Party Decline

Download the workbook here

Enquiry Question:

Are political parties in the USA in decline?

The context to the debate

Learning Outcomes

 

• To explore the debate begun in 1970s over the continuing relevance of political parties
• To understand what is meant by the terms ‘party renewal’ and ‘party decline’
• To review the main characteristics one would see in politics if there was party renewal / decline
• To assess the ideological differences between the main political parties and the extent of partisanship in Congress

Reading Material:

You will need to draw on material from across units 3 and 4 to give you the most comprehensive material for this question:

• Bennett p.142-145
• Zig Zag p.58-60 and sample answer p.63

Examination Questions:

• Have the 2 main US political parties experienced a revival in recent years? (45 marks)
• Has there been a renewal of US political parties in recent years? (45 marks)
• Parties do not matter any more. Discuss. (45 marks)
• ‘The party is dead’. Discuss this view of US political parties. (45 marks)

 

Outline of the debate

Broder *(1972) ‘The party is over’

Brogan said America parties are ‘like two bottles with different labels, both empty’

Bailey (1990) ‘the parties are no longer doing the things which parties are even minimally expected to do’

 

• Compared to other Western democracies the party in the US is seen to have far less relevance.
• Political commentators said that the role of parties has diminished even further throughout the 20^th century.
• The PARTY IS DEAD.
• However, this view of the parties has been strongly challenged since the 1990s – the talk now is of PARTY RENEWAL.
• There are strong signs that parties are trying to regain some control of the political processes and there is strong partisanship in congress, suggesting that there must be distinct characters for each of the parties and they now have greater IDEOLOGICAL COHESION.

 

KEY WORDS:

• Partisan- A strongly committed supporter of a party who is unwilling to compromise.
• Partisanship- A political climate of strong, passionate divisions in which there are significant tensions between parties.

Introduction

What does the cartoon suggest about the strength of parties in the US?

 

How might we challenge this view with contemporary evidence?

 

Key Question:
The theory of “party decline” is increasingly out of date.’ Discuss.

PARTY DECLINE

What evidence would indicate that parties are in decline?

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

PARTY RENEWAL 

Ronald Brownstein ‘ The Second Civil War’  – party loyalty increased so much that it is becoming parliamentary in character….US politics much more ideologically polarised while European parties becoming more consensual.

What evidence would indicate that parties are in renewal?

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

ANALYTICAL THINKING:

What is your initial view? Do you think parties are in decline or is there a renewal?

Students quite frequently write that American parties are loose groupings and largely free of coherent ideology.  But this analysis ignores the steep rise in partisanship evident in the USA in recent decades. Election contests are bitterly fought, platforms more divided, votes in Congress more visibly down party lines than ever.  It is true that some Democrats or Republicans share a similar stance on the odd policy or two, e.g. rural or Southern Democrats may oppose tougher control.  But there is much more that divides them than unites them.

YOUR TASK: Cartoon Analysis

What does the cartoon suggest about partisanship?

 

What does the graph suggest about party decline or party renewal?

 

ARGUMENTS

YOUR TASK:

• Read the arguments and evidence in the table below.
• Colour code the statements to show whether they illustrate “Party Decline” or “Party Renewal”.

The presidential candidate is free to establish his/her own party platform – this is required as a president needs to appeal to the whole nation and attract swing voters to win. This might differ to the general party platform.	Primaries can emphasise internal arguments between party factions – destroying unity of party – e.g. 2010 RP mid-term primaries showed divisions between Tea Party endorsed candidates such as Michelle Bachman and other more moderate Republicans.	Parties have limited input into primaries and caucuses compared to 50 years ago. Candidates organise their own campaigns without party input as they are contesting internal elections.
Party identification since 1960s – break down of new deal coalition and emergence of other distinct voter groups for each party. The break up of the New Deal Coalition means that distinct groups such as women and African Americans are reliably DP. A clear constituency for both parties has emerged based around specific issues.	National campaign strategies Contract with America in 1994 – a 10 point programme to unify the RP around more conservative values. 2006 – DP ‘Six for 06’ campaign to take control of the House. Nanci Pelosi has played a role like the ‘party whip’ in the UK.	Across the aisle cooperation used to be commonplace but now 90% party voting – this started to be evident in cases such as the Clinton impeachment but party loyalty is  even more evident now. No RP voted for Obama’s bailout plan for the banks in 2009.
Party backing for presidential candidates. It is difficult to become candidate for a party without the party’s backing e.g. in 04 there was a collapse of support for Howard Dean – Kerry was the favoured party candidate. In 2000, Bush was favoured over McCain.	The introduction of superdelegates gives the party more control over the presidential nominee. There was close media scrutiny over which superdelegates supported Obama and Clinton in the 08 contest.	There was consensus in the post 9/11 era over the war on terror and the establishment of the department for homeland security. This was the era of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act.
Split ticket voting (not straight ticket voting for all the politicians from the same party) was 13% in 1952 but had increased to 28% in 1980. This suggests that voters are not firmly committed to one party and will take into consideration individual personalities of politicians.	Continued rifts within the political parties– i.e. not acting as one unit but as different competing factions. This is particularly evident in the RP currently with contests in primaries between conservative elements of the party – e.g. Rick Santorum – liberal elements of the party – e.g. Ron Paul – and moderate elements of the party – e.g. Mitt Romney.	DP and Democratic National Committee (DNC) has become more high profile.From 2004 – in order to win back the house – the DP established a permanent headquarters and implemented a better communication strategy. In 2006 they had a much more professional approach to fundraising and in 2008 there was effective national and local coordination.
Increased support for pressure groups. Pressure group affiliation in the USA is high. Many people – particularly the young – are attracted to single issue politics At state level there is more party membership but many of the activists support specific personalities or single issues as opposed to buying into the party ideology.	RP and Brock Reforms and appointment of Reince Preibus has strengthened Republican National Committee (RNC). Increased profile of NC in last 20 years – headquarters established and better fundraising. Appointment of Reince Preibus has given more strategic direction to the RNC.	House Speaker has increasingly managed to dominate the selection of committee chairs and membership. This was seen in 2012 when House Speaker John Boehner conducted a ‘purge’ of Republicans who had failed to support his position on the fiscal cliff.
Examples of defections from one party to another because they cannot identify with their parties any more – e.g. 2001 James Jeffords defected to DP/ Zell Miller moved from DP to RP  saying he ‘barely recognised his party’/ Senator Specter defected from RP when supporting Obama’s stimulus bill.	Whilst it is true that there have been some positive outcomes from national party platforms of ideas – e.g. Contract with America – they cannot be long lived and enduring due to the localised nature of politics in the USA. In 1998 Newt Gingrich was forced to resign.	The separation of powers means that the ability to control politicians within the party by party patronage is reduced. (there is no executive patronage like in the UK)The politicians in Congress are ultimately reliant on their district electorate for re-election – and this happens every 2 years.
As a result of pork barrel politics, there are lower levels of party unity in congressional voting. Ideological ‘dogma’ is not as present in votes. Some would suggest that the influence of pressure groups/ PAC funding also has a strong influence on voting decisions.	There are individual examples of politicians whose politics bear greater resemblance to the other party –e.g. Arnold Shwarzenegger – socially liberal RP governor of CA.	Pressure groups such as Rock the Vote and the Christian Coalition are carrying out roles traditionally associated with political parties. They are mobilising the population to vote, publicising voting records etc.
Technological advances such as facebook, on-line infomercials and twitter mean that candidates do not need the support of the party as much as in the past. They can enlist support and develop a personal relationship with voters by other means.	The US has polarised over issues such as gun-control, abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage. This has led to some Republicans, such as Senator Jim Jeffords, leaving the Republicans as the moderates were becoming too weak.	The rise of 527 groups and Super PACs are now crucial in collection of funds to fight elections. The Washington Post claimed 80% of Romney’s advertising spending in the 2012 presidential race came from Super PACs.
Both major parties are still fairly broad coalitions, e.g. the gulf between ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats and liberal elements of the Democratic Party was evident in the battle over health care	Parties do not fight elections as a united body, & despite the nationalisation of congressional elections since 1994, in most congressional campaign ads candidates will not mention their party’s name.	Increased party control of Congress, evident in the recent leadership of the House, both GOP & Democratic, and united opposition of the GOP to President Obama.
Republicans in Congress were united in their opposition to the passage of ‘Obamacare’ and the Republican-controlled House of the 112th Congress passed legislation 33 times repealing it.	Republicans were opposed to the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in December 2010 and the intention of the administration announced in February 2011 to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.	Republicans opposed the stimulus package passed in 2009 and there have been a series of confrontations subsequently over e.g. the raising of the debt ceiling, the extension of the payroll tax ‘holiday’ and the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

PARTY DECLINE

Parties have reduced control over the election process

Parties have limited input into primaries and caucuses compared to 50 years ago

• Presidential and congressional candidates used to be chosen by the party bosses in ‘smoke filled rooms’
• Candidates organise their own campaigns without party input as they are contesting internal elections
• Primaries can emphasise internal arguments between party factions – destroying unity of party – e.g. 2010 RP mid-term primaries showed divisions between Tea Party endorsed candidates such as Michelle Bachman and other more moderate Republicans.
• There has been an increase in primaries compared to caucuses – the party activists have a greater role in caucuses

 

The party role at national conventions is an illusion (party platform, vice-president)

• The presidential candidate is free to establish his/her own party platform – this is required as a president needs to appeal to the whole nation and attract swing voters to win. This might differ to the general party platform.
• The previous roles of the national conventions have declined – naming the VP, discussing party platform etc.
• The party only comes together in a show of unity once every 4 years

New modes of communication supplanting the political rally and emphasising personality politics

• Technological advances such as facebook, on-line infomercials and twitter mean that candidates do not need the support of the party as much as in the past. They can enlist support and develop a personal relationship with voters by other means. E,g, Obama perfected these techniques in 2008

Mobilisation of voters by other organisations (pressure groups)

• Pressure groups such as Rock the Vote and the Christian Coalition are carrying out roles traditionally associated with political parties. They are mobilising the population to vote, publicising voting records etc.

 

Partisan de-alignment and ideological consensus (If the parties are very similar to each other then it could be argued that the parties have no meaning)

Increase in ‘independent voters ‘ since 1970s showing a decrease in party identification and loyalty

• There are about 30% independent voters in the USA – this does not mean they won’t vote DP or RP but that they are not completely loyal to one party. The fact that recent election results show a 50/50 split between the main parties shows that independent voters can and are willing to go either way.
• Does this suggest a lack of MAJOR ideological difference between the main parties?

The post 9/11 era brought about some ideological consensus between the parties – showing that they do not each have an unique identity

• There was consensus in the post 9/11 era over the war on terror and the establishment of the department for homeland security. This was the era of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act.
• Ideological consensus or similarity has also been shown previously –e.g. Many RP politicians were willing to cross the floor to find Clinton not guilty.
• Furthermore, Michael Bloomberg swapped party from DP to RP to secure nomination of New York mayor.
• There are individual examples of politicians whose politics bear greater resemblance to the other party –e.g. Arnold Shwarzenegger – socially liberal RP governor of CA.

This is linked to the increase in split ticket voting

• Split ticket voting (not straight ticket voting for all the politicians from the same party) was 13% in 1952 but had increased to 28% in 1980. This suggests that voters are not firmly committed to one party and will take into consideration individual personalities of politicians.

Continued rifts within the political parties demonstrating a lack of party renewal – i.e. not acting as one unit but as different competing factions. NB: Media is focussing on the splits in the RP during the congressional primary process in 2012.

• If the party is renewed you would expect there to be unity around a commonly accepted set of principles.
• However, there is as much division within the parties as there is between them. This is particularly evident in the RP currently with contests in primaries between conservative elements of the party – e.g. Rick Santorum – liberal elements of the party – e.g. Ron Paul – and moderate elements of the party – e.g. Mitt Romney.

 

Separation of powers

Pork Barrel politics – Washington run by 536 (House/Senate and President) individual political entrepreneurs

• The separation of powers means that the ability to control politicians within the party by party patronage is reduced. (there is no executive patronage like in the UK)
• The politicians in Congress are ultimately reliant on their district electorate for re-election – and this happens every 2 years. They will be more likely to act in the interests of their electorate at a local level than the needs of the party at a national level.

Low levels of ‘party voting’ – strong evidence and acceptability of crossing the floor

• As a result of pork barrel politics, there are lower levels of party unity in congressional voting.
• Ideological ‘dogma’ is not as present in votes
• Some would suggest that the influence of pressure groups/ PAC funding also has a strong influence on voting decisions e.g. Firestone Tyre scandal

Arguable that party platforms don’t last due to the federal nature of USA

• Whilst it is true that there have been some positive outcomes from national party platforms of ideas – e.g. Contract with America – they cannot be long lived and enduring due to the localised nature of politics in the USA. In 1998 Newt Gingrich was forced to resign.

Increasing importance of pressure groups as an alternative to parties

Increased support for pressure groups

• Pressure group affiliation in the USA is high. Many people – particularly the young – are attracted to single issue politics
• At state level there is more party membership but many of the activists support specific personalities or single issues as opposed to buying into the party ideology.

Campaign Finance legislation – PACs and 527 groups – low levels of party donations

• PACs have mushroomed since the 1970s and, despite campaign finance regulations, have found many ways to donate to a candidate’s campaign.
• The recent Supreme Court ruling has relaxed some of the legislation governing the contributions by PACs meaning that they look set to continue playing an important role in the funding of elections (a traditional role played by the parties).

PARTY RENEWAL

Ronald Brownstein ‘ The Second Civil War’  – party loyalty increased so much that it is becoming parliamentary in character….US politics much more ideologically polarised while European parties becoming more consensual.

 

Ideological polarisation – clear partisanship and increased party loyalty/ identity

Party identification since 1960s – break down of new deal coalition and emergence of other distinct voter groups for each party.

• Since the 1960s there has been the emergence of more distinct voter groups for the DP and RP – the break up of the New Deal Coalition means that distinct groups such as women and African Americans are reliably DP. A clear constituency for both parties has emerged based around specific issues.
• Overall the DP has become less conservative over time and the RP has become less moderate on stances such as gay marriage, affirmative action etc.

Partisanship since 1990s (much less cross-party approval) and, in particular, over the last few years

*need examples here of defections from one party to another/ examples of polarised party positions over e.g. wedge issues/ evidence of the RP moving in a conservative direction/ evidence of DP being more moderate or liberal

• Increasing RP conservatism – 2004 presidential and 2006 mid-terms were very value driven elections – e.g. gay marriage.  This was despite the Bush rhetoric of ‘bipartisanship’. Arguably he made the RP a ‘warrior party’.
• Examples of defections from one party to another because they cannot identify with their parties any more – e.g. 2001 James Jeffords defected to DP/ Zell Miller moved from DP to RP  saying he ‘barely recognised his party’/ Senator Specter defected from RP when supporting Obama’s stimulus bill.

Filibuster use becoming more commonplace

National campaigns from RP

• Contract with America in 1994 – a 10 point programme to unify the RP around more conservative values.
• Another RP national strategy in 2002
• 2006 – DP ‘Six for 06’ campaign to take control of the House. Nanci Pelosi has played a role like the ‘party whip’ in the UK.

Increase in party loyalty in voting – much less floor crossing

• Across the aisle cooperation used to be commonplace but now 90% party voting – this started to be evident in cases such as the Clinton impeachment but party loyalty is even more evident now. No RP voted for Obama’s bailout plan for the banks in 2009.
• Opposition to Obama’s healthcare reform – seemed quite an ideological debate.
• Former DP leader Dick Gephardt ‘you are either in the blue team or the red team ..and never wander off’

The evident impact of the actions of individual politicians’ actions on the reputation of the party suggests cohesion in the public eye

• The electorate hold members of the same party accountable for the actions of others within the party e.g. McCain impacted by Bush’s record and the scandals of Mark Foley and Tom de Lay reflected on the RP in 2006 mid-terms.

 

Strengthening of party organisation

Party backing for presidential candidates – the candidate really needs to be supported by the party to succeed

• It is difficult to become candidate for a party without the party’s backing e.g. in 04 there was a collapse of support for Howard Dean – Kerry was the favoured party candidate. In 2000, Bush was favoured over McCain.

The introduction of superdelegates gives the party more control over the presidential nominee

• Increase in party influence with the introduction of superdelegates. There was close media scrutiny over which superdelegates supported Obama and Clinton in the 08 contest. They proved to be highly influential in giving momentum to the Obama nomination.

DP and Democratic National Committee (DNC) has become more high profile.

• From 2004 – in order to win back the house – the DP established a permanent headquarters and implemented a better communication strategy. In 2006 they had a much more professional approach to fundraising and in 2008 there was effective national and local coordination.

RP and Brock Reforms and appointment of Reince Preibus has strengthened Republican National Committee (RNC)

• Increased profile of NC in last 20 years – headquarters established and better fundraising.
• Appointment of Reince Preibus has given more strategic direction to the RNC.

There is a strong party link with specific pressure groups and therefore party influence on donations to the candidates

• NRA and RP
• NOW and DP

 

Third Parties impact is minimal in US politics  – if the main parties were in decline you would expect third parties to flourish

Stagnation in independent voter trends

YOUR TASK:

Read the article: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-politics

Summarise the key points below:

 

 

 

Red/Blue split in election results

 

YOUR TASK:

Analyse the 2016 election results – how does this illustrate party renewal? How successful were minor parties?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/us2016/results

 

 

PARTISANSHIP: The OBAMA ERA

Answers MUST refer to the events of recent years to illustrate the points made. This is considered to be a highly partisan era in US politics so it would be a significant omission in your work to ignore this. EXAMPLES needed.

YOUR TASK:

How partisan did politics become in the Obama era?

Find at least 5 pieces of evidence to suggest that the party is not dead from Obama’s presidency 2008-2016.

 

EXAMPLE	How does this show partisanship?

 

 

ANALYTICAL THINKING

Reflections such as these distinguish excellent from good answers

 

1. 1. 1. Even if the parties have polarised, has the electorate also become more polarised? Are the swing voters as relevant as ever?
      2. Do the parties only strengthen in times of crisis? Is a national strategy sustainable in the USA?
      3. Does the factional nature of the parties mean that a strong, distinct identity of each of the parties will never be possible?
      4. Is partisanship in the presidential contest really a sign of partisan politics? Is what happens in congress more indicative? If so why?

 

 

 

Are the parties alive or dead?

 

Area of debate	There is party revival		There is party decline		How far is the party in decline?
Control over the election process Do the parties have control over the election process or has this been lost to factions and other forces?
Party loyalty Are party members, voters and representatives loyal to a party or do they vote independently?
Parties the main force in political activity Are parties the main force or have other groups such as pressure groups become more important?
A strong ideological identity, distinct from opponents. Do the parties have a strong unified ideology that unites all the members or are the parties divided into multiple factions lacking unity?

Ideological Consensus or Ideological Differences?

 

1. 1. • One of the key indicators to suggest the party has a strong identity and is ‘alive/renewed’ is the level of partisanship in Congress.
      • It is suggested that in recent times that Congress has moved from politicians loosely or nominally associated with their parties, to a much more adversarial battleground.

YOUR TASK:

What would you expect to see happen in Congress if this was the case?

 

 

 

Can you give 5 specific examples to illustrate bipartisanship and/or partisanship in Congress during Trump’s presidency (2017-present)?

 

 

EXAMPLE	How does this show partisanship?

ANALYTICAL THINKING

Reflections such as these distinguish excellent from good answers

1. 1. How partisan has US politics become?
   2. Is this sustainable? What do you predict for the next four years?