Political Parties

Schlessinger:  "On the Theory of Party Organization"

 

Israeli politics

pluralism

critiques of pluralism

hyperpluralism

markets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the 1970s scholars and pundits painted a bleak picture of the political parties in the United States.  All cited some basic evidence to support the theory that the parties were either weakening, in decline, or decomposing.

 

 Marvin P. Wattenberg in The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1984
"For over three decades now the American public has been drifting away from the two major political parties.  Once the central guiding forces in American electoral behavior, the parties are currently perceived with almost complete indifference by a large portion of the population.  The decline of public affection for the parties has been due not to any greater negative feelings about the Democrats and the Republicans, but rather to an increasing sense that the parties are simply no longer crucial to the governmental process".

 

David Broder in The Party's Over
"My view is that American politics is at an impasse, that we have been spinning our wheels for a long, long time; and that we are going to dig ourselves ever deeper into trouble, unless we find a way to develop some political traction and move again.  I believe we can get the traction, we can make government responsible and responsive again, only when we begin to use the political parties as they were meant to be used.  And that is the thesis of this book.

It is called The Party's Over, not in prophecy, but in alarm.  I am not predicting the demise of the republicans of the Democrats.  Party loyalties have been seriously eroded, the Democratic and Republican organizations weakened by years of neglect".  

 

 William Crotty in American Parties in Decline
"We are witnessing a decline in the role and significance of political parties in the United States.  The reasons for this decline are many:  society is changing; a new technology of politics has arisen; an evolving electorate is placing new and unaccustomed demands on the party agencies.  The political parties are responding as best they can.  The overall result is a period of confusion and an evolving transformation of the party system".

 

According to Schlessinger there is plenty of evidence of the decline of parties:

1) declining proportion of citizens willing to identify with any party;

2)  growth in split-ticket voting;

3)  severely reduced role in the nominating process for public officials;

4)  the emergence of media specialists;

5) the growth of political action committees;

6) difficulties party leaders have for marshalling support for their policies.

 

According to Schlessinger there is also evidence of the resurgence of parties:

1) the two major parties dominate elective offices at all levels as never before in the history of American electoral politics;

2)  they compete over a wider range of constituencies;

3) they have sizeable staffs;

4)  they have vibrant state organizations;

5)  the national party is interested in actively engaged in state political activity;

6) the parties offered distinct alternatives (1964, 1972, 1980);

7)  changes in the Congress (demise of Southern Democrats and weakening of seniority) have made it a more partisan body.

 

Asks Schlessinger:  "What then to make of:

Parties that win all elections yet don't control their own nomination process?
Parties that take distinct positions yet whose leaders have little influence over their members?
Parties whose organizations have  decomposed or atrophied yet whose personnel or payrolls have blossomed?
Parties whose support has declined yet win more and more of the elections?

 

Schlessinger argues the inability of political scientists to define parties hurts our ability to understand them.  Our varying conceptual approaches lead us to these varying analyses!  Too bad we aren't as "focused" as economists!!!

Schlessinger argues that the work of Anthony Downs (Towards an Economic Theory of Democracy) gives us a way to develop a cumulative theory.  Positive or rational-choice theory becomes the background for the development of a more general and cumulative approach to political behavior and party organization.

 

Downs:  a party is "a team seeking to control the governing apparatus by gaining office in a duly constituted election"

Implications: 

 politics is goal-oriented

and

political actors are rational

 

Have you heard these terms before?

 

Who is excluded?    

Voters!  

They are not part of the team!

 

Parties are not coalitions of voters!  

That is a construct developed by political observers!!

 

Psychological approaches to studying voting are "insidious".  

Party doesn't lie in the minds of the voters (party identification)

 

All the things we will talk about in the next few weeks:

The American Voter, The Changing American Voter

aren't about party!!!!!!

 

Schlessinger seeks a theory of party organization!

The American problem:  a number of avenues for seeking nomination fall outside of the confine of the party apparatus

Parties don't control their own nomination process! There are state and national laws which impinge upon the parties in determining who can vote in primaries, etc.

 

Treat party organizations as you would any organization!

 

Ask the following questions:

1)  Is the organization maintained by market-exchange or through non-market devices?

2)  Is the primary output of the organization a private good or a public good?

3)  Are participants compensated directly or indirectly>

 

Market or Non-market-based organizations?

Elections are not balanced markets

Parties receive votes from voters

The party gets office (and the private benefits which accrue) but what do voters get?

Some get collective benefits whether they voted for the party or not!

Some get some of what they want but not all of what they want!

Schlessinger:  "From the voters' standpoint it is seldom clear just what they are getting in the exchange".

  Schlessinger:    "Whatever goals may compete with market goals, a business cannot escape the fact that it must sell its product to cover its cost.  Failing that, the firm collapses and all of the competing goals with it.  Similarly, a political party which fails to win election, and even more important, holds no prospect of winning in the future, also faces collapse".

 

If party organizations couldn't provide market rewards for participation, why participate?  

If there are other ways this can be done (through interest groups, let's say), why waste time in political parties?

 

If parties are organizations operating in economic markets, market goals must dominate.  Thus the basic thesis of Downs' work:

"Parties formulate policies in order to win elections rather than win elections to formulate policies".

Frequent elections and constant polling allow candidates and parties to know their position in the political marketplace continually.  A party that doesn't respond will lose in the electoral arena (the political marketplace).  If the system allowed for the creation of new parties (products), the party would be "out of business"!

Fortunately for America's two major parties, election rules make the formation of more parties (that can win) difficult, if not impossible!

The most visible product of the party is the candidate.  Winning candidates gain power in party organizations  (just like successful salesmen)!

 

Collective Goods and Party Organizations

Schlessinger looks at the writings of Mancur Olson (The Logic of Collective Action) to explore collective goods and the party organization.

Olson argues that in large groups any individual actor will not act to achieve the interests of the group. The increment in collective good that would emerge from any one participant's action would be so small that it would be illogical for the person to participate.  Therefore, no rational person would participate to achieve a collective good!

According to Olson, those who participate in political parties for collective benefits generally have little information on the  costs of participating and the benefits to be obtained from his/her participation.

Those who do participate, and recognize the "illogic" are dong it for purposive (psychic/ ideological) incentive reasons.

 

 

The Mode of Compensation for Participants

Political party participants are generally compensated indirectly.  Ie., they get jobs, preferments, etc. from governments, not directly from the parties.

As a result, indirectly paid participants have less of a stake in the maintenance of the party organization.  Volunteer workers aren't going to be a committed to the organization.  Thus paid workers are better.

(Thus the "nationalization" of parties and their "professionalization" has strengthened the party organization at local and state levels)

 

 

Party Organization According to Schlessinger:

The political party offers collective benefits and compensates its participants indirectly, yet is market based.