1. Chapter Nine Political Parties

2. Ideology Caution: –Political labels have different meanings across national boundaries as well as over time –Ideological terms or labels can be confusing –Ideology both causes events and is affected by them –Ideological debate and differences are always with us, but the nature of the issues changes –Generally, there are more conservatives than liberals, but there are few extremem conservatives or extreme liberals Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 2

3. Caution cont’d Ideological views provide a lens through which to view politics, but most American do not organize their attitudes systematically; low consistency among various attitudes and opinions Most policy is characterized more by coalitions than by fixed alignments that pit one set of ideologies against another. Most policy is marked by moderations, pragmatizsm, and accommodation Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 3

4. Ideology Terminology Liberalism: refers to a belief in the positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of opportunity. Conservatism: belief in property rights and free enterprise; keep gov’t small except in the area of national defense; government to ensure order; preference to status quo with changes only in moderation. Socialism: economic and governmental system based on public ownership of the means of production and exchange. Libertarianism: cherishes individual liberty and insists on a sharply limited government; opposes all government regulation Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 4

5. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 5 Political Parties A party is a group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by supplying them with a label (party identification), by which they are known to the electorate United States parties have become weaker as labels, sets of leaders, and organizations

6. Parties in US vs. Europe American System federal separation of powers winner-take-all two party - divided gov’t trend, split-ticket voting, more to decentralization, all weakens party loyalty; moves to reform parties (“democratize”) have resulted in broader bases, but still more “weak” than “strong” affiliations and an increase in declared independents (reforms- primaries and conventions) European Systems unitary fused/parliamentary proportional multi-party/coalitions -party organizations, labels and leaders stronger; current trend of voters is slightly decreasing party loyalty Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 6

7. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 7 The Rise and Decline of Parties The founders disliked parties, viewing them as factions During the Jacksonian era political participation became a mass phenomenon From the Civil War until the 1930s most states were dominated by one party Progressives pushed measures to curtail parties’ power and influence

8. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 8 The Results of Reform The worst forms of political corruption were reduced All political parties were weakened; parties became less able to hold officeholders accountable or to coordinate across the branches of government

9. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 9 Figure 9.1: Decline in Party Identification, 1952-2002 National Election Studies, The NES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, 1952-2000, table 20.1, and data for 2002 updated by Marc Siegal.

10. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 10 Party Realignment Critical or realigning periods: periods when a sharp, lasting shift occurs in the popular coalition supporting one or both parties Two kinds of realignments –A major party is defeated so badly that it disappears and a new party emerges –Two existing parties continue but voters shift their loyalty from one to another

11. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 11 Realignments 1860: slavery issue fixed new loyalties in the popular mind 1896: economic issues shifted loyalties to East/West, city/farm split 1932: economic depression triggered new coalition for Democrats 1980: Could not have been a traditional realignment, because Congress was left in the hands of the Democrats

12. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 12 Figure 7.3: Cleavages and Continuity in the Two-Party System

13. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 13 Map 7.1: The Election of 1828

14. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 14 Map 7.2: The Election of 1860

15. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 15 Map 7.3: The Election of 1896

16. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 16 Figure 7.3: Cleavages and Continuity in the Two-Party System (cont’d)

17. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 17 Map 7.4: The Election of 1932

18. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 18 The Election of 1976 Democrat: 297 Jimmy Carter Republican: 240 Gerald Ford

19. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 19 The Election of 1992 Democrat : 370 Bill Clinton Republican : 168 George H. W. Bush Independent : 0 Ross Perot

20. Election of 2012 Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 20 Democrat: 332 Barack Obama Republican: 206 Mitt Romney

21. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 21 Party Decline Evidence that parties are declining, not realigning Proportion of people identifying with a party declined between 1960 and 1980 Proportion of those voting a split ticket increased

22. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 22 Table 7.2: The Rise of Republican Politics in the South, 1956-2002

23. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 23 Figure 9.2: Trends in Split-Ticket Voting For President and Congress, 1920-2000

24. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 24 Party Structure Parties are similar on paper RNC effectively created a national firm of political consultants Democrats moved to factionalized structure and redistributed power By the 1990s, DNC had learned from the RNC: adopted the same techniques, with some success (THEME A: PARTY STRUCTURE TODAY)

25. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 25 Nominating a President Primary: an election in which voters select the candidate who will run on each party’s ticket Caucus: a meeting of party followers at which delegates are picked

26. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 26 Table 9.1: Who Are the Party Delegates?

27. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 27 Table 9.5: How Party Delegates and Party Voters Differ in Liberal Ideology

28. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 28 Table 7.6: Political Opinions of Delegates and Voters

29. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 29 Table 7.3: Party Voting in Presidential Elections

30. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 30 National Conventions National committee sets time and place; issues a “call” setting the number of delegates for each state and the rules for their selection In 1970s, Democrats’ rules were changed to weaken local party leaders and increase the proportions of women and minorities In 1988, the number of superdelegates was increased

31. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 31 Kinds of Parties Political machine: a party organization that recruits members via tangible incentives Ideological party: principle is more important than winning election Solidary groups: members are motivated by solidarity incentives THEME B: UNITED STATES PARTIES AS BROAD COALITIONS

32. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 32 Kinds of Parties Sponsored parties: created or sustained by another organization Personal following: requires an appealing personality, an extensive network, name recognition, and money

33. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 33 Reasons for the Two Party System Electoral system—winner-take-all and plurality system limit the number of parties Opinions of voters—two broad coalitions work, although there may be times of bitter dissent State laws have made it very difficult for third parties to get on the ballot

34. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 34 Table 9.4: The Public Rates the Two Parties

35. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 35 Minor Parties Ideological parties: comprehensive, radical view; most enduring One-issue parties: address one concern, avoid others Economic protest parties: regional, protest economic conditions Factional parties: from split in a major party, usually over the party’s presidential nominee

36. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 36 Impact of Minor Parties Conventional wisdom holds that minor parties develop ideas that the major parties adopt Factional parties have had probably the greatest influence on public policy

37. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.9 | 37 THEME B DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Democratic politics always requires a majority coalition to win. In the United States the coalition is formed before an election, in the makeup of political parties. In European multiparty systems the coalition is formed after the election, when a political leader bargains for the support of other parties to form a voting coalition of a majority of seats in parliament. What difference might it make whether the coalition is together before or after the election? Which system allows the most meaningful elections? Which allows citizens to express their attitudes best in the polling booth? Which most effectively allows citizens to hold politicians accountable for what they do? Why do some voters believe that it is illogical to vote for a party other than one of the two major ones? What would a voter who found the Democrats insufficiently liberal have gained by voting for a presidential candidate such as Democrat Eugene McCarthy, who ran as an independent in 1976? Would this reasoning apply to the presidential elections of 1992, 1996, and 2000? In 1996, Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota, having run on the Reform Party ticket. Ventura was a former pro-wrestler, actor, and radio talk show host; he served as mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota ’ s sixth largest city, from 1991 to 1995. Does Ventura ’ s election suggest that the Reform Party may be in a position to challenge the Democratic and Republican parties in the future? Why or why not? For further information about the Reform Party, see: http://www.reformparty.org/http://www.reformparty.org/