[Previous entry: "Tax Reform Again"] [Next entry: "The Worst Company on Earth"]

01/08/2008: "Partisanship, Primaries and Political Parties"

In a conference that took place at the University of Oklahoma earlier this week, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg joined Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and a number of other former elected officials in outlining guidelines for bi-partisanship. They believe a commitment to end partisan bickering by the current crop of presidential contenders would contribute to our government’s doing a better job of solving major policy issues.

At the same time the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are characterized by non-partisanship, by which I mean that both allow voters who are registered independents to help choose the Democrats’ and Republicans’ presidential nominees. In fact, voters can cross party lines in both two states.

Is there a connection between the trend towards absolute fluidity in our political parties and the call for non-partisanship? I think there is.

Once upon a time political parties were much more closed. They chose candidates at conventions whose attendees were chosen by the party leadership which put up candidates for the party faithful to endorse. The image of brokered conventions is strong in our collective memory, although in fact there were several conventions that didn’t go according to plan.

The open primary system was seen as a democratic reform replacing tight party control and today states including California allow voters to cross party lines in primaries.

The end result is that enrollment in a political party means less today than it ever has. If one doesn’t have to be an enrolled party member to vote in a primary why bother? Unless you plan for running for office, there’s no benefit to doing so.

Weak parties span strong candidates

One of the consequences of the strong party system was that it often yielded candidates who were weak and lacked an independent means of support, both financial and political. Men who were acceptable to party leaders were men who could be controlled. Anyone with an independent standing in the community might go his own way and thus was not the preferred candidate.

The weakening of the party structure has resulted in the opposite – the candidates who win primaries are attractive, strong, independent and have support outside the party structure. And, if they win the general election they act independently and do not take orders from state committee chairmen.

Observers of Congress over the past two decades can site the consequences of the emergence of strong officials who do not need to bow to their political party on issues. These elected officials often stake out independent ground from which they continue to build their base – which sometimes becomes a platform for national office. John McCain is a good example. His independence on matters such as immigration and campaign finance flies in the face of Republican Party positions. Yet that very independence has made him attractive to voters – independents whether enrolled as such or not.

The problem with calling for bi-partisanship is that its rare that people change their behavior because someone tells them they ought to do it. It’s even rarer for someone to change when it’s against his best interest to do so. Further the bi-partisan agenda is seen by some as a stalking horse for Mike Bloomberg to run for president as an independent. If Bloomberg perceives that enough Americans are fed up with “partisanship,” he might run as a bi-partisan unity candidate.

Of course, all this posturing gets thrown out the window when the election is over. By necessity the rules of Congress require the majority party to vote in certain officers who allocate seats on committees, schedule hearings and votes, etc. etc. A bi-partisan president would have to lead the country without even being able to count on the presumed support of his own party. Every issue would require building coalitions and support and would most likely result in even more gridlock than we have today.

Some people, myself included, would like to see political parties take back a measure of power. If choosing candidates was restricted to people enrolled in that party, then candidates would be both more beholden to their party leadership back home and more likely to toe the party line on issues, and that believe it or not would likely result in less gridlock.

With less incentive to stake out independent territory and more reason to seek support within one’s party, issues would be more likely to get resolved. Fewer cooks result not only in a better meal I’ve found, but also in less clean up work in the kitchen.