|
Definition:
|
A complex
system under minimal legal regulation with respect to the
nominating and electing process and composed of three distinct
yet related elements:
1) the party-in-the-electorate;
2) the party organization; and
3) the party-in-government
(public officials and those who seek to be).
All of these elements may have conflicting interests and foci.
|
1) theoretically--
"What do the theories say about political parties?"
2) empirically--
"What have social scientists discovered about parties? What
can we discover about parties?"
3) comparatively--
"What are political parties like in other countries?
Theoretically
elite theory
Political
parties are part of the rituals of the American electoral system that tie
the masses to the political system. They are dominated by the elite
and reflect elite values.
plural theory
olitical
parties are an interest group like any other in a pluralist political
system. Their major objective is to get their members elected to
office and to provide an incentive for participation in politics for
activists. When there are not many parties, parties are coalitions of
diverse interests.
democratic theory
Political
parties are one of the vehicles through which citizens exercise
citizenship. Must have a "responsible party system" in
which: 1) elections provide meaningful
choices 2) the candidates differ on
the issues 3) citizens understand the
differences between the candidate
Empirically
What evidence can be examined
to test the competing theories?
From other social scientists?
the history of party competition
the nature of partisan identifiers
the nature of the nomination process
the nature of campaigns
Characteristics
of the American Party System
1)
a two party system
why only a two party system? no
mention of parties in the Constitution historical persistence of
initial form (American dualism) nature of the American electoral
system piecemeal additions to the American electorate absence
of ideology the consequence is an inability of third parties to
rise and sustain success is there an advantage/ disadvantage to a
two-party system? promotion of stability by sacrificing
representation
2)
nominally competitive
at local and state level: there
is little competition between the parties at the local level
slightly more at the state
level one party usually dominates
at national level: approximately 75% of congressional districts
are "safe" seats in presidential elections, the history
has been one of the two parties dominates for a significant period of time
Burnham's
Theory of Critical Elections
| |
party in power WINS |
party in power LOSES |
| issues remain THE
SAME |
MAINTAINING |
DEVIATING |
| issues CHANGE |
RECONFIRMING |
REALIGNING |
History
of US Party Systems
| System |
Period |
Leading Parties |
Events/Issues |
| 1 |
1800-1824 |
Federalists
Dem/Reps |
Parties
evolving/
Power of the national government |
| 2 |
1824-1860 |
Whigs
Democrats |
Conventions/
Economic Issues
Slavery
Regional Conflict |
| 3 |
1860-1896 |
Republicans
Democrats |
Urban machines
and political bosses/
Reconstruction
States' Rights |
| 4 |
1896-1932 |
Republicans
Democrats |
nonpartisan
election
weakening of congressional parties/
Regulation of big business |
| 5 |
1932-1968? |
Republicans
Democrats |
Race/ Civil
Rights
Communism
Vietnam
Welfare state politics |
| 6? |
1968-present |
Republicans
Democrats |
Economy
Quality of Life |
3)
decentralized
American parties are stratarchical
rather than hierarchical
stratarchical= perform
all of the functions of political parties at each level
levels:
1) national
2) state
3) congressional
4) county
5) local
functions:
1) recruit candidates for political office
2) mobilize voters
3)
assist in campaigns
4) education of
the electorate
5) system maintenance
function (interest articulation/ legitimacy)
4) an
absence of ideology
Comparatively
American
political parties are broad coalitions of diverse groups. They are often
called "catch-all" parties. In other countries with
multi-party systems, political parties are far more well-defined,
appealing to specific subsets of the population.
party
typology
Families
of Parties
Parties
of the Left
|
Communist
Parties
derived from the CPSU ideology
from Marx and Lenin
Issue positions:
1) controlled economy
2) labor oriented
3) social justice
4) expansion of social services
5) democracy
6) environmental protection
7) nationalization
|
New Left Parties
post-material/ environmental
parties
Issue positions:
1) environmental protection
2) curb economic growth
through regulation
3) international peace and
disarmament
4) social justice
5) women's rights
6) participatory democracy
|
Social Democratic Parties
origins in working class and labor
movements often work in concert with trade unions
Issue positions:
1) expansion of
social services
2) social justice
3) economic goals
4) democracy
5) controlled economy
6) environmental protection
7) planning
8) decentralization of power
|
Parties
of the Center
|
Agrarian Parties
centrist parties that emphasize
decentralization and environmentalism may also emphasize
traditional values
Issue Positions:
1) social services to rural
areas
2) decentralization
3) environmental protection
4) private enterprise
5) agriculture
6) defense of traditional morality
7) private enterprise/
controlled economy mix
|
Liberal parties
concern for individual rights/
anti-clerical stands economic laissez-faire
Issue positions:
) private enterprise
2) individual rights
3) environmental protection
4) freedom
5) decentralization
6) social justice
|
Parties
of the Right
|
Secular Conservatives
generally either nationalist
parties, anti-tax parties or traditional conservative
Issue positions:
1) private enterprise
2) government efficiency
3) law and order
4) traditional values
5) productivity and growth
|
Christian Democratic Parties
a general commitment to welfarism
and defense of traditional values
Issue positions:
1) social service provision
2) traditional morality
3) private enterprise
4) concern for non-economic
groups
5) freedom
|
Far Right parties
conservative and xenophobic
no positions other than being:
anti-state
anti-foreigner pro-military
|
| 