Political Parties US

Question 1

Introduction to party politics US

Answer 1

A key principle of the constitution is federalism; political power is divided between a national government and state governments. For most of the 19th and 20th century political parties were more evident at local levels. Often there would be little ideological cohesion between the state organisations of the same party. Outside of the presidential election being a republican or democrat meant little. Over the last three decades national party structures have strengthened. New campaign finance laws meant money flowed to national parties rather than being raised locally. Television candidates appeal directly to voters appeal directly to voters and opinion polls allow candidates to hear what voters want without meeting them and technology targets voters with political messages through mailing and social media. Organisation of parties is more top down, whereas four decades ago they were bottom up. There is still a clear divide between national and state parties. For example trump is highly questioned by a number of republicans and presidents are elected in a nationwide election and not as party leader like the UK.

Question 2

National party organisation US

Answer 2

The only permanent party structure at national level is the national committees. The DNC and RNC both have Washington DC offices. Each has a chair elected by the members of the committee and traditionally incumbent presidents recommend the chair of their party. In 2016 Trump nominated Ronna Romney McDaniel and in 2017 the DNC elected Perez (that was seen as a victory for Clinton over Sanders). National party chairs are anonymous party bureaucrats who are rarely in the public eye. National committees raise money; hire staff and co-ordinate election strategy for their party candidates for local, state and national office. They are also responsible for the national party convention. The DNC is made up of the chair and vice chair of each 50 state democratic parties and 200 elected members. All DNC members are super delegates to the national convention. The RNC is made up of the chair of each Republican Party and two committee members, one man and woman. At the national level each party has congressional leadership as well as committees to oversee elections to each house of congress. For example the Democratic Senatorial campaign committee, the democratic congressional campaign committee, the national republican senatorial committee and the national republican congressional committee.

Question 3

State and local party organisation US

Answer 3

At state level there is a variety of organisation, laws and customs and considerable power is vested with state governors and big city majors. There are state party committees headed by the state party chair, as well as state party conventions. There are also party committees at congressional district, county, city, ward and precinct levels.

Question 4

Party ideology

Answer 4

The two party names are neither ideologically exclusive as democracy and republicanism, they are both embracing ideologies. For example Clinton believes in a republican government and Trump believes in a democratic government and from 2001-7 he identified as a democrat. Sometimes politicians attract ideological labels ahead of their party names, for example Bush 2000 ‘compassionate conservative’. The south tends to be more conservative and the northeast and west coast tends to be more liberal. Therefore for both parties to be viable in all regions they need to take on the ideological shades of the region. Southern democrats such as Senator Nelson of Florida tend to be more conservative than New England democrats such as Murphy of Connecticut. Similarly New England republicans such as Senator Collins of Maine are more liberal than southern republican Burr of North Carolina.

Question 5

Growth in ideologies

Answer 5

In 1972 when asked ‘do you think there are any important differences between the two parties’, 44% said no and 46% said yes, but by 2012 81% said yes, when asked ‘do you think one party is more conservative than the other’ in 1984, 53% said Republican, 32% said the same and 15% said democrats. Whereas in 2012 73% said republican, 17% said the same and 10% said democrat.

Question 6

The democrats and ideology

Answer 6

The two parties are not ideological monoliths, not all democrats are liberal, especially in the south or Midwest. Many identify as moderate or conservative democrats, in an era of hyper partisanship the number of people who are moderates had diminished. Many saw the contest between Clinton and Sanders in the democratic primaries based on ideologies. Sanders were on the left of the party and Clinton more centrist. Sanders promoted a democratic socialism alternate; his campaign was presented in terms of a movement. Exit polls showed liberal democrats preferred Clinton over Sanders by 53% to 46%, while non-liberals preferred Clinton 61%to 36%.

Question 7

The republicans and ideology

Answer 7

Not all can be identified as conservatives, especially those in the northeast or the west coast, hence labels such as social conservatism for those who are conservative on social, moral and religious issues such as same sex marriage and women’s rights. These republicans would have gravitated towards the moral majority in the 1980s, referred to as the Christian right. There are also fiscal conservatives who joined the Tea Party movement to fight for a reduction of national debt, federal budget deficit and reduction in government spending. There is also compassionate conservatism coined by Bush, which sought to use traditional conservative beliefs to improve lives of those who felt abandoned by the government. The primaries did not seem to indicate an ideological battle. Trump seemed an almost post-ideological candidate, he was not a conservative like Cruz and he didn’t fit the mould of moderate or liberal republicans like Romney or McCain. He did promise to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court and admired Reagan’s economics.

Question 8

Party polices

Answer 8

Democrats tend to be more progressive on social and moral issues, as well as issues relating to law and order. They favour greater governmental intervention both in the economy and on social welfare issues like education and healthcare. Republicans focus on individualism with the government playing a limited role in the economy

Question 9

Party views

Answer 9

abortion
D- Every women should have access to quality reproductive healthcare
R - The right to life cannot be infringed
Gender rights
D- Fight for comprehensive federal non-discrimination protections for LGBT Americans
R- Recognise marriage as the union between one man and one woman
crime
D- Understand the disproportionate effects of crime and violence on communities of colour
R- Support prison sentences for gang crimes, violence or sexual offenses against children, drug dealers, rape, robbery and murder
environment
D- Climate change is an urgent threat. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 and 50% of clean electricity within a decade
R- Oppose carbon tax and support all forms of energy that are marketable in the free economy
Minimum wage
D- Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour
R- Minimum wage is an issue that should be tackled at state and local level
Wall street
D- Implement, enforce and build on Obama’s financial reform
R- Dislike regulation
taxation
D- Supported the Bush tax cuts for wealthiest to expire
R- Supported extending Bush tax cuts. Want three tax brackets ranging from 33% to 12%
healthcare
D- Support the affordable health care act and supported reducing costs of prescription drugs
R- Repeal the affordable healthcare act.
education
D- Federal government should improve schools and education
R- Federal government should not get involved

Question 10

Polarisation of US politics

Answer 10

Up to the 1990s both parties included a wide range from liberals to conservatives. With the breakup of the Old south, southern conservative democrats began to cross to the Republican Party. Making the republican a far more ideologically conservatives party, leaving the democrats as a more homogenous liberal party. America began to be described as a 50-50 country.

Question 11

Red America

Answer 11

This is characterised as white, protestant but also some Catholics due to their views on abortion. It is wealthy, rural and conservative. The voters think federal government should be limited and they think federal income tax should be cut. They are pro-life, pro-gun and oppose Obamacare. They use Fox news and like Bush and loath Clinton and Obama.

Question 12

Blue America

Answer 12

Racially they are a coalition of black, white, Hispanic and Asian supporters. They are wealthier, urban and liberal. The voters think the federal government should increase in scale and tax should be increased to fund more services. They are pro-choice, favour gun control and are supportive of Obamacare. They watch CNN and like Clinton and Obama and loath Bush and Trump.

Question 13

The two party system

Answer 13

This is a system defines as one in which two parties regularly win at least 80% of the popular vote in general elections, regularly win 90% of seats in the legislature and alternatively control the executive branch of government. In the last seven presidential elections 1992-2016, the Democrats and Republicans accounted for more than 80% of the popular vote and exceeded 95% in four. Congress is clearly a two party system as in 2016 only 2 members, Sanders and King were not republican or democrat. Every president since 1853 has been either a democrat or republican. In January 2017, 49 of the 50 state governors were either republican or democrat, the only exception Ball Walker of Alaska.

Question 14

Reasons for the two party system

Answer 14

• Electoral system – FPTP makes it difficult for third parties as their support is shallow. They pick up a fraction in almost every state but under a winner take all system they receive no reward. A national third party candidate on the ballot merely lowers the percentage of the vote needed by the major party candidate to win the election.
• Broad party ideologies – when the two major parties encompass such a wide ideological spectrum there is not much room left for any parties to attract substantial support. The two major parties are ideologically all embracing
• Primary elections – the phenomenon of primary elections helps to make the major parties more responsive to the electorate, minimising the need for protest voting, protest votes often go to third parties

Question 15

A 50 party system

Answer 15

The two party system conveys an idea of two disciplined centralised parties but parties in the US are essentially decentralised, state based parties with no national leader and no national policy platform except during presidential campaigns. For example the Texas Republican Party is different to the Massachusetts Republican Party and the California Democratic Party is different to the Georgia Democratic Party. This is a consequence of federalism and where every election is state based. A two party system is where the two major parties alternate power but in the US they have power at the same time, one controlling the White House and the other controlling one or both houses of congress.

Question 16

Does the US have a two party system - yes

Answer 16

• All presidents since 1853 have been republican or democrat
• Democrats and republicans regularly win 80% of the vote
• In January 2017 all 435 members of the House were republican or democrat
• In January 2017, 98 of 100 senators were either republican or democrat
• Leadership in congress is organised by the two main parties
• State politics is equally dominated by the two major parties

Question 17

Does the US have a two party system - no

Answer 17

The US has a 50 party system with individual state parties being autonomous and ideologically varied
• Some states are virtually one party states
• Third parties have been significant in some elections
• Many voters join movements, like the Tea Party movement instead of parties
• Many Americans are self described as independents

Question 18

Third party varieties

Answer 18

There are three types of third parties. They are national, regional and state based, permanent or temporary and issue based or ideological.

Question 19

Key third parties

Answer 19

National third parties (both permanent) – the Libertarian party who have had presidential candidates like Gary Johnson on the ballot in all 50 states; they are also an ideological third party. Also the Green Party who have had presidential candidates like Jill Stein who was on the ballot in 44 states and a write in candidate in three more (they are also an issue based third party).
Regional – they include the Storm Thurmond’s states rights party formed in 1948 and George Wallace’s independent party in 1968 who are a temporary third party. The reform party was also a temporary third party.

Question 20

Impact of third parties

Answer 20

There are no national, permanent third parties that regularly win a sizeable proportion in general elections. Their status is paradoxical; they are both important and unimportant. The combined popular vote in 2012 was less than 2% and 6% in 2016. But they have shown importance in 3/9 elections from 1968-2000, in 1968, 1992 and 2000.
In 2000 Nader’s 2.7% for the Green party cost Al gore the presidency. In Florida Bush won by 537 voters and Nader won 100,000 votes. In New Hampshire, Bush won by 7,000 voters and Nader had 22,000 voters. Exit poll data showed at least half of Nader voters would have been Gore voters and the other half would not have voted. In five sets of house elections between 2008 and 2016, the combined votes for third parties never exceeded 3.6% (in 2012), while the senate races during the same period averaged 4.5%, with the highest being 6.6% in 2010. In those elections the Green Party candidate won 9.4% in South Carolina. In the 2016 election Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party won over 4 million votes which was 3.27% of the popular vote and Green candidate Jill Stein won 1.06% of the popular vote.

Question 21

Aims of third parties

Answer 21

In the case of Perot it could be argued that his aim was not to win the presidency but to have a significant impact on party policy. Nader’s ability to affect the outcome of 2000 election is another case. Although third parties fail in the electoral terms, they get a few votes which can impact the election result both in certain states and possibly nationally, as well as influencing the policy agenda of the major parties.

Question 22

Third parties are significant in the US

Answer 22

• 1992 Perot won 19% of the vote and contributed to Bush’s defeat
• The green party’s 2.7% in 2000 contributed to Al gore’s defeat
• Third parties can lose elections but influence by changing the policies of major parties
• Some states (for example Alaska and New York) have vibrant third parties which play a significant role in state and local races

Question 23

Third parties in the US are not significant

Answer 23

• The two major parties dominate presidential elections
• The two major parties control congress
• The major parties control state politics
• The major parties often co-opt the policies of successful third parties, thereby curtailing their electoral success, for example co-opting Perot’s call for a balanced federal budget

Question 24

Third party difficulties US - electoral system

Answer 24

Electoral system – FPTP, winner takes all system is a disadvantage to third parties. Regional parties can do well, for example in 1968 George Wallace won 45 Electoral College votes with 13% of the vote as his votes were concentrated. In 1992 Ross Perot won no electoral votes with 19% of the popular vote, his votes were spread across the US.
Ballot access laws –laws in each state regulate how third party candidates can qualify to get their name on the ballot. Some states like Tennessee are straightforward, as they require just 25 signatures on a petition. But other states like New York and California are demanding. In California, the number of signatures required is equal to 1% of the electorate in the state.

Question 25

Third party difficulties US - lack of resources and media

Answer 25

Lacks of resources – people are reluctant to give money to parties they know are going to lose. Less money means third parties are unable to compete with the two main parties in terms of expenditure, on organisation, staff and media.
Lacks of media coverage – news programmes do not think they are sufficiently news worthy. The parties rarely afford the cost of adverts on TV and the candidates are usually barred from appearing in the TV debates. In 2016, only Trump and Clinton appeared in the three presidential debates, both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were excluded.

Question 26

US third party difficulties - co-optation

Answer 26

Co-optation – a third party may do well in pre-election opinion polls and win a significant amount of votes on Election Day, like Ross Perot in 1992. The co-optation of its key policies to deal with Perot’s flagship policy the federal budget deficit. By 2000, the budget was in surplus and Perot’s vote had fallen from 19% in 1992 to 0.4% in 2000.

Question 27

Theories of party decline

Answer 27

Broder published ‘The Party’s over: the failure of politics in America and he popularised the idea that the parties were in major decline. It is believed party decline is in the following three categories candidate selection, communication with voters and the emergence of movements.

Question 28

Decline - candidate selection

Answer 28

The parties have lost control over presidential candidate selection. Until the late 60s candidates were largely selected in smoke filled rooms, but now they are selected by ordinary voters in primaries, this means parties have lost a huge amount of control. In 2016 both parties had difficulty in controlling their presidential candidate in the selection process. The democrats struggled to appoint their preferred candidate, Clinton due to support for Sanders and the republican hierarchy lost control with the hostile takeover by Trump.

Question 29

Decline - communication with voters

Answer 29

Parties have lost their traditional function as the communicator between politicians and the voters. Politicians who wished to communicate with the voters would do so through a party rally. The same party organised function gave voters a chance to communicate with politicians, either through formal questions and answers or by heckling. Today, politicians communicate their message through television, while voters speak back to politicians through opinion polls. The role of the party is cut out.

Question 30

Decline - the emergence of movements

Answer 30

The emergence of the Tea Party and occupy movements during the 21st century showed the extent to which Americans are more prone to join a movement than a political party. Each of these movements has sought to influence on the republican and democrat parties respectively. Americans seek to influence the parties more from without than within. The extent to which the Tea Party movement managed to get its preferred candidates chosen in certain congressional races over the wishes of republican leadership shows the decline of political parties. In 2016, Trump talked of his campaign as a movement rather than the activity of the Republican Party, his success in the primaries was described as a hostile takeover. Sanders made the same claim of a movement.

Question 31

Theories of party renewal

Answer 31

It is argued that parties are no longer in decline and are in renewal for the following reasons, theories of decline were exaggerated, nationalisation of campaigns and increased partisanship of congress.

Question 32

Renewal - decline was exaggerated

Answer 32

The death of the Republican Party was reported following the Watergate affair and Nixon’s resignation, but its candidate was back in the White House in just over six years. The death of the Democratic Party was reported following the leftward shift of the party from the 1960s-80s but the party was resurrected by the new democrat model of the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1992.

Question 33

Renewal - the nationalisation of campaigns

Answer 33

In 1994, the republicans campaigned around a 10 point policy programme called the contract with America, this was the brainchild of Congressman Newt Gingrich, and this policy document was supported by nearly all republican house candidates in that election. It promised that, under a republican controlled congress on 10 policy issues of interest to conservative voters, such as a constitutional amendment providing for a balanced budget and congressional term limits.
Then in 2002, the republicans launched another successful nationalised midterm election, resulting in the republicans gaining seats in both houses of congress in a midterm election for the first time since 1934. The democrats followed suit in 2006 midterm elections with their ‘six for 06’ agenda, which accompanied their retaking control of both houses of congress after 12 years in the minority. Four years later, the republicans published their ‘pledge to America’ in advance of the 2010 midterm elections, which listed the policies they would bring to the floor in the 112th congress (2011-12) if they won control of both houses

Question 34

Renewal - partisanship

Answer 34

Party renewal came with increased levels of partisanship in congress. If parties were declining in importance, a decline in partisanship could be anticipated. Partisanship can be argued to have increased significantly in congress over the past decade.

Question 35

Party conflicts - democrats

Answer 35

After the 2016 election cycle, the democrats were in poor shape. Obama arguably left the democrats in a weaker state. Obama’s democrats lost the White House, despite that their candidate won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. In 2009, the democrats effectively controlled 58 seats in the senate and 255 seats in the house. 8 years later, they had 48 voters in the senate and 194 in the house and were the minority party in both houses. In these 8 years, they lost 10 seats in the senate and 61 in the house. As president Obama enter office, the democrats controlled 29 out of the 50 state governorships. 8 years later they held just 16, which were 13 governments lost in just 8 years. In 2009 the democrats controlled 61 of the 98 partisan state legislative houses but by 2017 they controlled just 31 and in terms of seats they lost nearly a thousand seats in 8 years. In 2009 the democrats had control of 18 states (control of over both legislative houses and the governorship), the republicans controlled just 10. By 2017 the democrats controlled 7 and the republicans controlled 24. This was the lowest level of democrat control since 1925.
Some on the left of the party argue for a more left of centre, radical approach. They stress issues like income equality, the benefits of benevolent immigration and civil rights and liberties for racial and gender groups. Others appeal to what they hope will be a growing number of disenchanted Trump voters. These disagreements played out in a contest in 2017 to decide who would chair the democratic national committee. The result of the election of Perez was in Sanders phrase ‘a victory for the failed status quo approach’.

Question 36

Party conflicts - republicans.

Answer 36

After the election of Obama the Tea Party movement grew out of dissatisfaction with his response to the banking collapse and the economic meltdown on Wall Street. They stood for limited federal government, reduction in tax and reducing the national debt, they also opposed Obama’s health care reforms. Working through the Republican Party was instrumental in getting congressional candidates selected for the 2010 midterm elections who reflected their views. Once they formed the freedom caucus, which became the de facto controller of the agenda of the house. The Tea Party arguably gave birth to Trump in 2016.
Examples of conflicts are the government shutdown 2018/19, the republicans that broke from the president to vote for democrat money bills (Susan Collins of Maine) and the forced resignations in Senate (Jeff Flake of Arizona resigned).
Evidence of lack of divisions
Party votes have reached 75% in 2013 and in the seven presidential elections 1992-2016, the democrats and republicans accounted for more than 85% of the popular vote on every occasion and in four exceeded 95%. Party divergence, there are now no democrats that are more conservative than any republican, having no overlap between the parties ideologically has led to more party cohesion. Partisanship, the lack of cooperation between the parties in congress suggests that divisions within the parties have become less significant.

Question 37

Partisanship in congress

Answer 37

Since 2007 there has been an increased climate of partisanship in congress. The two parties are more disciplined and more ideologically coherent. Ronald Brownstein spoke about ‘hyper partisanship’ and the ‘distance between the two parties widened’. Bipartisanship used to be more common, both parties were broad ideological churches that could encompass a range of conservative to moderate view points. These centrists’ congress members have become increasingly rare. Partisanship is a factor for the lack of productivity. In 2013 congress passed 57 laws which was an all time low. Despite this congress held hundreds of roll call votes in both houses in 2013, 291 in the Senate and 641 in the House. A further problem is that members of congress who stay away from the party line open themselves up to a primary challenge from the more ideologically correct wing of the party.