Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - US POLITICAL PARTIES (US POLITICAL PARTIES (has…
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - US POLITICAL PARTIES
US POLITICAL PARTIES
has a dominant two-party system around the Democrats and Republicans
parties traditionally viewed as 'big tent' or 'catch-all' parties - containing a wide diversity of views within each party
Because of the Constitution and political system - a capitalist economic system with commitment to private enterprise and free markets and the 'dominant ideology' in the USA with commitment to individualism, liberty, equality and the American Dream
Differences between parties often less than differences within the parties
seen as essentially non-ideological whose primary aim was to maximise their vote in elections in order to gain office rather than to put into practice an ideological blueprint or 'ism'
Big-tent/catch-all party - a political party with membership of diverse viewpoints and ideologies
Usually operated in middle ground of politics rarely straying out of this comfort zone - when they did move outside the mainstream they were heavily defeated - as was the case with the very conservative Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and very liberal Democrat George McGovern in 1972 - lessons learnt from these defeats was that parties must build broad coalitions of voting support to achieve electoral success
Old view that the two main US parties are almost indistinguishable is oversimplified - now many differences between them in terms of their ideologies, values and policies and voting support - often termed the resurgence of party politics and the rise of partisanship
Liberal - A view that seeks to change the political, economic and social status quo and therefore tends to be in favour of the well-being, rights and liberties of the individual, and especially those who are generally disadvantaged by society
Liberalism - the holding of liberal views
Conservative - A view that seeks to defend the political, economic and social status quo and therefore tends to oppose changes in the institutions and structures of society
Conservatism - the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership and socially conservative ideas
DEMOCRAT PARTY
historically the party of the south and the pro-slavery, anti-union party, became the majority party from 1930s when Roosevelt's New Deal program led to realignment in US politics - party won support from a new coalition of voters
the New Deal Coalition compromised of the 'northern wing' of minorities, urban blue-collar workers, trade unionists and liberal intellectuals, its 'southern wing' of white segregationists, conservative voters - strongly identified with the party that had supported slavery and the Confederacy
strength of this voting support made the party the 'natural party of government' from the 1930s to the 1960s when the New Deal finally broke down under the strain of holding such contradictory voting blocs together - breaking point came after the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights legislation when as Lyndon Johnson stated 'the party signed away the south'
since 1960s Democrats have only managed to win the presidency with southern candidates - Carter in 1967 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996 - changed with Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012
what does the Democratic party believe in?
the more liberal party
more activist, interventionist government role in regulating and managing the economy in the interests of all the people
introduction and development of social welfare programs such as Medicare/Obamacare in healthcare to promote greater equality
Equal rights programs such as civil rights, women's rights and gay rights
greater willingness to reform immigration laws
commitment to federal rather than state government action
more 'dovish' foreign policy, internationalist in seeking diplomatic solutions to problems
more 'pro-choice' stance on abortion and more in favour of gun control, environmental protection and ending death penalty
Attracts voting support from
blue-collar workers, trade unionists and less affluent public sector workers attracted by its economic views
minorities attracted by its commitment to equal rights
city dwellers in 'blue states'
intellectuals and radicals attracted to its liberal agenda
a majority of female voters in recent elections
democrat party has lost some of its voting support to the Republicans from - southern, white voters in the 1960s because of its commitment to civil rights and some northern blue-collar voters in the 1970s and 1980s by its perceived liberalsim
loss of support meant that the party became a more cohesive and coherent ideologically liberal party particularly with the shedding of the conservative south from its voter coalition, however the Democrat party is still internally divided on some ideological and policy positions
Main divisions in the Democratic party
Blue Dog Democrats
most fiscally and/or socially conservative Democrats, found primarily in the House - tend to represent more conservative districts and numbered 47 in the 2009-11 session of Congress when they held the balance of power
majority of them voted against the public option in Obama's healthcare reforms which he was forced to abandon
following the 2012 mid-term elections their number of House members fell to just 15
some lost to more conservative Republican challengers but a few such as the founding member, Tim Holden, lost to more liberal Democratic in the primaries beforehand
another indication of increasing polarisation within the two parties
a leading blue dog in the 2012-14 Congress is Jim Matheson from Utah
New Democrat Coalition
centrist grouping is more socially liberal than the Blue Dogs while still being fiscally Conservative (in favour of lower taxes and reduced government expenditure)
supportive of invasion of Iraq in 2003
their origins go back to 1980s when they were 'modernizers' of the Democratic Party whose aim was to rid the party of the tax-and-spend image that had damaged its presidential hopes
wanted to win back more conservative blue-collar and southern voters who had moved to support the Republican Party - did this in 1992 and 1996 with Clinton and Gore on the ticket
following the 2012 mid-term they had around 50 Congressmen and 7 Senators
among leading members in the 2012-14 Congress are senators Mary Landrieu from Louisiana and Bill Nelson from Florida
Progressive Democrats
Centre-left grouping within the Democrat Party founded in 2004
has a 'dovish' approach to foreign affairs and opposed military strikes on Syria in late 2013 as well as favouring universal healthcare and a liberal social agenda
are heirs to the anti-war liberal democrats of the late 1960s and early 1970s such as George McGovern
represent the largest Democrat grouping in the 2012-14 Congress
congressional members include African-American civil rights leader congressman John Lewis from Georgia
REPUBLICAN PARTY
sometimes called 'Grand Old Party'
historically associated with northern, pro-union, anti-slavery views
was the majority party until the 1930s when realignment occurred
became the minority party in congress until 1944 mid-term elections and Newt Gingrich's 'contract with America' which gave the GOP a majority in the House and Senate lasting until 2006
regained control of the House though not the Senate in 2010 and held it in 2012
although holding the presidency from 1980-92 and 2000-8 it failed to defeat Obama in 2012 when it stood a good chance due to the state of the economy - some have put this down to the party shifting too far right
What does the Republican party believe in?
more ideologically Conservative party
committed to a free market economy as free as possible from government intervention and regulation, and supports a less active, more limited government role
fiscally conservative, committed to lower taxes, lower spending and balanced budgets
believes the private rather than the public sector should provide employment, health and welfare (although it supports Medicare thought to be 'untouchable' because of the elderly vote in large numbers and provide a strong 'core' for the party)
does not support interventionist programs to increase the rights of minority groups - its individualistic, self-help philosophy opposes the use of legislation as a way of 'artificially' creating equality
is supportive of traditional family values and social and cultural conservatism
more hawkish on foreign policy issues, committed to high defence spending and the use of power to defend American interests
more committed to states' rights and the decentralisation of power
takes a more 'pro-life' position on abortion and is against gun control while supporting the death penalty and tougher immigration control
voting support from
business and corporate interests
higher-income voters
white voters
rural, small-town and suburban voters in the 'red' states
religious groups especially protestants and evangelicals
Main divisions
traditionally the Republican party was less factionalised than the Democrats but during the Reagan presidency ideological divisions grew between the more moderate and more conservative wings of the party
the 'liberal' wing
moderate
fiscally conservative but socially liberal Republicans, mainly from north-eastern states representing business and corporate interests
known as 'Rockfeller Republicans' or compassionate conservatives of the party
tend to be more favourable towards abortion and gay rights than most Republicans
their influence has declined in recent years with some of their numbers members defecting to the Democrats including former senators Jim Jefford and Arlen Specter
senator Susan Collins from Maine was one of the few remaining moderate GOP senators left in the senate after the 2012 elections
The 'main street' or moderate wing
comprises the centre ground of the Republican party and includes the presidential candidates from 2008 and 2012, Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney
tend to be fiscally more conservative than liberals while being slightly more conservative on social issues
is a lot of variation within this informal grouping over issues such as the death penalty, gay marriage and foreign policy
of all the factions within the GOP they are the least easy to classify categorically
the 'religious right' or neo-conservatives
the 1980s saw the emergence of the religious right, radical rights, or new right conviction-style politics associated with reagan
grouping strongly conservative on social issues and is endorsed by evangelical pressure groups such as the Christian Coalition of America
against abortion and gay marriage and favour traditional family values and a strong Christian presence in the institutions of government
like other Republicans they are also in favour of lower taxes and a balanced budget and oppose any expansion of government welfare programs
tend to favour the death penalty and oppose gun control
strongest in the south
leading figures in this group include ex-vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Texas governor Rick Perry
Generally hawkish on foreign policy and support the Reagan/Bush doctrine of anti-communism and armed intervention in the 'war on terror'
Libertarians
best identified as strongly free market in favour of minimum state intervention and the lowest possible taxes
socially liberal on the grounds of individual liberty and often less-interventionist in foreign policy
represent the most extreme wing of the party fiscally who are keenest to 'get the government off our backs'
Congressman Ron Paul often epitomises this strand of Republican ideology/thinking
some overlap with the Tea Party movements
Tea Party Movement
with its newly consolidated support from the South and support from the so-called 'Reagan Democrats' (blue-collar, 'Joe six-pack' workers in the northern industrial states who switched to the Republican Party because of its more conservative positions in the 1980s) the party controversially won back the presidency in 2000 and won again in 2004
did this by focusing on a socially conservative agenda around the themes of 'Guns, Gays and God' and 'Faith, Flag and Family' as well as national security after 9/11
the conservative wing of the party has been ideologically dominant in Congress and the party base is highly Conservative in its views
the Republicans' defeat in 2008 saw the demise of the formerly successful 'Reagan Coalition' and triggered a debate over the future direction of the party with some fracturing along moderate and conservative ideological lines
related to the decline of moderates in the Republican party is the influence of the more fiscally conservative Tea Party movement since 2009 - served to push the Republican party further to the right and energise the conservative grass roots, fueled by opposition to the bailouts and growing deficiencies in the economy
had an impact on Republican turnout in 2010 and the Republican primaries
there is a Tea Party caucus in the House with around 50 members - led by Michelle Bachmann and a presence in the Senate with senators Rand Paul and Tim Scott
while energising the base of conservative Republican voters this may alienate more moderate, independent voters and has had little impact on the Democrat Party moving it to the right
PARTY ORGANISATION
Internal Coalitions
both parties remain 'big-tent' internal coalitions although they are distinct from one another and more united internally on principles that they were in the past
both parties still contain a wide spectrum of ideological beliefs and is said that the labels 'Republican' and 'Democrat' are not accurate guides to the opinions of either voters or politicians - prefix needs to be added such as 'conservative' 'moderate' or 'liberal' to give the label meaning
knowing the state, region or area that the voter or politician comes from can be a vital clue to their ideological convictions
internal coalitions - US parties are broad coalitions of interests and values with elected representatives having different views on political issues - there are wings and factions within each party each representing the views of liberals, moderates or conservatives within the 'big-tents' US parties making it difficult to hold to a 'party line'
the two main US political parties are weak with decentralised structures
Constitutional context
the separation of powers - the executive and legislature are separate branches of government, elected separately under different mandates and designed to check and balance each other's power - this impedes the development of strong party ties both within and between the institutions
Federalism - under a federal system parties are organised at state level under state law with little control by their national committees - means that parties and their candidates differ widely across the 50 states - there are effectively 50 Democrat and 50 Republican parties with a 'bottom-up' rather than a 'top-down' organsiation
Other factors leading to 'weak' parties in the USA
have no mass membership
no party leaders as such - the President is the leader of the country rather than of his party and there is congressional leadership only through the speaker of the house and the majority and minority leaders
no party manifestos only 'platforms' decided at the conventions - candidates for congressional and state office stand on their own personal views and focus on local rather than national issues
finance that candidates need in order to run for office is raised mainly by the candidates and their PACs not their parties
candidates for office are selected by primaries and caucuses rather than by the party - they can only be removed by the electorate at the next election or through primary defeat and cannot be deselected by their parties
There is little if any control by the parties over their candidates running for office and so when individuals are elected to office they tend to vote the way they want not how the party tells them to - in Congress there is little party discipline to control their voting
PARTY DECLINE OR RENEWAL
is the party over?
debate over party decline started with David Broder's thesis in 1970s that 'the party is over' because of the change to the parties' traditional functions - five main arguments supporting the thesis
selection of candidates through primaries - until 1960s parties selected candidates through machine politics and party bosses - changed with the use of primary elections where candidates are chosen by voters not by the party - candidates now create personal organisations to appeal to voters and put across their personal views on issues - these intro-party contests weaken parties as candidates fight each other for nomination
changes to electoral finance - in most democracies parties fund their candidates seeking election - in USA candidates raise 'hard money' contributions, gain funding from political action committees, or accept federal funding for presidential elections - this funding goes to the candidate not the party which reduces the party's organisational role in the campaign
changes in campaigning - candidates now reach out to voters through the mass media and political advertising that focuses on the candidate and their image - media campaigns strengthen candidate identification and weaken party identification as they stress the characteristics of the candidate and play down the party - victory is then seen as a personal not a party victory
growth of powerful interest groups and single-issue politics - the US politics is now more characterised by pressure groups focusing on single issues such as abortion or the environment than by party politics
Partisan de-alignment - reduce attachment of voters to parties can lead to split-ticket voting, voters switching between parties and higher abstention - candidates make personal appeals to those independent voters to gain their votes
Evidence for ideological resergence
most political commentators now write of the renewal and even resurgence of US parties both ideologically and organisationally
the Republican party is now more ideologically cohesive as a fiscally and socially conservative party - Karl Rove's strategy for Bush in 2004 and the impact of the Tea Party in 2010 energised the base of 'value voters' in order to get the core conservative voters out to the polls
the Democratic party is now more ideologically cohesive and offers a clear alternative to the Republican party appealing to voters as a party of liberal values and policies, as seen in the 2008 campaign and support for for healthcare reform, economic stimulus and banking regulation
ideological cohesion is reflected in congressional voting with greater party unity and increasing partisanship on issues e.g. Republicans voted for healthcare reform in Congress in 2010 and not a single Democrat voted against the repeal of 'don't ask don't tell' - supreme court nomination votes became increasingly polarised - in 2010 only five Republican senators voted to confirm Elena Kagan while only one Democrat voted against her
decreasing number of 'centrist' legislators from both parties in Congress - when they retire or are defeated they are usually replaced by someone less moderate e.g. in 2012 Democrat moderate senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska was replaced by a more conservative Republican Debra Fischer
in the 2010-12 Congress the voting record of the most conservative Democrats were still more liberal than that of the most liberal Republicans - again showing the extent of party polarisation and greater ideological unity
less evidence of 'split-ticket' voting where electors choose candidates from different parties for different elected offices
eight senators still broke party ranks over the gun control bill in April 2013, four Republicans including McCain backed the bill while four Democrats sided with the majority of the Republicans and opposed it - 34 Democrats in the House voted against the Obamacare in 2010
Evidence for organisational resurgence
while the parties are generally characterised by organisational weakness several recent developments suggest that the national party structures may be playing a greater role
parties' national committees and chairs are playing an increasingly important role between the elections as well as organising the national conventions every four years - can be seen in the Brock reforms in the Republican party and the Dean reforms for the Democrats
national party campaigning strategies have been created to elect the president and member of Congress and state legislatures and these involve some party control over the direction and focus of the campaigns and how the parties' resources are targeted e.g. the Democrats 6 for 6 campaign in 2006
the Republican National Committee declined to seat the full delegations of five states including Florida and South Carolina at its 2012 convention because it held its primaries earlier than allowed under new party rules
both national committees now channel political donations to candidates in tight races and can withdraw finance from candidates if they do not approve
could be that both parties have changed their role and functions rather than declined and are simply different from what they were in the 1950s and 60s - rather than parties being 'over' can be concluded that they are both still active at and between elections and other parties have made no significant inroads into their support, the majority of voters still identify with them and it is very rare for any candidate to be elected without belonging to one or the other of them
THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
despite the USA's huge social, economic, regional and ethnic diversity it has only two parties competing for political office at all levels in all branches of government
this duopoly has existed since the beginning of the Republic and is regarded as a paradox since there are so many deep divisions in the population and only two parties that represent that huge diversity
Why does the USA have a two-party system?
the electoral system and 'wasted votes'
In congressional elections the use of the winner-takes-all system in single-member districts and states leads to two-party dominance as votes for second and third parties are always wasted
in presidential elections voters vote for a single executive through the Electoral college - can only be one winner with no possibility of power sharing in the presidency - is nothing for losers no matter how many votes they gained
Catch-all parties
the 'big tent' internal coalition nature of US parties and their habit of political 'clothes stealing' e.g. adopting popular policies put forward by their rivals, leaves little ideological or issue space for third parties to fill that is not already covered by the two main parties
partisan alignment
the party identification of most voters with the two parties is still strong and it is difficult to establish new alignments
a natural duopoly
on most issues there are two opposing viewpoints - for and against - left or right - liberal or conservative - therefore is a tendency for voters fall into one of the two camps - democrat or republican
strong pressure groups
people focused on single issues tend to form pressure groups to get their views and interests represented rather than establishing new parties to contest in elections
primary elections
individuals have the opportunity through primaries to challenge candidates they disagree with thereby giving voters a choice within the party rather than requiring the formation of an alternative party
some incumbents have lost their party's primary due to upsetting some of the 'core' by not being aligned enough with their views
Why are third parties not successful?
ballot access
third parties often face barriers in many states such as electoral laws which require them to gather thousands of signatures before they can get onto the ballot
federal funding may be given to Democrats and Republicans but other parties only get funding if they gained 5% of the vote at the previous election
is difficult to secure alternative sources of finance since organisations such as political action committees want to fund winners not losers
Campaigning
lack of funding means less effective campaigns
third-party candidates find it difficult to secure media attention and coverage of their issues, and consequently struggle to achieve name recognition or national awareness
are usually excluded from the debates and lack electoral machines to persuade their supporters to turn out and vote
significance of third party/independent candidates
can influence elections on occasions - some argue that Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000 when he gained 2.7% of the vote was a factor in Gore's defeat as he took away votes in the key states such as Florida thus handing the election to Bush
Ross Perot's 19% of the vote in 1992 was a factor in Gore's defeat and his platform of deficit reduction influenced both parties to adopt this position in the 1996 election
George Wallace's 1968 candidacy when he won 46 ECVs from five southern states could have deadlocked the electoral college
a handful of independent candidates have won significant elections recently - former Republican senator Lincoln Chaffee was elected as Governer of Rhode Island in 2011
Michael Bloomberg having served two terms as a Republican mayor of New York was re-elected for his third term in 2009 as an independent
both these candidates have had previous links with one of the main parties
Bloomberg - Forbes report in 2013 reckoned his wealth to be $27 billion