Our weak political parties
The NYT reports today that the Democratic Party has lost its bid to control the primary schedule for '08. Some 23 states are now considering holding elections on February 5. The Party would prefer them to wait until later in the season.
The Party issued threats, saying it might refuse to seat the delegations of any states that held unauthorized early contests. The states have ignored the Party.
Whether the Party is right or wrong in thinking that an early virtual national primary is good or not (the arguments on both sides are compelling), the weakness of the Party is distressing.
Parties are supposed to mediate between the government and the voter. If they're weak they can't. The upshot is that the voters are increasingly on their own, unguided by their political leaders.
Political parties were an American invention. We are watching their inexorable decline.
I know that voters like to think that it's more democratic for them to exercise more power. And they're right. It is more democratic. But is that necessarily a good thing?
We should be debating that question. We aren't. That's a bad thing.
comments powered by Disqus
HNN - 3/13/2007
You just said in a paragraph what it takes me a book to say. (The book comes out next fall.)
Adam Carman - 3/13/2007
My own view is that the decline of political parties since the Progressive Era made everything candidate-centered is a bad thing. On the surface it sounds like a noble effort--to have voters decide between two candidates instead of political parties, and let's face it, it has become a bragging right to say you're not tied down to either party. But the parties were a way of keeping elections focused on issues--if you saw the world a certain way you were a Republican; if you saw it the other way you were a Democrat and you supported your party's candidates even if they weren't all that impressive-looking or charismatic. Since Wilson, all presidential candidates with a prayer of succeeding must be skinny, well-built men with no facial hair whatsoever. The emphasis in presidential elections in particular has become who looks the best or sounds the best on TV,with no regard to the issues. What this has done is return us to the pre-political parties days when people chose their President based on personality and what section of the country he was from, which is why all our latest contests have devolved into name-calling debacles more suited to the 1820s than the 21st-century. Unfortunately, I do not see any hope that our political parties will revive because it is now too much a part of our culture to stand aloof from political allegiance and choose the candidate one likes better.
- Jerusalem Post recalls history of the Six-Day War
- Smithsonian launches campaign to raise $10 million for women’s history initiative
- Trump Was Not Always So Linguistically Challenged
- 75th anniversary of the World War 2 black uprising that the American public never heard about
- Longest serving governor in U.S. history to resign after confirmation as Trump's ambassador to China
- Jill Lepore: Americans Aren't Just Divided Politically, They're Divided Over History Too
- AHA joins protest of Trump’s plan for drastic cuts to the NEH
- Diane Ravitch says the Democrats paved the way for the education secretary's efforts to privatize our public schools
- Mark Moyar explains why he came to believe the Vietnam War was winnable
- How should Texas high schoolers learn history?