The Two-Party System
Political parties frame the debate, recruit candidates, and raise money. The Democratic and Republican parties dominate American politics and are organized at the national, state, and local levels. Over the past decade in many states, an increasing percentage of the electorate has chosen to remain unaffiliated. Despite dissatisfaction with the Democrats and the Republicans, minor parties face huge obstacles in their efforts to gain a foothold.
The United States Constitution makes no mention of political parties, yet the two-party system has become a foundation of the American political system. The party that controls the White House has a major advantage in setting the national agenda through the bully pulpit, but executive power is constrained by the legislative and judicial branches. Congressional leadership plays a key role in determining the directions of the parties as do the national party committees, state parties and state leadership. Surrounding both parties are constellations of ideological and interest groups seeking to push them in one direction or another.
Both parties boast long traditions, the Democrats pointing to Thomas
Jefferson, FDR, Harry Truman and JFK and the Republicans tracing back
to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Thanks to
cartoonist Thomas Nast in the 1870s, Democrats are represented
by the donkey and Republicans by the elephant; a more recent phenomenon
is the assignment of the color red for Republicans and blue for
Democrats. Generally,
conservatives align with the Republican Party and liberals and
progressives align with the Democrats (+).
There
is
also
the
stereotypical
image
of
Democrats
as
the
party
of
big
labor
and
ivory
tower
academics
and
Republicans
as
the
party
of
big
business
and
the
rich.
Views
of
the
parties
are
also
shaped
by
their
national
leaders;
thus
the
Republicans
are
the
party
of
President
Donald
Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell while the Democrats
are
seen
as
the
party
of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer and to a lesser degree former President Barack Obama and 2016
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Within the parties are various forces and factions. In the Democratic Party there is constant tension between progressive and more pragmatic or centrist elements such as Blue Dog Democrats. Certainly that dynamic played out in the 2016 presidential nominating contest between Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the Republican Party social conservatives form a significant element of the base, tea party activists have been a force since 2010, and there are also libertarian elements. Moderate Republicans are seen as a disappearing or almost extinct breed, disparaged by conservatives as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Many independent groups such as the tea party movement or the labor movement operate outside the party structure but seek to influence it even as they in turn are wooed by the party.
A contrarian view holds that the major parties are basically
very similar. During his campaigns Ralph Nader often spoke of a
"two-party duopoly" and
likened the Democrats and Republicans to Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
As politics has
become
increasingly
professionalized, candidates of
both parties must raise vast amounts of money to pay for pollsters and
consultants. There is a Washington establishment, a culture of money
and lobbyists, described in the book This
Town,
in which Democrats and Republicans figure equally.
On a micro level, far away from Washington, DC county parties and
local party clubs provide a direct interface with citizens, engaging in
such activities as sponsoring speakers or tabling at farmer's markets
or county fairs.
Ups and Downs
Over time, the American electorate has tended to vote so that
neither of the major parties holds too much power, and fortunes of the
parties can change unexpectedly.
In May 2009 Time magazine ran a cover story showing the Republican elephant as an "Endangered Species." Eight-plus years later in Oct. 2017 Time's cover showed the Democrats as "shrunk" and asked "can anything save them." | |||
May 18, 2009 |
Oct. 2, 2017 |
Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, but Republicans rebounded to gain control of the House of Representatives in 1994. Twelve years later in 2006 Democrats regained control of the House. When Barack Obama won the White House in 2008, Democrats appeared to be in a very strong position. However, the Obama years left the Democratic Party in a significantly weakened state. In the November 2010 midterm elections Republicans dealt Democrats a historic drubbing, including a net GOP gain of 63 seats in the U.S. House. Following then November 2016 elections, Republicans held 33 governorships to just 16 for Democrats. Over the eight years of the Obama administration, Democrats lost over 900 state legislative seats so that by December 2016 Republicans controlled 65 chambers to 30 for Democrats, including control of both chambers in 24 states compared to just seven for Democrats. The pendulum may be swinging again. Results from 2017 contests and historical parallels suggest Democrats could achieve significant gains in 2018.
In addition to ideological differences, both parties have myriad
other weaknesses and flaws. Following
the 2012 campaign, the
Republican National Committee undertook a major reassessment and vowed
"a new way of doing things." The RNC's Growth & Opportunity Project
resulted in a 98-page report containing 219 recommendations (+) The
Democratic National Committee announced its own "top-to-bottom
review" following the 2014 midterms. The final report of the Democratic
Victory Task Force, release with little fanfare, weighed in at just 18
pages, one of which was acknowledgements (+). Depending
on party leadership, such reports can be merely rebranding exercises or
can lead to serious reforms.
Republicans still have difficulty attracting support from minority
voters, a fact which was clearly on display at the 2016 Republican
National Convention, which had just 18 African American delegates (or
about 80 delegates and alternates). The weakness is reflected
throughout the party from staffing to officeholders. The party is very
white, more so under Trump. The changing demographics of the country
and increasing share of minorities in the population have led some
observers to question Republicans' long-term viability. Republicans
have also, with a handful of exceptions (retiring Sens. Bob Corker and
Jeff Flake and Gov. John Kasich), firmly tethered their prospects to
the success of Donald Trump. This could proved to be a mixed blessing
as gains in rolling back the regulatory state and conservative judicial
appointments are countered by Trump's pattern of lies and petty Tweets
and by the outcome of investigations into Russian interference and
possible collusion.
Democrats have their own set of weaknesses. One need only look at the U.S. political map, which is a sea of red with dots of blue in urban areas, to see that Democrats have a big problem in rural areas. While the Trump campaign made crude attempts in 2016 at reaching out to African American and Hispanic voters, the Clinton campaign seemed to largely write off rural voters. It is not clear that the party is wiling to do the work to attract these voters. Democrats like to tout diversity, but they seem caught up in a form of identity politics which can at times go too far. While they are busy pressing buttons for their base constituences, including African Americans, Latinos, LGBTQ and women, some groups, for example rural voters or white males, are inevitably left out. Finally, there remain divisions from the 2016 campaign, where the DNC appeared to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primaries. The DNC's Unity Reform Commission is scheduled to release its report and recommendations by Jan. 1, 2018 (>). It may be tempting for Democrats to try to coast on anti-Trump sentiment; the flowering of resistance efforts offers the potential of a great boost for the party. However, for the health of American democracy one hopes Democrats will make some efforts to move beyond the easy "no to Trump" message (see the 2016 Clinton campaign) and advance a constructive policy vision.
Over the past decade, conservatives and progressives
alike have
developed increasingly sophisticated infrastructure to support
like-minded candidates. Functions such as training, data and
opposition research, which were formerly filled by the party committees
are supplemented by or even implemented by outside entities. Although
the assortment of groups and
networks
on the right and on the left are independent of the parties, there are
often linkages and connections. For example, party committees and
independent groups may use the same consultants or vendors (+), and it is
not uncommon for staff of these groups to have worked at one of the
party committees. In effect such groups form adjuncts to the
parties, aligning with them and supplementing their work; one could
argue they have as much or more impact.
One key group on the progressive side is America Votes. Formed in the 2004 cycle, America Votes coordinates the campaign activities of a number of progressive groups thus avoiding duplication of efforts. Another group, Catalist, provides "progressive organizations with the data and services needed to better identify, understand, and communicate with the people they need to persuade and mobilize." The Analyst Institute is "a clearinghouse for evidence-based best practices in progressive voter contact." The Atlas Project provides "political data, analysis, election history and insight." Also on the progressive side, American Bridge 21st Century focuses on opposition research, including having trackers following and videotaping Republican candidates. Democracy Alliance, formed in 2005, "was created to build progressive infrastructure that could help counter the well-funded and sophisticated conservative apparatus..." A more recent addition on the progressive side is the American Democracy Legal Fund (ADLF), "a group established to hold candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations."
On the
conservative side, groups such as The Leadership Institute (founded in
1979) and
GOPAC (founded in 1978) work on training activists and leaders. The
Koch brothers provide backing to an array of organizations. Freedom
Partners supports "broad-based coalitions to advance free markets and a
free society." i360, a "data and technology resource for the
pro-free-market political and advocacy community," has developed a
database of 190+ million active voters and 250+ million US
consumers."
Americans for Prosperity is "an organization of grassroots leaders who
engage citizens in the name of limited government and free
markets." The Kochs also support three constituency groups:
Generation Opportunity (youth), Concerned Veterans of American and
LIBRE (Hispanics). Another key group on the conservative side is
America Rising LLC, which like American Bridge does opposition research
and tracking. Paralleling the Democratic/progressive-aligned ADLF, the
Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT) aligns on the
Republican/conservative side.
One area where party adjuncts will be particularly important over the next few years is redistricting. How congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn can tilt the partisan balance, and both parties have organizations preparing for the battle: the National Republican Redistricting Trust and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
Another example of ideological infrastructure are think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation on the right and the Center for American Progress on the left; these serve as idea factories.
Is Increasing Partisanship a Problem?
Many commentators and officials believe the partisan
tone has become
more strident in recent decades. Some observers have argued that there
are
fewer swing seats in Congress, and that as a result Members, ensconced
in
safe districts, do not need to moderate their positions. The
professionalization of politics may also contribute. Targeted seats
draw the parties' resources, while other seats, and the voters living
there are ignored or given short shrift, thereby reinforcing their
disconnect from the minority party. There have
certainly been negative campaigns in the past, but consultants now have
the
attack campaign down to a science. They churn out slick
communications
attacking opposing
candidates. In a fair number of races, campaigns are outspent by
outside interest
groups whose backers are not apparent and whose messages frequently
feature attacks. Additionally, talk radio,
cable television and the blogosphere abound with heated rhetoric,
echoing attacks. The net result appears to be severe dysfunction, where
both sides are talking past each other. Democrats' passage of the
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2009 without Republican support, and
Republican attempts to ram through an overhaul of the tax code in 2017
with Democratic support are not sound models on how to address the
country's problems.
There have been various efforts to transcend partisanship. During
their presidential campaigns, candidates
George W. Bush ("uniter not a divider") and Barack Obama ("there are no
red states and no blue states") both made bipartisan appeals, but once
they were in office they found those sentiments difficult to implement.
Part of the appeal of Donald Trump during his campaign was the notion
that as a businessman he would not be beholden to party; he certainly
was not an establishment figure.
Efforts to move beyond partisanship have met with mixed success. No Labels ("Not
Left. Not
Right. Forward.") formally launched on Dec. 13, 2010 to
"counter hyper-partisanship"
and "bring together
leading
thinkers from the left, right, and all points in between." No
Labels fostered creation of the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus
"to develop innovative bipartisan policy solutions to key national
challenges;" by 2017 the caucus was an independent entity with over 40
members. In Fall 2015 No Labels released a National
Strategic Agenda "to help catalyze debate in the 2016
presidential
election." The Agenda set out four goals: create 25 million new jobs
over the next 10 years, secure Social
Security and Medicare for the next 75 years, balance the federal budget
by 2030, and make America energy secure by 2024. Ultimately released as
No Labels Policy Playbook for
America's Next President, the document contained more than 60
ideas.
In the electoral arena, The
Centrist
Project ("America's first Unparty") is trying to achieve
"breakthrough politics." The Centrist Project is advocating a "fulcrum
strategy" wherein "just a handful of independents (3-5) can deny both
parties an outright majority and exercise disproportionate influence as
a swing coalition." In 2018 it aims to "draft a slate of 3-5 Centrist,
independent candidates for U.S. Senate" and to recruit a slate of
Centrist, independent candidates to run for state legislature in
several targeted states.
In 2007
former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and
George Mitchell established the Bipartisan Policy Center.
The Center "harnessing the best ideas from both parties."
According to its 2016-17 annual report, "BPC has successfully brought
together members from both sides of the aisle to foster collaboration
and advance bipartisan debate and solutions, while our affiliated
501(c)(4) organization, BPC Action, has successfully influenced
meaningful legislation."
There is also the notion of "transpartisanship," an approach which "recognizes the validity of all points of view and values a constructive dialogue aimed at arriving at creative, integrated, and therefore, breakthrough solutions that meet the needs of all sides."
Several projects centered on presidential campaigns have failed. In May 2006 Unity08 launched with the goal of electing a bipartisan ticket to the White House; the group folded in 2008. In 2012 Americans Elect ("Pick a President, Not a Party") proved to be a flop; after working on ballot access in all 50 states, the group conducted a primary process that failed to produce a qualified candidate. After Americans Elect wound down, another iteration appeared in 2013. 1787, which described itself as "an organization with a policy platform grounded in common sense," had strong resonances of Americans Elect. It planned to have "a presidential, vice presidential and multiple congressional candidates on ballots in 2016" and even scheduled a 2016 national convention, to be held at the Omni Hotel at Independence Park in Philadelphia from April 21-24, 2016. The effort gained no traction and the convention did not happen.
Third Parties: Huge Obstacles
In an Oct. 2013 Gallup survey (>)
of
1,028
adults,
60
percent
of
respondents
said
a
third
major
party
is
needed.
(The
question
asked
was,
"In
your
view,
do
the
Republican
and
Democratic
parties
do
an
adequate
job
of
representing
the
American
people,
or
do
they
do
such
a
poor
job
that
a
third
major
party
is
needed?")
Supporters of existing minor or third
parties including the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the
Constitution Party argue that their parties can fill the void.
Occasionally an independent candidate comes forth with
sufficient credibility and resources to have an impact in a race. There
are also
a few state-based third parties such as the Independence Party in
Minnesota which could benefit from dissatisfaction. However, despite
the apparent opening for a third party, difficulties
with uneven and inequitable ballot access requirements, raising money,
recruiting
credible candidates, and attracting media attention form high
barriers to these parties. In the 2016 presidential campaign, the
Libertarian Party fielded a ticket with two former governors, yet they
were unable to meet the criteria for participating in the televised
presidential debates. The historical record and the many
formidable
obstacles in our system suggest that third parties will continue to
have a marginal impact. Even if third parties' efforts do not fully
succeed,
their ideas leaven the debate and their presence may hopefully improve
our democracy.
Useful Links
- American Political Science Association: Political Parties
- Open Secrets: Political Parties
- Platforms: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Constitution
- Amazon.com: search Political Parties
- Thomas Mills. "How the Democratic Party Lost Its Way." Politico Magazine, Dec. 10, 2016.
- National
Conference
of
State
Legislatures. "State Partisan
Composition."
- Reid Wilson. "Dems hit new low in state legislatures." The Hill, Nov. 18, 2016.
- Pew Research Center. June 26, 2014. "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology."
- Mark Leibovich. July 2013. THIS TOWN: Two Parties and a Funeral-Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking!-in America's Gilded Capital. New York: Blue Rider Press [Penguin imprint].
- Thomas Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. May 2012. IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN IT LOOKS: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.