Parties (Political Style)

Political parties have always been a controversial issue, even since their immediate inception. James Madison believed, “that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority,” (Federalist 10, Woll, 174). Nevertheless, political parties have persisted through the years and remained to be a staple in the United States’ governmental institutions, yet the American people continue to struggle to find the right role the party system should play. This is largely due to the immense number of variables within the system and their inherent incompatibilities with our complicated and multi-component government.

There is a fine line between anti-party and pro-party sentiment. The most basic argument can be defined paradoxically. The authors of the Constitution, bound by their obligation to uphold the liberties upon which parties originate, “the right to agitate and to organize,” (Document 31, Woll, 179), were unable to suppress the party system, so through the enactment of constitutional separation of powers, the authors attempted to passively squash any party enthusiasm. Yet when people began to realize that parties perhaps had the potential of being effective tools of popular government, this discrepancy between the Constitution and the parties’ fundamental values quickly became an issue.

As mentioned above, the combination of conflicting political ideologies has created the situation where, “The Constitution made the rise of parties inevitable yet was incompatible with party government,” (Document 31, Woll, 179). Thus these two political entities have constantly been in contention with one another, which E.E. Schattschneider has characterized as an “unhappy marriage” where one is an “immovable object and the other is an irresistible force,” (Document 31, Woll, 180) resulting in a permanently dysfunctional partnership. This partnership is further compounded, though, by the conflicts present within the political party system itself in terms of bipartisan representation. The party platform boils down to concentrations of specific interests. Yet as Schattschneider points out, no clear dichotomy of completely opposing interests exists (nor agreeing for that matter). Rather “every individual is torn by the diversity of his own interests,” (Document 31, Woll, 181). Therefore for the party system to operate, emphasis must be constantly placed on the raw materials, or common interests that are not anti-social. In doing so the “common possessions of the people become the most durable cause of unity,” (Document 31, Woll, 180). In this respect, the party system has grown over the years, but it has continued to be carefully monitored. During the 1950’s when parties imposed upon democratic progress, the APSA (American Political Science Association) circulated a report channeling the system towards more responsible means.

Document 32 excerpts part of this propagandist report, redefining the party system’s purpose: “The party system thus serves as the main device for bringing into continuing relationship those ideas about liberty, majority rule and leadership which Americans are largely taking for granted,” (Document 32, Woll, 183). In response to Government continually gaining more responsibilities, APSA felt the need to stress the democratic importance and dependence placed on parties. Yet in doing so, the party system needed to be reformed and funneled through the appropriate measures as to prevent “dangerous outcomes”. More than anything the report stresses the importance of internal party cohesion and the need for effective opposition, providing the productivity and accountability necessary to function properly. With that being said, though, the operation of the two-party system has its consequences on other spheres of national influence when run improperly. Ultimately the system is regarded as essential in the sense that it keeps all differences within bounds- a guardian of free political choice. Although this thought is democratically pleasing, it isn’t necessarily true. If specific interests are constrained, then the result would just be an increasingly polarized ideology in which the extremist views of each party will keep expanding until the platform becomes self-defeating. The two parties will surrender their common grounds, resulting in a legislation dead-lock.

Arthur Paulson and David Mayhew attempt to refine the arguments between divided and unified parties and their influence in terms of their Executive and Legislative occupancy as well as the way we ultimately define the role of the party system. Paulson holds that a responsible party model is a government party. While Britain’s parliamentary government, with the fused coalition between the prime minister and parliament, is the pinnacle of responsibility and stability, U.S. fails to reach such standards. Certain issues “couched in social and cultural terms” (Document 33, Woll, 189) lend to the further advancement towards the polarization of parties and away from responsible platforms. Additionally the inseparable relationship between liberal interest groups and conservative interest groups to the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, has led to increased “interest articulation” within the parties rather than programmatic alternatives. Therefore, Paulson summarizes that American party system will continually be confined by its irresponsible and divided nature.

Mayhew, on the other hand, serves to cast a murky shadow upon the distinctions of divided and unified parties by remarking that “Democracy, according to some leading models, can function well enough as a n assortment of decentralized, unconnected incursions into public affairs,” (Document 34, Woll, 194). He further demonstrates historically that the party division of Executive and Legislative branches has been able to accomplish similar feats when compared to unified branches. Mayhew admires the United States’ resiliency to conform to the party leaders and reiterates the party purpose not as an overpowering governmental influencer.

The intricate workings of the American party system are subject to double standards. The concept of a party contradicts the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, while the internal contention between unified and divided factions serve to further complicate the entire process. Being on the eve of the election, political parties will become an issue of great importance and the potential realignment of the Executive and Legislative parties will lend to the excitement. It will by all means be interesting to watch the progression of the party system continue to develop and see if it can expand its scope to encompass a greater governmental impact.