Political Parties in the United States
Political Party Definition and Structure
Political Party Definition
A political party is a group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by providing them with a label known as “party identification.”
This definition is intentionally broad, encompassing both well-known parties (e.g., Democratic and Republican) and lesser-known parties (e.g., Whig, Libertarian, Socialist Workers).
Covers various strengths of parties, from those with robust organizations to those with minimal resources.
Three Parts of Political Parties
Organization:
Engages in recruitment and campaigning for candidates.
Label:
Exists in the electorate’s mind, influencing voter identity.
Leaders:
Work to organize and control legislative and executive branches of government.
Functions of Political Parties
Candidate Support
Recruit and support candidates in elections.
Find potential candidates and help secure the party’s nomination.
Assist in fundraising, polling, focus groups, and advertising for general elections.
Voter Information
Provide clear labels to help voters identify party alignment when voting.
For example, many Americans identify as Democrats or Republicans, influencing their evaluation of political leaders and voting choices.
Coordination Among Politicians
Ensure coherence among elite politicians in office, helping to organize government chambers.
When the party aligns closely with the President, legislative agendas can be enacted more effectively.
Example: During President Trump’s impeachment trials, only one Republican senator supported the articles of impeachment.
Example: Legislation like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017) and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) passed along partisan lines.
Occasionally, divergence occurs between a President's party and Congress, impacting legislative efforts (e.g., repealing the Affordable Care Act faced opposition from Republican senators).
Power of Political Parties
Characteristics of a Powerful Party
A powerful party has a label that appeals strongly to voters, can choose candidates, and can dominate one or more branches of government.
In the late 19th century, American political parties were strong in these dimensions:
High voter loyalty rooted in patronage.
Dominance of party leaders in Congress.
Party bosses controlled candidate nominations.
Throughout the 20th century, political parties weakened but have seen a resurgence in recent decades, although not to the extent of the 19th century.
Comparison with Political Parties Abroad
Weaker Position of American Parties
Generally, American parties are weaker than those in many advanced industrialized and parliamentary democracies due to the following reasons:
Control of Access to the Ballot:
In the U.S., primary elections allow voters to select party candidates, limiting party control.
In Europe, party leaders usually control candidate placement on the ballot, which reinforces party authority.
Unified Legislative and Executive Branches in Parliamentary Systems:
In Europe, winning control of Congress allows a party to select the prime minister, enhancing political careers through cabinet positions.
In the U.S., resignation from Congress is required for cabinet roles, limiting appeal.
Decentralization of Political Authority in Federal Systems:
U.S. federalism means local and state levels have significant political authority, making party organization less centralized.
Important governance decisions occur at state and local levels, leading parties to focus more on these areas.
Federated Structure's Impact
American political parties operate on national, state, and local levels, complicating organizational strength and future leader development.
Despite the presidency being a major goal, state and local parties remain critical for recruitment and development.
9.2
The Rise and Decline of the Political Party
Overview of Party History
The political history of the United States can be divided into five major periods relating to the evolution of political parties:
Creation of Political Parties (Founding to the 1820s): Formation of parties and their early influences.
Stabilization of the Two-Party System (1820s to Civil War): Emergence of the two-party system during Andrew Jackson's presidency.
Comprehensive Organizational Development (Civil War to Early 20th Century): Development of parties with coherent structures and public outreach.
Party Reform Era (Early 1900s to late 1960s): Initiatives aimed at reforming party representation and organization.
Modern Polarization and Resurgence (Late 1960s to Present): Current dynamics of political party influence in America.
Figure 9.1: Cleavages and Continuity in the Two-Party System
Illustrates the major shifts within the party system over time.
Detailed Periods of American Political History
The Founding (1790s–1820s)
The first organized political party is identified as the Republicans, supporters of Thomas Jefferson, who emerged around the 1790s.
The Republicans aimed to portray their opponents, the Federalists (followers of Alexander Hamilton), as potential monarchists.
The political climate was characterized by loose local caucuses of notable figures, particularly dominated by Federalists in New England and Republicans in the South.
Key events during this period include:
In 1796, John Adams narrowly defeats Jefferson, leading to Jefferson's vice presidency.
Jefferson wins the presidency in 1800 and emphasizes unity in his inaugural address, although tensions remain high.
Jefferson's presidency leads to a decline of the Federalist Party, culminating with Federalists virtually disappearing as a political force by the early 1820s.
The Jacksonian Era (1820s–1860s)
The emergence of the second party system around 1824, marked by mass political participation:
In 1824, approximately 365,000 popular votes were cast; by 1828, the number surpassed 1 million.
By 1840, over 2 million votes were cast in presidential elections.
Significant legislative changes included the selection of presidential electors by popular vote, shifting from state legislature selection.
The system transitioned from caucus nominations to party conventions, a notable transformation:
The Anti-Masonic Party held the first convention in 1831, pioneering this practice. The Democrats followed suit by nominating Andrew Jackson in 1832.
Civil War and Sectionalism (1860s–Early 20th Century)
Anti-slavery sentiments led to the rise and dominance of the Republican Party, which originated as a third party:
The split over slavery led to the collapse of existing party structures, resulting in the Republicans claiming a major place in politics post-Civil War.
Polarization occurred predominantly along Unionist and Confederate lines, influencing loyalty to parties for generations.
Significant impacts included historical shifts in party power, notably solidly Republican North versus Democratic South.
The candidacy of William Jennings Bryan in 1896 further solidified partisan divisions, securing Republican dominance in northern states while maintaining Democratic loyalty in southern states.
The Era of Reform (Early to Mid-20th Century)
A push for progressive reforms was aimed at reducing political corruption and reforming party structures:
Emphasis on primary elections over conventions as a means to limit party boss influence.
Advocated for strict voter registration measures to minimize fraud, albeit creating barriers for ordinary voters.
Notable reforms in states like California (Hiram Johnson) and Wisconsin (Robert La Follette) pushed direct democracy instruments like initiatives and referenda.
These progressives successfully decreased overt political machinery influence but weakened parties overall, complicating recruitment and accountability of officeholders.
Polarization and Resurgence (Mid-20th Century to Today)
Political parties overall experienced a decline, with low levels of party loyalty and activism.
The period saw a notable split in Democratic solidarity, particularly between Northern and Southern Democrats, especially during civil rights legislation debates.
Gradually, parties began to polarize ideologically along critical issues such as race, taxes, and civil rights:
The South transitioned towards a Republican majority, diverging from its historical Democratic identity.
Candidates grew more reliant on personal branding rather than party affiliation, leading to increased election candidate agency.
The modern party system reflects this polarization, often leading to gridlock in legislatures as party lines remain starkly divided.
Party Realignments
Significant political shifts, termed realignment periods, have occurred historically:
Major examples include:
1800: Jeffersonian Republicans defeated Federalists.
1828: Rise of Jacksonian Democrats.
1860: Republican dominance following the collapse of the Whig party.
1896: Republicans gain traction against the backdrop of Bryan's candidacy.
1932: Roosevelt and the New Deal herald a Democratic resurgence.
Realignment can manifest as either:
The disappearance of a major party (e.g., Federalists in 1800).
A shift in voter loyalty where voters switch support between existing parties (e.g., from one election to another).
Contemporary scholars argue against a single definitive realignment today, noting instead gradual ideological and demographic changes across multiple facets.
9.3
The Functions of Political Parties
Overview of Political Party Functions
Primary Function of Political Parties: The main aim of political parties is to elect candidates to office. This involves several key activities:
Recruiting candidates to run for office.
Nominating these candidates for elections.
Assisting candidates in gaining voter support in the general election.
Recruiting Candidates
Importance of Recruitment: The first step in the election process is to convince individuals to run for office. Many potential political candidates do not consider this option until approached by party leaders.
Crucial Role of Party Leaders: Party leaders conduct recruitment efforts, focusing on finding quality candidates who significantly increase the party's chances of winning elections.
Example: Alabama Senate Race
Case Study of Candidate Quality: The special 2017 Alabama Senate race illustrated the importance of candidate quality:
Republicans had historically dominated Alabama elections.
Roy Moore was the Republican primary candidate but faced allegations of sexual misconduct.
Democrat Doug Jones won, showcasing how candidate reputation can impact electoral outcomes despite party affiliation.
Jones later lost re-election in 2020 against a less controversial Republican candidate, demonstrating fluctuations in voter support based on candidate qualities.
Historical Trends in Candidate Recruitment
Republican Party Developments: In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Republicans transformed into a well-funded organization dedicated to recruiting candidates. This included:
Providing legal and financial advice.
Conducting research and analysis on voting trends.
Launching advertising campaigns.
Democratic Party Response: Following Republican initiatives, Democrats also established recruitment and candidate training programs.
Impact of Candidate Recruitment on Policy: The types of candidates recruited can influence party policy direction. For instance, Nebraska's legislature became polarized due to the recruitment of more extreme political candidates.
Influencing Younger Candidates
Engagement With Younger Voters: Studies indicate younger voters often view politics as ineffective and are less likely to run for office. However, targeted recruitment can engage this demographic:
Help younger candidates recognize the potential of politics to address important issues.
Local offices serve as launching pads for future political careers.
Nominating Candidates
Process Overview: Once candidates are recruited, parties must decide who will represent them in elections, historically achieved through caucuses and conventions. Presently, most nominations occur via:
Primary Elections.
Types of Primary Elections
Closed Primaries: Only registered party members can vote for nominees. Voters must declare their party affiliation before voting. For example:
Independent voters are excluded.
Open Primaries: Voters can choose to participate in any party's primary without declaring an affiliation. However, voters can only contribute to one party's primary. Concerns include:
Crossover voting could influence outcomes.
Top-Two Primaries: All candidates compete on one ballot, with the top two advancing to the general election. Examples include:
Use in California and Washington.
Nebraska's state legislature utilizes this in a nonpartisan manner.
Consequences of Primary Types
Primary System Impacts:
States with closed primaries typically have stronger party affiliations, affecting party mobilization and stability.
Open or top-two systems might favor moderate candidates due to a broader electorate, although empirical support for this claim is limited.
Nominations via Convention
National Conventions: Nominations for presidential candidates primarily occur at national conventions:
The national committee organizes the convention, deciding on delegate allocation and selection rules.
Types of Delegates:
Pledged Delegates: Elected through primaries and caucuses, bound to support particular candidates at the convention.
Unpledged Delegates (Super-Delegates): Party officials whose support can influence elections but are not required to follow delegate leads.
Delegate Allocation Differences
Democratic vs. Republican Delegate Allocation:
Democrats use a more proportional method for allocation.
Republicans employ a combination of proportional representation and winner-take-all systems.
Historical Context of Conventions
Shift From Party Bosses: Reforms in the 1970s and 1980s sought to democratize the nomination process by reducing party bosses' powers, primarily resulting in activists wielding more influence:
Activists represent more polarized views compared to typical voters, pushing candidates to take more extreme positions to secure their support.
Helping Candidates Win Elections
Role of Political Parties: After recruiting and nominating candidates, parties assist them in winning elections through various methods:
Providing party labels, which significantly influence voter decisions (over 90% of voters support their party's nominees).
Engaging in get-out-the-vote campaigns, a strategy popularized by the Obama campaign, to mobilize supporters.
Provision of Resources: Parties offer support in several forms:
Campaign staff, polling data, lists of supporters, and funds, despite federal contribution limits (e.g., $5,000 limit on direct donations per election). Donations signal candidate quality to other potential donors, enhancing their support chances.
Ethical Implications of Primary Structures
Debate on Primary Systems: The change from closed to open primaries raises questions about fairness and effectiveness:
Arguments for Open Primaries:
Inclusivity allows all voters a say in candidate selection.
May lead to more moderate candidates who appeal to a broader electorate.
Arguments Against Open Primaries:
Party integrity might be compromised as members of opposing parties may influence primary outcomes.
Party members should hold the prerogative to decide nominations.
9.4
Parties as Organizations
Political parties operate at national, state, and local levels, but they do not function like a corporate hierarchy.
Parties are independent at different levels (national, state, local) and coordinate for specific activities but lack a top-down control structure.
Volunteers and Voter Registration:
Example: Volunteers registering voters ahead of the 2022 midterm elections (Image Reference: Elijah Nouvelage/The Washington Post/Getty Images).
The National Parties
Purpose and Activities:
Main responsibilities include calling the national party convention, representing the party in media, and raising funds.
Fundraising is critical to a candidate's success, especially given recent political changes.
Fundraising figures from 2020 election cycle:
Presidential candidates raised over 44 billion.
Congressional candidates raised another 44 billion.
National parties raised an additional 3.23.2 billion.
Fund allocation:
Some funds go directly to candidates, while others support state and local parties.
Reinforced strength of both national and local parties.
State and Local Parties
Structure and Independence:
Each state has its own unique party structure, leading to significant variation (one party for each political party in each of the 50 states).
Thousands of local parties exist, each differing greatly from one another.
Historical Context:
Traditional state and local parties were often referred to as political machines, which utilized tangible incentives for recruitment (jobs, money, favors).
Political machines represented a high control over member activity; patronage was a critical function.
Example: Tammany Hall machine in New York City wielded considerable power through patronage.
During the 1870s: Estimated one in eight New York City voters had government jobs.
Key government sources of patronage:
Federal bureaucracy and postal system (notable mention: James N. Tyner's role as postmaster general intended to secure votes).
Evolving Functions of Parties
Changes in Party Dynamics:
Previous reliance on political jobs is decreasing as voter sophistication grows.
As educational and income levels increased, voters became less dependent on local party assistance.
By the mid-1980s, traditional party organization styles declined significantly.
Contemporary Party Structure:
Modern parties are often dominated by intense policy advocates, coming mostly from social movements (civil rights, environmentalism, etc.).
Candidates seeking party endorsement typically face a 'litmus test' from party activists.
Social movements increasingly serve as sources for party candidates—acting as modern-day farm clubs.
Perception of Influence:
Historically thought to be ineffective, research shows current parties exert significant influence despite less power than previous machines.
Partly due to improved fundraising strategies and rule changes in campaign finance, enabling state parties to wield increased power.
Infrastructure and Services:
Enhanced fundraising has equipped state and local parties to build stronger infrastructures and offer more candidate services.
Parties today, however, remain less powerful compared to their historical counterparts of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Historical Example of Machine Politics
George Washington Plunkitt:
Former senator from Tammany Hall elucidates on machine politics circa 1905.
Reference: Image of Plunkitt from atop a bootblack stand in front of the New York County Courthouse, highlighting historical context.
9.5
Parties in the Electorate: Partisanship
Definition of Partisanship: Partisanship is defined as a stable, long-term attachment to a political party, often termed a voter’s partisan identification.
Voters often align with specific parties based on their backgrounds, leading to a persistent association with either Democrats or Republicans.
Influencing Factors for Voter Partisanship:
Parental Partisanship: The partisanship of an individual's parents significantly influences their own partisan identity.
Example: Children of Republican parents typically identify as Republicans.
Political Environment During Coming of Age: The political environment at the time individuals come of age plays a significant role in shaping their partisanship.
Example: Voters who came of age under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush tend to be more Republican than those who experienced early politics during Bill Clinton's tenure.
Stability of Partisanship:
Partisanship tends to be remarkably stable over time, with individuals often maintaining their party identity well into old age.
Example: Voters who identified as Democrats at age 18 are likely still identifying as Democrats at age 75, unaffected by various political changes throughout their life.
Partisanship as Group Affiliation:
Partisanship can be likened to belonging to a like-minded political group or team.
Policy Dynamics: Inside/Outside the Box
Bipartisan Entrepreneurial Politics:
While partisanship often drives party-line voting in Congress for significant legislation (examples include the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the American Rescue Plan), many important bills are passed with bipartisan support.
Example of Bipartisan Legislation: The 2018 First Step Act.
Key Features of the First Step Act:
Reforms:
Shortening Prison Sentences: Allows judges to waive mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses, particularly drug charges.
Increasing Inmate Rehabilitation: Provides inmates with incentives to engage in vocational and rehabilitative programs to better prepare them for re-entry into society.
Broad Support Base:
The bill had support from various groups across the political spectrum and over thirty co-sponsors from both parties, including noted figures from both the Democratic and Republican parties.
Concept of Cost and Benefit in Reforms:
The costs of the First Step Act are concentrated among specific groups that benefit from maintaining the status quo—such as private prison firms and corrections officers.
The benefits, however, disperse widely, impacting society as a whole by reducing costs associated with incarceration and lowering recidivism rates due to enhanced rehabilitation programs.
Need for Policy Entrepreneurs:
Particularly crucial in the context of the First Step Act since the bill was at odds with President Trump’s initially tough-on-crime campaign stance.
Influencers in the Success of the Legislation:
Conservative Skepticism Toward Harsh Sentencing: Some conservatives questioned 1990s sentencing policies and advocated for reform.
Key groups like the Charles Koch Foundation and politicians such as Rick Perry led successful state-level reforms.
Jared Kushner's Involvement: As an influential figure in the Trump administration with personal ties to prison reform, Kushner helped to rally bipartisan support and convince President Trump to endorse the bill, utilizing celebrities to advocate for reform.
Outcomes: President Trump signed the First Step Act into law in December 2018, reflecting the power of bipartisan advocacy in policy formulation.
Partisanship and Changing Political Landscape
Change and Stability in Partisanship:
While partisanship is generally stable, significant events can lead to shifts in partisan identification.
Example: Following the 9/11 attacks, voter alignment shifted towards Republicans due to perceived competence in national security.
Changes are typically modest in absence of major events, even during presidencies marked by significant activity.
Historical Partisan Trends from 1952 to 2020:
The distribution of partisanship has evolved, with significant shifts noted over time.
Statistical Observations: The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrowed; more than 60% were Democrats in the 1950s, currently only a few percentage points separate the two.
Impact of the Solid South's Decline: White Southerners transitioned from predominantly Democratic identification towards Republican alignment on issues like civil rights.
Independent Voter Dynamics:
Reports suggest that about 40% of Americans identify as Independents. However, true Independent numbers are much lower in political analysis, where polling designates leaners with associated parties.
Case Study of 2020 National Election Study:
Initial independent identification: 35% of Americans labeled as Independents.
After leaner questioning: 11% leaned Democratic, 10% leaned Republican, and 14% leaned neither.
Behavior of Independent Leaners:
Independent leaners demonstrate similar behaviors to partisans in attitudes and voting choices. Despite self-identifying as Independent, these voters often align closely with one party during elections.
Partisanship's Influence on Political Behavior
Partisan Influence on Attitudes and Vote Choice:
Voter partisanship significantly shapes opinions and voting behavior, as evidenced by surveys and analysis.
Trends in Presidential Elections (1952-2020):
Analysis shows that party loyalty has become comparable between Democrats and Republicans, nearing a 90% support rate for presidential nominees of respective parties.
Interpreting Political Events Through Partisan Lenses:
Partisanship highly influences perceptions of the economy and political events. For instance, under different Presidents, the interpretation of economic conditions shifted based on party control.
Statically significant patterns observed regarding consumer sentiment pre- and post-elections.
Research Findings on Perception Bias:
Studies demonstrate that partisans evaluated economic improvements based on their partisan affiliation, suggesting a strong engagement with political narratives tailored by party loyalty.
Trend Example: Responses to economic inquiries during Republican-led administrations versus Democratic-led administrations showed stark partisan discrepancies in perceived economic conditions.
Implication of Partisan Engagement:
Such partisan responses reflect voters' active engagement in political processes, aligning their perceptions with party narratives and expectations rather than purely on objective analysis of the economic or political situation.
9.6
The Two-Party System
Overview of the U.S. Political Parties
The U.S. political party system is different from that of most democracies, which typically have multiple parties.
The two-party system in the U.S. is distinctive and rare globally, with fewer than thirty nations adopting it.
Historical Context and Electoral Wins
Between 1888 and 2024:
Republicans won 19 presidential elections.
Democrats won 16 presidential elections.
Temporary party dominance has occurred:
Democrats appeared "dead" in the early 20th century but recovered.
Republicans faced the same narrative during the 1930s and 1960s.
The balance of power varies at state and congressional district levels:
The South was formerly a stronghold for the Democratic Party.
Upper New England and the Dakotas showed a persistent Republican base.
Current trend shows competitiveness across regions.
Democrats generally perform better in major urban areas, while Republicans do better in rural communities.
Explanations for the Permanence of the Two-Party System
Election System:
U.S. elections use a plurality, winner-take-all method.
A candidate can win without a majority of votes, defining many elections.
Distribution of Public Opinion:
Voters generally support one of the two major parties, seeing them effectively represent distinct positions:
Majority of Americans perceive differences between Democratic and Republican platforms.
Party positions on social issues like poverty, environment, and healthcare typically favor Democrats. Republicans are viewed as better at handling national defense, foreign trade, and crime.
Polls suggest public interest in a third party (e.g., 68% in a 2018 poll), yet opinions on its ideology are divided:
No consensus exists on whether it should be centrist, left-wing, or right-wing, complicating the feasibility of a third party.
Features of the Winner-Take-All System
Most members of Congress are elected from single-member districts.
The Electoral College exemplifies winner-take-all:
Except in Maine and Nebraska, the candidate securing the most votes in a state wins all electoral votes for that state.
Example from the 2020 election:
Joe Biden won Arizona with only a margin of 0.31%, leading to all 11 electoral votes.
Minor party candidates rarely secure electoral votes due to perceived ineffectiveness, leading voters to prioritize candidate viability.
Impact of Minor Parties
Minor parties persist despite electoral disadvantages, categorized as:
Ideological Parties: Encompass broad perspectives, often left-leaning. Examples include the Socialist Party, Socialist Labor Party, and Communist Party.
Historical note: The Socialist Party achieved nearly 6% of the vote in 1912 and held over 1,200 local offices.
Single-Issue Parties: Focused on specific issues like the Free Soil Party against slavery or the Woman's Party for women's suffrage.
Economic Protest Parties: Address economic grievances, e.g., the Populist Party and the Greenback Party.
Factional Parties: Split from major parties due to specific disagreements; examples include the Bull Moose Progressive Party and the Dixiecrat Party.
Limited electoral success is noted among minor parties and independent movements, often failing to achieve significant wins.
Historical Context of Minor Parties and Their Influence
Minor parties have historically influenced major parties:
Their ideas often inspire policy changes in major party platforms, albeit indirectly.
Noteworthy points on electoral influence:
The Democratic Party moved left in part due to pressure from dissident factions rather than direct influence from minor parties.
Electoral success examples of minor parties include electoral votes from the Populists and the American Independent Party.
The Tea Party Movement
Emerged in 2009, emphasizing government spending critiques and crucial conservative policy advocacy.
Impact on Republican politics has been significant, influencing elected officials and policy direction.
Despite claims of being a temporary phenomenon, the Tea Party has shaped Republican leadership and paved the way for Donald Trump's rise, cementing its lasting implications in party politics.
Conclusion
The two-party system in America has persisted due to unique electoral mechanics and public perception of party representation.
Minor parties remain an essential part of the political landscape, fostering dialogue and sometimes directly influencing the positions of major parties, though they face considerable obstacles in achieving electoral success.