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?
Senators tend to vote on
conscience more than party
line
Federal matching funds have
now replaced party funding
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.
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
1977 -2013 – 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 1977 41, in 2013 - 21
Straight ticket voting encourages
partisanship
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
‘The President’s power lies in the
power to persuade.’
• Is there anyone left to persuade?
• Has the President become
enfeebled?