3.2.1.6 Political parties (US)

Organisation

  • US parties do not have a clear leader
    • Multiplicity of leadership
  • Reflects separation of powers and political culture
    • Even POTUS is not the formal party leader
    • Usually have high level of authority within party but lack direct control over the Congressional party
  • Both parties have leaders in each chamber
    • Senate Majority Leader: John Thune (R-SD)
    • Senate Minority Leader: Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
    • Speaker of the House: Mike Johnson (R-LA)
      • House Majority Leader: Steve Scalise (R-LA)
    • House Minority Leader: Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
  • Lack of party discipline means presidents can be blocked by congressional opposition from their own party
  • Leadership is informal and based around strong personalities
    • Influence over Congress based on personal following
    • Threats of being “primaried”: when an incumbent faces a strong challenge from their own party
    • e.g. Liz Cheney was R-WO, voted for Trump’s impeachment after Jan 6 and was one of two Republicans on a House committee investigating Jan 6.
    • Blamed Trump for inciting the riot, became the target of Trump and co. to ensure her defeat in the primary. Lost 66%-29% in the primary to Harriet Hageman who was backed by Trump
  • Fewer bipartisan votes in recent years

State parties + central structures

  • DNC and RNC are national party organisations
    • Organises national convention
    • No power in candidate selection
    • Chairs are not widely known, Ken Martin (DNC) and Michael Whatley (RNC)
  • There are parties in each state responsible for organising primaries and have their own structures
  • Hill Committees:
    • Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
    • National Republican Congressional Committee
    • Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
    • National Republican Senatorial Committee
  • Coordinate campaigns and donors
    • No direct role in choosing candidates but can spend money on campaigns to get incumbents reelected

Ideological divides

  • Republicans have become more socially conservative
    • Traditional family values
    • Christian values
  • Democrats have generally become more socially progressive + liberal
    • Lyndon B Johnson’s Great Society
    • Civil Rights Act 1964
    • Lost the South

Party Decline

  • Traditionally the US party system meant very little, lacked clear ideological substance
  • Individual candidates, SIGs, and wealthy donors meant much more
  • Lord Bryce (1888): “Two bottles, each having a label denoting the type of liquor it contains, but each being empty.”
  • 1972: opinion poll for “Are there any important differences in what the two parties stand for?”
    • 44% No, 46% Yes
  • Eisenhower could easily have been either R or D

It was traditionally argued that the US party system meant very little in practise. The parties lacked clear ideological substance and, organisationally, played second fiddle on individual candidates, special interest groups and wealthy donors.

Lord Bryce, writing in 1888, made the following famous remark in his class work The American Commonwealth when her referred to the parties as ‘Two bottles, each having a label denoting the type of liquor it contains, but each being empty.’

As late as 1972, in response to an opinion poll question, ‘Are there any important differences in what the two parties stand for?’, 44% said No, only just behind the 46% that answered Yes.

In the twenty-first century, no one could remotely accuse the two main parties of being similar in ideology and values, but that is not necessarily to say that US parties are themselves alive and well.

The phrase ‘The party’s over’ is probably one of the most easily misunderstood in US politics. Taken from the title of an important work by David Broder published in 1972, it did not foretell or warn of the demise of US political parties.

The main point is sought to make was that the party system was not working effectively and had contributed to a dysfunctionality in US politics. This notion of whether US parties are any more than vote-winning machines bereft of any positive functions is central to this debate: do US parties still matter, do they have a soul, or are they merely ‘badges without meaning’?

Broder Thesis

Broder was writing at the time of the Vietnam War but before the Watergate crisis broke. He made the following main observations about party decline.

First, parties had largely abdicated their role in formulating policy and positions in the area of foreign policy, and too much had been left to ‘experts’.

Second, the parties needed to be reinvigorated and their congressional leaderships given greater powers.

The slightly smug British reader might observe that he was essentially arguing for many of the essentials of traditional party parliamentary government observed in the UK.

Broder was also alert to the dangers of ignoring a renewal of the responsible party system, warning that power might otherwise become centralised in the White House with a president who says: “Give me power and I will make things work again … And the press will cooperate with us, and stop its carping and sniping, if it understands what is good for it. And we will save our country.”

Aspects of Trump’s campaigns and his pitch to voters in 2024 could suggest that Broder was eerily correct in his prognosis.

Finally, Broder also argued for restrictions on campaign finance and for it to be mostly channelled through party campaign committees and not individual candidates, alongside a reduction in the number of directly elected offices, especially at state and local level.

Many of Broder’s observations and prophecies ring true, but perhaps some of his reforms remain out of reach. Having established what Broder actually meant, the question is how far are US parties genuinely in decline?

Debate: decline or renewal?

Parties in decline

  • The growth of primaries at all levels of US politics has rendered the candidate selection role of parties largely redundant. This reinforces a sense of party weakness and intra-party divisions.
  • Many political campaigns are candidate not party focused. Party names and symbols are largely absent from personal ads and posters. The emphasis is on the qualities and vision of individuals, not the wider party platform.
  • Parties play a small role in political communication. Aside from the national nominating conventions, most rallies and adverts are created, paid for and delivered by the candidates not the held central party structures. The advent of social media has accelerated this process.

Parties in renewal

  • Primaries reinforce the ‘party brand’, as nearly all aspiring candidates choose to align themselves with one of the two dominant parties. Parties are opening their doors to a wider ‘selectorate’ rather than old-style ‘machine politics’. When primaries are concluded the parties usually come together and coalesce around the winners.
  • Although campaigns are heavily focused on individuals, in nearly all cases their personal message reflects commonly held values and policies within their party. The Hill committees and other associated groups run adverts and direct donor funding and seek to promote candidates, especially those seen as strong and who are fighting close races.

Two Party Domination

  • No tradition of third parties/independents having sustained presence in Congress or even state legislatures

  • Two nominally independent senators Angus King and Bernie Sanders caucus with the Democrats

  • In 2024, two party vote was over 98%

    • No independents won House seats in 2024

  • No third-party or independent candidate has directly won Electoral College votes since George Wallace (1968)

    • Last significant independent presidential contender was Ross Perot (1992), ~19% of popular vote

  • Third parties lack history

    • Main two: Greens and Libertarians are relatively recent, 1980s, 1971 respectively

    • The role of third parties is to sting like a bee then die.

      – Richard Hofstadter

  • RFK Jr ran as independent candidate at start of 2024 campaign

    • Problems with funding and ballot access in several states
    • Dropped out and endorsed Trump

  • Bloomberg was D until 2001 where he switched to R to run for NY mayor

    • Ran as independent in 2009
    • Switched to D for 2020 presidential primary race

Significance of third parties and independents

History

  • Federalists and Democratic-Republicans formed during ratification of Constitution in 1787

    • Whigs formed later
    • Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were Democratic-Republicans
    • Early presidents: party reflected the personality

  • 1828: Democrat party formed, challenged by the Whigs

    • Andrew Jackson is the first Democrat (1829), a populist figure

  • 1833: Whig party formed

  • 1861: American Civil War

    • Democrats and Republicans
    • Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party

  • 1861: Two party structure

  • Smaller central structure for each party

  • More organised factions within each party

Links to this page