Party decline or party renewal?

                When seeking to assess the relative strength of political parties, it is commonplace to employ the dichotomy of party decline and party renewal. As one might anticipate, there is evidence to support both sides of the debate. The party decline thesis stems from work undertaken by the respected political commentator David Broder (1972). He claimed that the 'party was over' because political parties were in a state of decline. His argument can be summarized into four key points.

                Firstly, campaigns had become more candidate-centered. Voting behavior was increasingly shaped by the view of candidates rather than parties. Secondly, parties had lost influence over the process of candidate selection. It was those who voted during the primary season, rather than the party bosses; that now shaped the nomination process. The old practice of party bosses colluding together over their preferred candidate, with back-room negotiations and procedural wrangling over the number of delegates awarded and who is eligible to vote; was replaced by a more democratic system. Thirdly, the role of parties over political education was seen to be in decline. Candidates increasingly marginalized party gatherings in preference for direct communication with the media. Moreover, voters increasingly gained their political information from advocacy groups rather than political parties. Finally, parties had lost much of their ability to provide money to candidates. In summary, the influence of party organizations and activists had therefore been eclipsed by the combined role played by the candidates, the public and the media.

                The party renewal argument emerged as a response to the party decline thesis first put forward by Broder. Central to the counter-argument is the view that Broder may have simply reflected the time in which he was writing, rather than identifying a particular long-term trend. There are several persuasive points that could be used to challenge Broder’s initial thesis. To begin with, parties have actually gained greater influence over the nominating process since the 1970s. A good illustration of this point is the use of super delegates that have no prior commitment to a candidate. As unpledged delegates, they are able to exert some level of peer review on behalf of the party hierarchy upon potential nominees. Indeed, the party leadership has played some role in supporting recent presidential candidates (as with Romney in 2012). The party leadership may also intervene in a primary contest for a congressional seat.

Another persuasive point to back up the party renewal claim is the growing degree of partisanship within Congress. It could also be argued that both parties have nationalized their campaign strategy to some degree. This is most noticeable during congressional mid-terms, such as the Republican ‘Contract with America’ in 1994 and the Democrats ‘Six for ’06.’ The GOP continued this trend with their ‘Pledge to America’ in 2010. It should also be noted that both main parties have modernized their national party structure. In doing so, the central committees from both major parties exert greater influence than they did during the 1970s. For instance, the national committees from both the Republicans and the Democrats can impose sanctions upon parties at the state level during the primary season. For instance, in 2012 the RNC prevented any state from holding a winner-takes-all contest before the first day of April. Finally, the argument concerning party decline was perhaps exaggerated given the extent to which elected office is dominated by the ‘Republicrats.’ Indeed, the whole thesis looks increasingly old-fashioned given the passage of time and the evidence in favor of party renewal.

                It must of course be recognized here that the founding fathers sought to prevent the emergence of strong political parties. In the words of our first ever President, “there is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties.” The whole emphasis of the Constitution is upon preventing the possibility of powerful forces imposing populist measures within the states. Indeed, it seems reasonable to conclude that the founding fathers would be horrified at the relative strength of political parties in the contemporary era. The federalist structure also serves to weaken the influence of the national party committees. Parties are organized primarily upon a state-wide basis rather than on a nationwide approach. Whilst strong political parties can exist within a federal system, this is not the case in a country with a culture of states’ rights underpinned by constitutional protection of those rights via the tenth amendment.

                The 2012 electoral contest supports both sides of the debate. Team Obama and Team Romney needed the support of party activists and the party organization itself in order to mobilize support and secure funds. That said; the majority of campaign finance was raised independently of the party label by the candidates themselves. Moreover, the relative unity of the parties should also be considered. The Democrats put forward a fairly unified message, although some senior figures chose not to attend the convention in order to place distance between themselves and the President. The Republicans were also relatively united, although Chris Christie arguably went ‘off message’ over Obama’s visit to New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. It remains to be seen how 2016 pads out ...

In summary, it seems reasonable to claim that the strength of political parties is not an immutable concept, an observation that is central towards placing Broder’s initial thesis into a meaningful historical context. Party decline/renewal is also very difficult to accurately measure, although that is the natural order of things within political debate.