Political Parties US Flashcards
(37 cards)
Introduction to party politics US
A key principle of the constitution is federalism; political power is divided between a national government and state governments. For most of the 19th and 20th century political parties were more evident at local levels. Often there would be little ideological cohesion between the state organisations of the same party. Outside of the presidential election being a republican or democrat meant little. Over the last three decades national party structures have strengthened. New campaign finance laws meant money flowed to national parties rather than being raised locally. Television candidates appeal directly to voters appeal directly to voters and opinion polls allow candidates to hear what voters want without meeting them and technology targets voters with political messages through mailing and social media. Organisation of parties is more top down, whereas four decades ago they were bottom up. There is still a clear divide between national and state parties. For example trump is highly questioned by a number of republicans and presidents are elected in a nationwide election and not as party leader like the UK.
National party organisation US
The only permanent party structure at national level is the national committees. The DNC and RNC both have Washington DC offices. Each has a chair elected by the members of the committee and traditionally incumbent presidents recommend the chair of their party. In 2016 Trump nominated Ronna Romney McDaniel and in 2017 the DNC elected Perez (that was seen as a victory for Clinton over Sanders). National party chairs are anonymous party bureaucrats who are rarely in the public eye. National committees raise money; hire staff and co-ordinate election strategy for their party candidates for local, state and national office. They are also responsible for the national party convention. The DNC is made up of the chair and vice chair of each 50 state democratic parties and 200 elected members. All DNC members are super delegates to the national convention. The RNC is made up of the chair of each Republican Party and two committee members, one man and woman. At the national level each party has congressional leadership as well as committees to oversee elections to each house of congress. For example the Democratic Senatorial campaign committee, the democratic congressional campaign committee, the national republican senatorial committee and the national republican congressional committee.
State and local party organisation US
At state level there is a variety of organisation, laws and customs and considerable power is vested with state governors and big city majors. There are state party committees headed by the state party chair, as well as state party conventions. There are also party committees at congressional district, county, city, ward and precinct levels.
Party ideology
The two party names are neither ideologically exclusive as democracy and republicanism, they are both embracing ideologies. For example Clinton believes in a republican government and Trump believes in a democratic government and from 2001-7 he identified as a democrat. Sometimes politicians attract ideological labels ahead of their party names, for example Bush 2000 ‘compassionate conservative’. The south tends to be more conservative and the northeast and west coast tends to be more liberal. Therefore for both parties to be viable in all regions they need to take on the ideological shades of the region. Southern democrats such as Senator Nelson of Florida tend to be more conservative than New England democrats such as Murphy of Connecticut. Similarly New England republicans such as Senator Collins of Maine are more liberal than southern republican Burr of North Carolina.
Growth in ideologies
In 1972 when asked ‘do you think there are any important differences between the two parties’, 44% said no and 46% said yes, but by 2012 81% said yes, when asked ‘do you think one party is more conservative than the other’ in 1984, 53% said Republican, 32% said the same and 15% said democrats. Whereas in 2012 73% said republican, 17% said the same and 10% said democrat.
The democrats and ideology
The two parties are not ideological monoliths, not all democrats are liberal, especially in the south or Midwest. Many identify as moderate or conservative democrats, in an era of hyper partisanship the number of people who are moderates had diminished. Many saw the contest between Clinton and Sanders in the democratic primaries based on ideologies. Sanders were on the left of the party and Clinton more centrist. Sanders promoted a democratic socialism alternate; his campaign was presented in terms of a movement. Exit polls showed liberal democrats preferred Clinton over Sanders by 53% to 46%, while non-liberals preferred Clinton 61%to 36%.
The republicans and ideology
Not all can be identified as conservatives, especially those in the northeast or the west coast, hence labels such as social conservatism for those who are conservative on social, moral and religious issues such as same sex marriage and women’s rights. These republicans would have gravitated towards the moral majority in the 1980s, referred to as the Christian right. There are also fiscal conservatives who joined the Tea Party movement to fight for a reduction of national debt, federal budget deficit and reduction in government spending. There is also compassionate conservatism coined by Bush, which sought to use traditional conservative beliefs to improve lives of those who felt abandoned by the government. The primaries did not seem to indicate an ideological battle. Trump seemed an almost post-ideological candidate, he was not a conservative like Cruz and he didn’t fit the mould of moderate or liberal republicans like Romney or McCain. He did promise to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court and admired Reagan’s economics.
Party polices
Democrats tend to be more progressive on social and moral issues, as well as issues relating to law and order. They favour greater governmental intervention both in the economy and on social welfare issues like education and healthcare. Republicans focus on individualism with the government playing a limited role in the economy
Party views
abortion
D- Every women should have access to quality reproductive healthcare
R - The right to life cannot be infringed
Gender rights
D- Fight for comprehensive federal non-discrimination protections for LGBT Americans
R- Recognise marriage as the union between one man and one woman
crime
D- Understand the disproportionate effects of crime and violence on communities of colour
R- Support prison sentences for gang crimes, violence or sexual offenses against children, drug dealers, rape, robbery and murder
environment
D- Climate change is an urgent threat. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 and 50% of clean electricity within a decade
R- Oppose carbon tax and support all forms of energy that are marketable in the free economy
Minimum wage
D- Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour
R- Minimum wage is an issue that should be tackled at state and local level
Wall street
D- Implement, enforce and build on Obama’s financial reform
R- Dislike regulation
taxation
D- Supported the Bush tax cuts for wealthiest to expire
R- Supported extending Bush tax cuts. Want three tax brackets ranging from 33% to 12%
healthcare
D- Support the affordable health care act and supported reducing costs of prescription drugs
R- Repeal the affordable healthcare act.
education
D- Federal government should improve schools and education
R- Federal government should not get involved
Polarisation of US politics
Up to the 1990s both parties included a wide range from liberals to conservatives. With the breakup of the Old south, southern conservative democrats began to cross to the Republican Party. Making the republican a far more ideologically conservatives party, leaving the democrats as a more homogenous liberal party. America began to be described as a 50-50 country.
Red America
This is characterised as white, protestant but also some Catholics due to their views on abortion. It is wealthy, rural and conservative. The voters think federal government should be limited and they think federal income tax should be cut. They are pro-life, pro-gun and oppose Obamacare. They use Fox news and like Bush and loath Clinton and Obama.
Blue America
Racially they are a coalition of black, white, Hispanic and Asian supporters. They are wealthier, urban and liberal. The voters think the federal government should increase in scale and tax should be increased to fund more services. They are pro-choice, favour gun control and are supportive of Obamacare. They watch CNN and like Clinton and Obama and loath Bush and Trump.
The two party system
This is a system defines as one in which two parties regularly win at least 80% of the popular vote in general elections, regularly win 90% of seats in the legislature and alternatively control the executive branch of government. In the last seven presidential elections 1992-2016, the Democrats and Republicans accounted for more than 80% of the popular vote and exceeded 95% in four. Congress is clearly a two party system as in 2016 only 2 members, Sanders and King were not republican or democrat. Every president since 1853 has been either a democrat or republican. In January 2017, 49 of the 50 state governors were either republican or democrat, the only exception Ball Walker of Alaska.
Reasons for the two party system
- Electoral system – FPTP makes it difficult for third parties as their support is shallow. They pick up a fraction in almost every state but under a winner take all system they receive no reward. A national third party candidate on the ballot merely lowers the percentage of the vote needed by the major party candidate to win the election.
- Broad party ideologies – when the two major parties encompass such a wide ideological spectrum there is not much room left for any parties to attract substantial support. The two major parties are ideologically all embracing
- Primary elections – the phenomenon of primary elections helps to make the major parties more responsive to the electorate, minimising the need for protest voting, protest votes often go to third parties
A 50 party system
The two party system conveys an idea of two disciplined centralised parties but parties in the US are essentially decentralised, state based parties with no national leader and no national policy platform except during presidential campaigns. For example the Texas Republican Party is different to the Massachusetts Republican Party and the California Democratic Party is different to the Georgia Democratic Party. This is a consequence of federalism and where every election is state based. A two party system is where the two major parties alternate power but in the US they have power at the same time, one controlling the White House and the other controlling one or both houses of congress.
Does the US have a two party system - yes
- All presidents since 1853 have been republican or democrat
- Democrats and republicans regularly win 80% of the vote
- In January 2017 all 435 members of the House were republican or democrat
- In January 2017, 98 of 100 senators were either republican or democrat
- Leadership in congress is organised by the two main parties
- State politics is equally dominated by the two major parties
Does the US have a two party system - no
The US has a 50 party system with individual state parties being autonomous and ideologically varied
• Some states are virtually one party states
• Third parties have been significant in some elections
• Many voters join movements, like the Tea Party movement instead of parties
• Many Americans are self described as independents
Third party varieties
There are three types of third parties. They are national, regional and state based, permanent or temporary and issue based or ideological.
Key third parties
National third parties (both permanent) – the Libertarian party who have had presidential candidates like Gary Johnson on the ballot in all 50 states; they are also an ideological third party. Also the Green Party who have had presidential candidates like Jill Stein who was on the ballot in 44 states and a write in candidate in three more (they are also an issue based third party).
Regional – they include the Storm Thurmond’s states rights party formed in 1948 and George Wallace’s independent party in 1968 who are a temporary third party. The reform party was also a temporary third party.
Impact of third parties
There are no national, permanent third parties that regularly win a sizeable proportion in general elections. Their status is paradoxical; they are both important and unimportant. The combined popular vote in 2012 was less than 2% and 6% in 2016. But they have shown importance in 3/9 elections from 1968-2000, in 1968, 1992 and 2000.
In 2000 Nader’s 2.7% for the Green party cost Al gore the presidency. In Florida Bush won by 537 voters and Nader won 100,000 votes. In New Hampshire, Bush won by 7,000 voters and Nader had 22,000 voters. Exit poll data showed at least half of Nader voters would have been Gore voters and the other half would not have voted. In five sets of house elections between 2008 and 2016, the combined votes for third parties never exceeded 3.6% (in 2012), while the senate races during the same period averaged 4.5%, with the highest being 6.6% in 2010. In those elections the Green Party candidate won 9.4% in South Carolina. In the 2016 election Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party won over 4 million votes which was 3.27% of the popular vote and Green candidate Jill Stein won 1.06% of the popular vote.
Aims of third parties
In the case of Perot it could be argued that his aim was not to win the presidency but to have a significant impact on party policy. Nader’s ability to affect the outcome of 2000 election is another case. Although third parties fail in the electoral terms, they get a few votes which can impact the election result both in certain states and possibly nationally, as well as influencing the policy agenda of the major parties.
Third parties are significant in the US
- 1992 Perot won 19% of the vote and contributed to Bush’s defeat
- The green party’s 2.7% in 2000 contributed to Al gore’s defeat
- Third parties can lose elections but influence by changing the policies of major parties
- Some states (for example Alaska and New York) have vibrant third parties which play a significant role in state and local races
Third parties in the US are not significant
- The two major parties dominate presidential elections
- The two major parties control congress
- The major parties control state politics
- The major parties often co-opt the policies of successful third parties, thereby curtailing their electoral success, for example co-opting Perot’s call for a balanced federal budget
Third party difficulties US - electoral system
Electoral system – FPTP, winner takes all system is a disadvantage to third parties. Regional parties can do well, for example in 1968 George Wallace won 45 Electoral College votes with 13% of the vote as his votes were concentrated. In 1992 Ross Perot won no electoral votes with 19% of the popular vote, his votes were spread across the US.
Ballot access laws –laws in each state regulate how third party candidates can qualify to get their name on the ballot. Some states like Tennessee are straightforward, as they require just 25 signatures on a petition. But other states like New York and California are demanding. In California, the number of signatures required is equal to 1% of the electorate in the state.