to the extent that Wattenberg (1994) argues. They have changed their roles and now perform different functions differently. It is precisely this adaptive element, which could well be the parties's strength in the dynamic of theAmerican political process. Parties are now more organized and have better resources, but the authority of the party still depends on the support ofthe incumbent President.

The major objective for the party is to help elect individual candidates rather than promote policy; there will still be a limitation on their development and authority in the sense that thecandidate-centered election system is unlikely to be overturned by party activities.

Bibliography

Peele, G., et. al. [eds. ], 1992: Developments in American Politics, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Epstein, L., 1986: Political Parties in the American Mould, London: University of Wisconsin Press.
Wattenberg, M., 1994: Decline of American Political Parties 1952-1988, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.