US Political Parties Flashcards
What are the key values of the Democrats?
• Large government programmes are necessary
• Higher taxes on the wealthy are needed to fund social welfare programmes
• Healthcare should be affordable
• Civil rights for minority groups should be embraced and extended
• Pro-choice
• Separation between church and state should be strictly maintained
• Gun control needs to be stricter
• The Supreme Court should take a “judicial activist” role and actively promote or
support civil rights
• Diversity and multiculturalism are strengths of the USA and should be celebrated
• Pro-immigration
• Policing should be reformed to combat systemic racism in the police
• The USA should work closely with international organisations and with other countries
to tackle global issues
• Environmental degradation and climate change are real and pressing issues that
require urgent action
What are the key values of the Republicans?
• Large government programmes are wasteful & inefficient.
• The government should have limited involvement in the economy – the economy does best when
the market is left to manage itself.
• Support lower taxes, especially for the wealthy (“trickle down economics”).
• Healthcare (at least partially) should reflect “personal choice” and “ability to pay”
• Civil rights have gone far enough and no further action is necessary. Opposed to affirmative
action.
• Strong antipathy towards LGBTQ+ rights.
• Tend to be pro-life on abortion issues.
• (Christian) religion has a place in public life (eg prayers in schools)
• The 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) should not be limited.
• Supreme Court justices who favour a more “originalist/strict constructionist” approach should be
appointed.
• Multiculturalism and diversity is eroding the collective national identity of the USA
• Immigration needs to be more tightly regulated and enforced.
• Antipathy towards large multinational organisations (UN, WHO). “America First”
• Climate change skeptics: many do not believe climate change is real and do not support efforts to
reduce human impact on the environment.
Difference between D and R on tax
D - Less willing to cut taxes for the wealthy and keener to put money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, e.g. in 2010 Obama cut payroll taxes by 2% while reviving an inheritance tax on estates worth over 55 million.
R - Keen to keep as low as possible and support cutting the taxes of the
wealthy/corporations as a way of
generating jobs and stimulating the
economy, e.g. 2017 Tax Cuts and lobs Act reduced corporate tax rate from 37% to 21%.
Difference between D and R on gun control
D - More supportive of gun control
measures such as tighter background check. President Clinton supported the Assault Weapon Ban passed by Congress in 1994; it expired in 2004 and despite
attempts was not renewed.
R - Very reluctant to introduce or support tougher gun laws, though willing to consider minor changes such as banning ‘bump stocks’. Strong ties to the NRA. Many Republican-controlled states, e.g.
Mississippi, back ‘open carry.
Difference between D and R on LGBTQ+ rights
D - Generally supportive, reflecting a
socially liberal approach. President
Biden reversed a Trump-era ban on
transgender Americans serving in the armed forces
R - Generally hostile to expansion of gay rights and same-sex marriage. Some Republican states have tried to pass ‘bathroom bills’. Some moderate Republicans are more
sympathetic, e.g. Ohio senator Lisa
Murkowki.
Difference between D and R on healthcare
D - Many support a greater provision of state healthcare. Obamacare/Affordable Care Act seen as a major step towards reducing the number of working Americans without health insurance. Many favour the ‘public option’ for medical insurance.
R - Oppose the extension of publicly funded managed healthcare. Strongly opposed to Obamacare. ‘Trumpcare’ failed to find
effective common ground among divided Republican legislators and got nowhere. Largely see healthcare as an individual responsibility for working people.
Difference between D and R on immigration
D - Favour immigration reform and
particularly making citizenship possible for many existing illegal immigrants such as the ‘Dreamers’ (those brought to the USA illegally as children).
R - Keen to restrict immigration, especially from Mexico and Latin America. Trump strongly supported a border wall: ‘Build that wall’
Differences between D and R on abortion
D - Increasingly pro-choice, Pro-life Democrats are a rapidly dwindling group among congressional Democrats. Reflects links with feminist/socially progressive movements such as EMILY’S List.
R - Strongly pro-life and anti-abortion, e.g. George W. Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003. Keen to de-fund
organisations such as Planned Parenthood. Many Republican states, e.g. Texas, have passed tighter abortion laws. Reflects
strong ties with the ‘religious right’.
Differences between D and R on environmental issues
D - Strong commitment to alternative
energy sources such as wind power
(Green New Deal) and favour tougher environmental laws. More likely to see climate change as both real and requiring urgent action.
R - Strong commitment to fossil fuels found in the USA, often citing ‘energy security as the justification. Many are sceptical of the scale or even the existence of climate
change and global warming. Less willing to introduce tough environmental laws
Party leadership in the USA
• parties in the US do not have a clear leader, reflecting the more decentralised structure of US political parties in general, as well as the separation of powers in US government
• Both parties have their own party leaders in each chamber of Congress
so there is a Democratic House leader and a Democratic Senate leader.
• The President or presidential candidate also has significant influence over their party, but they do not have formal authority or direct control over them.
• Leadership therefore depends on cooperation and negotiation between high-ranking party members.
• Strong personalities or persuasive negotiators can exert significant influence.
Party organisation in the USA
• US political parties are much more decentralised than UK political parties
• Each state has their own branch of each party that operates with relative autonomy, so we have Ohio Democrats and Ohio Republicans, Nevada Democrats and Nevada Republicans, etc
• The Primaries system means that candidates for Congress or the Presidency are elected by party membership, so parties do not play a significant role in selecting candidates
• High ranking party members can “endorse” candidates and throw their weight behind them, however
Hill committees
• Each party has “Hill Committees”: These are organisations that work on getting more members of their party elected to Congress
• There are four hill committees who coordinate campaigns and donations, portion out donation money to places where they are needed, and help design election campaigns and determine electoral strategy
• Although they play no direct role in choosing candidates and have no direct
authority, they are highly influential within the party structure
- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)
- National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)
- Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)
- National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
Associated groups
• These are similar to pressure groups but have more direct party links EG Democratic Socialists of America – works to get more progressive candidates
elected to Democratic Primaries. Instrumental in electing progressives like AOC to the House.
• EG Tea Party – right-wing populist/libertarian organisation campaigning for smaller government, greater immigration control. Played a significant role in campaigning for the 2010 midterms which saw Republicans regain Congress; forerunners of the MAGA movement.
Congressional caucuses
• Congressional Caucuses are organised factions within Congress
• Different caucuses represent different ideological and policy viewpoints and work together (and with or against other factions!) to promote their views
• Depending on their size and how influential their members are, they can have significant impact on Congress
• Associated groups & Congressional coalitions arguably fulfil similar roles in the US to 3rd parties in the UK system
Example of democrat faction
Blue Dog Coalition: Coalition (8 members): supports ‘fiscal responsibility’ and adopts a neutral line on social issues (gun control and gay rights). More willing to seek a common cause with Republicans in Congress. Leading members in January 2023 split to form the Common Sense Coalition including Lou Correa. Many represent Republican-leaning districts.
Example of republican faction
Freedom Caucus (53 members): Most right-wing Republican grouping. Blends a mixture of social conservatism in areas such as abortion and LGBTQ+ rights with a focus on small government and libertarianism. Chaired by Scott Perry. In the 2023 House Speaker elections, 19 members opposed
Kevin McCarthy’s bid for speaker until concessions were made to increase their influence in the party. Most members represent solidly red districts
Changes over time: geography
The South has become more reliably Republican while the East and West coasts are much more solidly Democrat. The presidential election of 1976 was the last time a Democrat won comprehensively across the South.
Until the early 1960s, one could safely talk of a Democrat ‘Solid
South’. But by the first decade of the twenty-first century, the
Solid South had flipped to the Republicans
Changes over time: ideology
- When Democrat president Lyndon B. Johnson signed off the Civil Rights Act 1964, he allegedly said to an aide, ‘We (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation’
- The South, though, did not immediately ‘flip’ to the Republicans. Yet, conservative Republicans such as Nixon deliberately targeted disillusioned
white southerners.
✓ First, against the background of serious urban riots in 1967 and 1968 often with racial overtones, many Republicans adopted a strong law and order platform.
✓ Second, the fallout from desegregation continued. Many Republican candidates aligned themselves in opposition to sensitive issues such as forced educational integration involving ‘busing’, whereby schools were required to become more racially diverse at the expense of
parental choice.
✓ Finally, with a growth in liberal ideas in matters such as sexual morality and abortion, many Republicans embraced a strongly conservative stance, opposing much of the feminist and sexual revolutions. Strong links began to develop with (white) evangelical preachers, and the rise of the
‘religious right’ commenced.
* An almost parallel story could be told for the Democrats. The party became more liberal, more racially diverse and, by the turn of the millennium, a cheerleader for causes such as gun control, pro-choice, LGBTQ+ rights and universal healthcare provision. As the party shed much of its southern conservative wing from the 1960s onwards, so it picked up more support from moderate Republicans.
Changes over time: cohesiveness
- The parties are far more (but not completely) united in how they vote. There is far less bipartisanship and major policies, such as Obamacare and the Trump tax cuts, were passed with very little support from the opposing party.
- By contrast, when Johnson passed civil rights measures including the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965, he relied on Republican votes to get the legislation through. The Civil Rights Act was more popular in the Senate with Republicans — 81% backed it compared with just 69% of
Democrats. Such reliance on opposition party votes in Congress is pretty much unthinkable in twenty-first-century US politics. - In 1974, the House moved to begin impeachment proceedings against President Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate. Seven out of 17 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee broke party ranks and voted with Democrats to impeach Nixon on the article concerning abuse of presidential power. When the House voted to proceed with Trump’s impeachment in 2019, not one out of 195 Republican lawmakers sided with the Democrats
US parties are united: agree
➢ Many key congressional votes reflect high levels of party unity. In 2018, in the House, Republicans stuck with their party an average of 91% of the time and Democrats 89% of the time.
➢ The trend towards growing party unity votes in Congress is relentless and
consistent. Far fewer legislators break with their party compared with previous decades. Trump’s victory in 2016 intensified this partisan divide.
➢ In terms of policy, both parties are increasingly cohesive on controversial policy issues such as abortion and gun control. It is increasingly difficult, for example, to find pro-life Democrats or pro-choice Republicans.
➢ Many political commentators have referred to Trump’s effective takeover of the Republican Party, despite starting out as an outsider. Very few Republican legislators showed much enthusiasm for openly criticising the president in a clear indication of the party uniting around a controversial
and often unpredictable figure.
➢ There is a growing emphasis on a unified party platform. For the 2018 midterms. the Democrats campaigned under the ‘Better Deal’ programme, which focused on ‘Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future’.
US parties are united: disagree
➢ Bipartisan votes and party rebellions still occur. In February 2020, the Senate passed a resolution to limit Trump’s power to order military action against Iran without first seeking Congress’s permission. Eight Republicans joined Democrat senators to pass the measure. In March 2020. the House passed a bipartisan bill (CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten House Republicans voted to impeach Trump in January 2021.
➢ The Congressional Quarterly annual vote study for 2018 showed that in the Senate. the total number of party unity votes— defined as those with each party’s majority on opposing sides— fell from 69% in 2017 to just under 50% in 2018, the second lowest figure since 2002.
➢ There are policy areas, such as financial regulation of Wall Street and lowering prescription charges, where there is common ground. The same is sometimes true of criminal justice issues even if the motives might differ. Republicans want to cut jail numbers to save money, Democrats
because they favour more emphasis on rehabilitation.
➢ Some of Trump’s less conventional policies have led to unease in some Republican quarters. This includes areas such as foreign policy and US commitment to NATO and the introduction of tariffs.
➢ There is no real compulsion for a party’s candidates to subscribe to the party’s entire policy platform. As candidates secure their candidate nominations by campaigning and winning their own primary races, they
can afford to be selective in their campaign pledges.
Parties in decline
➢ The growth of primaries at all levels of US politics has rendered the candidate selection role of parties largely redundant. This simply reinforces a
sense of party weakness and intra-party divisions.
➢ Most 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 central party structures. The
advent of social media has accelerated this process.
➢ Many US voters have traditionally split their ticket (see pages 442-431, suggesting that the parties have less importance than individual candidates.
Several states in 2020 voted for candidates from different parties in governor and Senate races. For example, New Hampshire re-elected its incumbent Democrat senator (Jeanne Shaheen) and its incumbent Republican governor (Chris Sununu).
➢ Voter turnout has decreased in recent times, suggesting a wider disenchantment with US politics and its party system.
➢ US parties remain broad. ‘big tent’ and often comprised of conflicting outlooks and policies. There remains considerable division within the
parties, for example the various Democrat approaches to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or defunding the police
Parties in renewal
➢ Primaries reinforce the ‘party brand’, as nearly all aspiring candidates choose to align themselves with one of the two dominant parties. It is simply the case that 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. Direct donor funding and seek to promote candidates, especially those seen as strong and who are fighting close races.
➢ Split ticket voting has shown a marked decrease in recent decades. In 2016. every state holding a Senate election that year also voted for the presidential candidate from the same party— in other words, 100% straight
ticket voting. In 2020, only Maine split its Senate and presidential votes.
➢ In fact, voter turnout has not fallen consistently. For example, it went up
considerably in the 2020 election.
➢ US parties have become increasingly narrow and homogeneous in terms of both policy platform and support base. Polarisation and hyper partisanship both in Congress and among the wider public now dominate the political scene
The Broder thesis
- 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, with less emphasis on seniority. Again, to quote Broder directly: ‘Leadership ought to be held accountable for bringing legislation to which the party is committed to a floor vote in orderly
and timely fashion, with adequate opportunity for debate and particularly for consideration of opposition party alternatives’ - He also argued for an end to the Senate filibuster and the Electoral
College, to better enable the elected to govern and the direct will of the people to be reflected in the presidential election.
