Tags
In these pages, I have defended America’s two-party political system. In part, this was a contrarian exercise – an attempt to point out the persistence of such a system in the face of new universal scorn. My opinions also come from the realization that there is a certain necessity for organization and structure if one expects to take efficient collective action. There is another side to this story, however.
First, I’ll restate my original case. Allow me do so through an example. Suppose I am a Representative and I have an idea for a bill. Ultimately, I need to get the support of half of my fellows. If it’s the U.S. House of Representatives we’re talking here, that’s 217 of my colleagues (plus me to make a majority), when all available seats are currently filled. If you’ve watched Mr. Smith goes to Washington, you might imagine my success depends on my eloquence and by ability to deliver a moving speech from the floor. In reality, getting 217 votes is no small task. It involves, first, gathering the intelligence about who already supports the concept, who actively opposes it, and who is able to be persuaded. It then involves working with all three of these groups (one-on-one, of course, because every member’s support or opposition has its own nuance) to shore up support and make new converts. Even with a hefty support staff, this would be an awful lot of work for one member’s office. If we are talking State Legislatures or other, more local governmental bodies, resources are even more scarce.
This also neglects the machinery of committee recommendations, bicameral legislatures, and the threat of gubernatorial or presidential veto. Even if I’m eloquent and knowledgeable, I may not have much sway with the “few key Congressmen” who might be necessary for a positive committee recommendation. Once my idea moves to the Senate, however, I may find that my influence and powers of persuasion are much less substantial, outside of my own territory. The merits of my particular idea are vastly overshadowed by the practicalities of working the system.
Now enter the parties. Suppose I am a valued member of a majority or minority caucus. My first step for a difficult bill might, instead, be to talk to the leadership of my own party apparatus. Instead of convincing 217 individuals, who might have better things to do than devote time to my bill, I can work on one or two policy experts whose job it is to triage legislation. If I can convince them that I’ve got something aligned with party goals, they set a machine in motion which is specifically designed to spread the good word and motivate the party to work together. Even if I can’t convince them I’ve got an important ideological bill, perhaps my loyalty to the party can parley into support for me at a personal level. If my party is in the majority, now I’ve got the votes. Even if I’m in the minority, I’m already a good chunk of the way there and need only sway a handful of members from the other party or, better yet, create a “bi-partisan” bill. With sponsors from both sides of the aisle, it is possible to get the machinery of both parties supporting passage.
One might expect it, and it is my personal (but non-systematic) observation, that the importance of party correlates with the size of the body. Organization counts for a lot more in a large body like the House of Representatives. Contrast with the U.S. Senate, were the smaller size provides more opportunity for personal relationships and complex horse trading. Recall, I’m generalizing to all levels of government. State Legislatures are not as big as the U.S Congress, but some get close – New Hampshire, for example, has 400 Representatives. This might suggest an antidote to party politics consisting of smaller legislative bodies. The flip side of this cure, of course, is that the back-room-deal-making style of politics is not necessarily to be welcomed either. Furthermore, smaller elected bodies means, necessarily, less-representative elected bodies.
Besides the slimy feeling we get when observing this party process, there is a major downside to partisan politics. It is especially exasperated when division between parties or between cultural forces is close. This even seems counter-intuitive, yet I believe it is what I see. I will elaborate.
Because major issues work their way through the majority* and minority caucuses, consensus must be achieved first within the party and the secondarily in the body as a whole. For some issues (see, especially, recent political battles over impeachment and cloture), the deciding factor is the handful of legislators who “cross party lines” to produce an outcome at odds with the party control. For that reason, it is important to test and convince the members of your own party to support their fellows. It can also be important, if one wants to be an effective legislator, to compromise and cooperate with the party line on lesser issues in order to build the good will necessary to keep that party’s support on the more important issues. Of course, there are some elected officials who are truly “party faithfuls” – they ran as a Democrat (or Republican) and they will therefore vote as one. Bottom line is, even a body of individuals sincere in their commitment to represent all their constituents with an open mind will still wind up being organized by the pressures of the party apparatus.
Let’s think about, for a moment, a hypothetical, very decisive issue that, none the less, is not clearly staked out along party affiliation. Imagine, for example, a Democrat-controlled legislature and an issue that appeals to many, but not all Democrats. In this example, the dominant faction in the party will want to first bring their entire party caucus into alignment before fighting the issue in the open. Here’s the irony. If the Democrats have a large majority, they’ll have no problem with members “voting their conscience.” If the numbers are very close, however, and every vote counts, the expectation of party loyalty is dramatically increased.
To the average voter, this looks bad – maybe even corrupt. Imagine an issue that is opposed by the majority of Republicans and many Democrats. By the numbers, this looks like a dog that won’t hunt. And yet, the measure could well pass along party lines with almost no dissent, despite that clear opposition. Note, it can also work in reverse. A popular measure with bipartisan support can be scuttled because one party sticks together. Both clearly exemplify a government controlled by a minority in the face of rules that are supposed favor majority and consensus. As I said, it looks bad.
Also as I said, this can happen with any issue in any government, but it is exacerbated when issues are divisive and majority control is slight. It is the effectiveness of the political machinery, not the merits of the issue, that determine when the big guns are rolled out to achieve a political “win.” I think this also has played out in the polarization of American politics over the last couple of decades. I tried to think of examples of non-party-line issues and realized that many of the “bi-partisan” issues of past years have become strict party-line in recent times. Abortion, health care, and guns are just three examples that did not used to be purely partisan issues. Pro-gun Democrats and pro-choice Republicans were common in the 1980s. However, the influence of activists, litmus tests, and (as I outline above) just the natural, if unintended, effects of politics have driven all of these issues to be “wedges” – the major issues that define the parties come election time.
Quite clearly, this is a bad situation for the voter. I can lose in politics on an issue where I know that “regular people” are all on my side. That’s bad for me and even worse if it’s is something that changes my life. Maybe, as an example, my livelihood is legislated out of business despite most of my fellow citizens being supportive. What is even worse, however, is the corrosive effect on politics and society. Repeated examples of legislative activity moving in a direction that is counter to the (real or perceived, it is hard to tell sometimes) will of the people creates a mistrust in the system – a mistrust and dissatisfaction which is now pervasive in our culture.
But is there a solution?
I’m not sure the solutions are to be found among the typical, populist remedies. Term limits, restrictions on parties (perhaps encouraging a multi-party or non-partisan system), or campaign finance laws won’t fix things if the problem is really tied into the political world itself; not just the two-party system. I’ll offer two approaches as solutions.
First, as I wrote about before, politics might benefit from being able to back away from the all-or-nothing consequences of victory. A divided nation and an evenly split political landscape flows from a lack of consensus. Can we recognize that on some issues we are statistically tied? Is there a way to reflect that inability to come together in the process? To require a broader agreement before making changes? This nation has been slowly chipping away at the Founder’s system, designed to favor the status quo, with a powerful and activist governmental structure able to force through fundamental changes for society. More and better ways of recognizing that ties (including statistical, if not actual, ties) signal a lack of agreement and an unpopular solution – that might diffuse the necessity for tight political control of outcomes.
Secondly, I have to point out that when the stakes for election outcomes are so high, this incentives the gaming of the system. Governments in the U.S. can toss around trillions of dollars on a whim. They can make-or-break, not just individuals, but entire industries. When Federal prosecutors can jail pretty much anyone at any time and, increasingly, are motivated by the political environment to do just that, it only makes sense to fight tooth and nail to stay in the majority. Would all the money and influence still be directed towards elections if elections were simply less consequential?
Is it too late to find out?
*Although I don’t, generally, pay attention to the minutia of European parliamentary politics, I suspect similar factors would be at play in the government versus opposition system. In other words, the phenomenon which we find objectionable might be less an artifact of the two-party system and more one of politics itself.