Characteristics
Up Development Characteristics Functions Problems Summary

 

 





 

Parties

USA

The texts on this page address the way in which parties in the USA understand themselves, try to develop and explain the central characteristics of the party system in the US and deal with the internal organization of parties in America [...to the text on the internal organization].

Characteristics and development of the two-party system

Not only were continental Europeans taken aback by the way in which US parties were patronage based with weak ideological bases, which were later to develop into pragmatic cadre organizations for forming coalitions of differing interests, they were also taken aback by the specific party-political system in America not least because they saw in it a possible alternative to the party diversity in Europe. A two-party system began to develop in the "new world" right from the beginning: Power, public office and sinecure filled by majority vote in individual electoral precincts offered little chance for splinter parties. A combination of two factors - appointing people to public office and the majority vote system - led to a concentration of the American party system. America's two-hundred year history demonstrates clearly that two large parties have continually opposed one another over long periods. While one of these parties would generally win the congressional elections over several legislative periods, the other would usually deliver the president. Non-religious groups were able to rely on certain regions and sections of society and to articulate relatively different political positions without a large ideological gap developing between their opposing political programs.

Realignment of party structure came about as a result of new issues in society that tended to blow apart traditional party loyalties. The issue of slavery and the American Civil War provide and example of this. If the Democrats had dominated politics in the country until well into the 1850s, they suddenly found themselves in a minority position after been regarded as "the party of the south". Indeed, between 1868 and 1928 they were able to win just four presidential elections, while the Republicans won a total of twelve.

The Great Depression at the end of the 1920s brought about another realignment. The Republicans attempted to play down the crisis because they were unsure about what effect new policies might have on a stable electoral basis. The Democratic presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for the state to play an active role in boosting the economy. On top of this he announced an employment program and a widening of the social net and in doing so attracted groups (workers, small business people, blacks, Catholics, ethnic minorities) to the Democratic Party who had previously belonged to the Republican Party's voter potential. Together with its traditional support in the south, this new Democratic new-deal coalition was able to develop a power basis capable of producing a majority, which existed for decades and was not shaken until into the 70s and 80s.

The way in which parties understand themselves

Both of America's large political parties generate differing historical myths, behind which are hidden ideological and sociological differences.

The Democrats have developed their myths around giants in American politics such as Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson and the second Roosevelt in order to present themselves as the party of democratization, freedom and progress, as a veritable "people's party".

Republicans use this image gladly as one of travesty; Republicans regard the Democratic Party as a mixed-bag of radical "left-wing groups" whose economic and social policies have always brought forth serious consequences for America's socio-political system.

For their part the Republicans refer to themselves as the Grand Old Party (GOP) and have build their myths up around Abraham Lincoln (...)., 

[They define] themselves as the party of first principles, that is, the original American values and models — individualism, pioneering spirit, free enterprise, anti-centralism and anti-bureaucracy, family values and neighborly spirit etc. —, which the Democrats regard as a caricaturing a must-have mentality that runs right through the GOP, a strongest-survive and elitism stance relevant to America's top ten thousand.

[Taken from: Hartmut Wasser: Politische Parteien in den USA; in: W.P. Adams u.a. (Hg.), Länderbericht USA I, Bonn BpB 1990]

[Back to top of page]

Third parties were sometimes able to shake the seemingly unshakable interrelationship of power between the two largest parties by grasping the nettle on certain political issues and mobilizing sections of the Democratic or Republican vote for their cause. The established parties were forced to respond, to develop alternative solutions and to provide an answer to this new challenge with polarized positions. All this set the voting groups in motion and led to changes in the power structure.

(...) Taken as a whole, the two-party system has never been seriously challenged. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have tended to "take on board" issues and programs being promoted by third parties before they could gather any real momentum. Even personnel from third parties were integrated. The very fact that America's two-party system is so flexible, decentralized and able to compromise means that is is able to take on board new policies and ideas quickly; this, in turn, lends the system of government a great deal of stability and during realignment phases makes it possible for political change to take place and, indeed, meets the constitutional requirement for checks and balances by producing a change in leadership.

[Hartmut Wasser; aus: Informationen zur politischen Bildung 199, "Politisches System der USA", Bonn BpB 1997]

[Back to top of page]

Organizational principles

Even as far as their internal organization is concerned, parties in the US have a rather unique system. Both an organized membership and a tight formalization of the process for forming a political will between the party leadership and its lower ranks are strangers to parties in America. So what does the term party membership actually mean?

"Mr. A likes to think of himself as a Democrat and to be regarded as one; Mr. B as a Republican and Mr. C as a socialist - this is often understood as meaning that they are "members" of the respective party. For most people, however, membership of a party is a very vague and difficult term to define. People joining a church, lodge, professional or any other kind of organization usually do so out of a conviction, contribute financially or in other ways, are active in its committees, hold office or make some other kind of active contribution to the life of the organization. None of this can be taken for granted for the largest political parties in America. There are no formal ceremonies for welcoming new members. A formal membership usually does not exist. Those joining are not required to sign a written statement of allegiance to the party and its political policies, they do not raise contributions (even if efforts are occasionally instigated with the aim of introducing as system of regular subscriptions to the party), they have no statue that can be implemented and have no means of disciplining a member apart from withdrawing party support to said member at the time of elections. People are Democrats or Republicans simply because the claim to be so, that is, when they constantly offer support to one of the parties at elections. And this is all that can really be said about them. In addition to this, individuals can change their minds and political allegiances as often as they want. The task of determining the number of members in a given party is a difficult one, especially when considering that there is no reliable criteria as to who can regarded as being a member." (Ogg/Ray)

Nevertheless, in the past deep party loyalty on the part of individuals and groups was an important factor in the predictability and stability of a political system. Depending on their background, education and career, ethnic and religious ties, place of residence and region, sections of society developed clear sympathies for one of the two largest parties, which was reflected in the ability to predict voting patterns. If true Republicans lived for the most part in the suburbs, in Vermont, Pennsylvania and Kansas, real Democrats lived in the centre of cities, in South Carolina, Alabama or Georgia. If the wealthy upper classes of American society traditionally voted Republican and the business community identified themselves with the Republican Party (the Grand Old Party), the lower classes voted for the Democrats under the mascot of the donkey, the heraldic Democratic animal. Because voters for the Republicans (whose heraldic animal is the Elephant) tended to have WASP origins (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant), Catholics Slavs, Italians, Irish and Jews all felt themselves drawn to the Democratic Party. If good education and being of a certain age produced Republican preferences, then an average education and youth created Democrats.

In contrast, current political reality is characterized by a decline in traditional party ties, by increasing instability in the relationship between parties, groups and individuals and by an increase in floating voters and independents. Social science currently seems neither able to provide a reason for such change with any certainty nor to predict the political effects without contradiction.

The unique characteristics of American political parties are also reflected in their organizational structure. Individual party levels from local grassroots to county level to state organization, which for its part leads to national representation, are activated in autonomous committees, which are filled with party members in the form of delegates regulated by primary elections at an internal party or state level.
A line of command from the top downwards is a stranger to American parties. Since the primary objective of parties is to function as election associations and to get their candidates elected to public office (and also the reason why party organization has been aligned to fit the voting districts since 1870) the political weight of local associations and county committees is particularly large because the majority of public-office posts are filled at a local or county level. At a state level, parties are especially interested in coordinating congressional elections, in trying to urge the great number of committees to communicate, in drawing up the overall political concept of the party in the country and in raising money to finance differing activities.

At a national level, American parties have developed three crystallization cores: the National Chairman, the National Committee and the National Convention. These three institutions, however, in no way represent the top of a hierarchical structure similar to those in Europe, which is capable of passing "down" orders from above. The National Chairman, who is usually appointed by the president in agreement with the National Committee, is responsible for coordinating the party's activities at a national level, taking care of public relations work with the media, maintaining contacts to state organizations and preparing elections at a national level. The National Chairman is supported in this by the National Committee, which rarely meets, and is comprised of delegates from all fifty states and represents a highly heterogeneous entity.

The National Convention performs some important functions. It nominates the party's presidential and vice-presidential candidates and adopts both the party's political platform and the party's statutes. The national convention of both parties convenes every four years and is made up of delegates from all the nation's states. Their number is calculated using a complicated distribution key: In 1992 the Democratic National Convention was made up of 4282 delegates (and 1170 substitute delegates, so-called alternatives), the Republican convention out of 2206 delegates and the same number of alternatives.

The rules that apply to the individual states also forms the legal framework for regulating political parties, for regulating a minimum level of inner-party democracy, the process for nominating candidates for posts within the party and together with federal law also regulate at least the beginnings of the difficult area of party financing. This is based almost entirely on voluntary donations, provided we disregard state contributions during presidential elections.

[Hartmut Wasser; taken from: Informationen zur politischen Bildung 199, "Politisches System der USA", Bonn BpB 1997]

[Back to top of page]

 

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods

        


 

This online service on the subject of political education was developed by agora-wissen, the Stuttgart-based Gesellschaft für Wissensvermittlung über neue Medien und politische Bildung (GbR) (Partnership for the Exchange of Information Using New Media and Political Education). Please contact us with your questions or comments. Translation from German into English by twigg's Übersetzung deutsch-englisch.