Party decline and renewal Key viewpoint – BROADER – ‘The Party’s over’ 1970s He claimed that both main parties had lost their ability to influence people – through membership, functions and importance. NB ‘The Party’s Over’ the title actually referred to America – what he actually meant was that yes – party loyalty had become seriously eroded, but, also for America – the party IS over.
Viewpoints - Clinton Rossiter – ‘creatures of compromise, coalitions of interest, in which principle is muted and silenced…..’ ‘two vast, gaudy, friendly umbrellas, under which all Americans are invited to stand’ These viewpoints are from an era when there was a great deal of ‘working across the aisle’, it was an era when voters split their tickets, it was the era from the 1970s through the last 3 decades of the twentieth century.
The theory of decline Candidate selection done by the people not the party bosses Communication now done through TELEVISION, not the party rally Issue or candidate centred voting and the rise in number of independents. Growth of movements (Tea Party and Occupy) which challenges the original parties.
Party renewal The most recent position of the two main parties appears to suggest that there has been a revival and even a polarisation. There has been a strengthening of identity and ideological coherence seen by a sharp decline in the number of centrists in the House and Senate. Third parties do not have any real influence and issues drive the divisions between the two main parties.
What are the arguments against renewal? Regularity of congressional elections make the bond between rep and people stronger – the party is not the driving force Legislation like Bush’s bail out in 2008 were essentially a democrat measure supported by both sides, but opposed by Bush Republicans? Federal matching funds have now replaced party funding Senators tend to vote on conscience more than party line
The most recent evidence Taken from the Annual Update 2014
The Senate – 30 years of change 1982 – huge ideological overlap between the parties. The Senate had 58 centrists.In 2012 – there was no ideological overlap. There were no centrists.Interestingly in 2003 and 2004 there were 24 and 30 centrists respectively.The 2005 second term of George W Bush was THE TURNING POINT.
The House – 20 years of change 1993 – House centrists made up 1/5 of the House (79)2012 – House centrists made up 3% of the House (13)What other changes have there been?
Other trends Centrists replaced by ideologues Norm Coleman (mod REP) e.g. moderate Republicans replaced by very liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats replaced by very conservative Republicans Al Franken (Dem – third most liberal in the Senate)
Decline of split-ticket voting Split-ticket voting encourages a spirit of bipartisanship Straight ticket voting encourages partisanship – How many of the 100 Senators were voted in on a seat that was won by the other party in the previous year’s presidential election? In , in
What is the significance of these trends? There are now no true centrists in either chamber. There is much more party discipline. No true centrists left Presidents have less power in a divided government Members won’t cross party lines Likely to continue as split states and districts has declined That has been the case for 25 years out of 34 Stricter party discipline No overlap ‘The President’s power lies in the power to persuade.’ Is there anyone left to persuade? Has the President become enfeebled?