Politics in States and Communities Thomas R. Dye Susan A

Politics in States and Communities
Dye
MacManus
9 781292 027470
14e
ISBN 978-1-29202-747-0
Politics in States and Communities
Thomas R. Dye
Susan A. MacManus
Fourteenth Edition
Pearson Education Limited
Edinburgh Gate
Harlow
Essex CM20 2JE
England and Associated Companies throughout the world
Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk
© Pearson Education Limited 2014
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the
prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark
in this text does not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such
trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this
book by such owners.
ISBN 10: 1-292-02747-9
ISBN 10: 1-269-37450-8
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02747-0
ISBN 13: 978-1-269-37450-7
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Printed in the United States of America
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Do you believe that the Democratic
and Republican parties in your state
offer clear policy alternatives to the
voters?
Yes
No
In politics, do you generally identify
yourself as a
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Should candidates be limited in the
amount of money they can spend on
their campaigns?
Yes
No
From where do you get most of your
news about politics and campaigns?
Newspaper
Television
Internet
Late-night entertainment/comedy shows
157
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES: IN DISARRAY
OR EXPERIENCING A REBIRTH?
PARTY
An organization that
seeks to achieve power
by winning public office
in elections.
For every news story that proclaims political parties to be dying—irrelevant and out
of touch with most voters—there is another that points to the heightened role that
state and local political party organizations play in registering voters and in GOTV—
get-out-the-vote—operations. News operations (and political scientists, too) routinely “color” states and counties red (Republican) or blue (Democrat) to visually
describe which party has the most registrants or to report which party’s candidate
won the most votes in an election contest. They tend to use green to “describe”
independents—voters who do not identify with either of the major parties.
Throughout the often heated campaign season, pollsters repeatedly take snapshots of potential voters “sliced and diced” by age, race/ethnicity, gender, education, income, religious affiliation, and ideology. They often use catchy terms
(“Walmart Moms,” “NASCAR Dads”) to describe groups on which they are focusing. Their main purpose is to see who is identifying themselves with the two major
parties (Democrat, Republican), with minor parties (such as Libertarian, Green,
Reform, Tea), or as independents (no party affiliation) and how they plan to vote
on Election Day (strictly along party lines, for the other party’s candidates, or by
splitting their vote between the parties).
After a major election, academics and scholars at various think tanks analyze
the links between voter attributes, party identification, and voting patterns. Their
primary goal is to determine if there have been any seismic shifts in the composition
of political parties in the nation at large and in specific states and localities. New
typologies (categories) of the electorate generally emerge as the quality and quantity
of data improves, along with the software used to probe the data.
Post-election analyses by party activists and professional campaign consultants
in each state tend to focus more on trying to understand why one party’s candidates
won and another’s lost. Here the bulk of the attention is on analyzing and comparing the effectiveness of state and local party organizations. How well did each
do in recruiting volunteers, energizing the electorate (registering voters, promoting
absentee balloting, getting people to the polls), identifying solid core supporters and
the undecideds, organizing local political forums and rallies, and raising money?
Political parties are still central features on the American political landscape,
although more Americans are describing themselves as “independents.” (See Figure 1.) In some families, party loyalties are a way of life, passed on like religion. In
others, there is little discussion about politics at home, which leaves the establishment of party loyalty, if any, more in the hands of schools, social networks, or the
mass media.
Staunch supporters of political parties today often cite scholars who have concluded that were it not for parties, there would be no democracy: “Political parties
created modern democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms
of parties.”1 While many agree with this broad assessment, there is less consensus about whether today’s political parties have successfully played all the roles
that early party supporters proclaimed that they could. There is an ongoing debate
between the “purists” and the “realists” about the degree to which political parties do all that was initially expected of them or whether it really matters.2 Others
debate whether the American system of government is more party-centered or more
Parties and Campaigns in the States
158
Parties and Campaigns in the States
159
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
Republican
Democrat
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
Year
Independent
Note: Responses are for the adult population 18 and over. Figures for each region do not total to 100% because “no preference,”
“other,” and “don’t know/refused” responses are excluded.
Source: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
2006
0
2005
0
2004
0
West
2010
South
2009
Year
2008
Midwest
Year
2007
20
2006
20
2005
20
40
40
2004
Northeast
Regional Trend in Party Identification
40
0
20
40
FIGURE 1
2008
2008
2009
2009
2010
2010
candidate-centered. Do voters pay more attention to the party affiliation of a candidate or to the candidate’s personal attributes—age, looks, gender, race, campaign
style, political ads, and debate skills?
The Responsible Party Model
RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES
A party system in which
each party offers clear
policy alternatives and
holds their elected
officials responsible for
enacting these policies
in office.
Initially, political parties were viewed as the principal instrument of majority control of public policy. “Responsible parties,” as perceived by the “purists,” are
supposed to (1) develop and clarify alternative policy positions for the voters;
(2) educate the people about the issues and simplify choices for them; (3) recruit
candidates for public office who agree with the parties’ policy positions; (4) organize and direct their candidates’ campaigns to win office; (5) hold their elected officials responsible for enacting the parties’ policy positions after they are elected; and
(6) organize legislatures to ensure party control of policymaking. In carrying out
these functions, responsible parties are supposed to modify the demands of special
interests, build a consensus that could win majority support, and provide simple
and identifiable, yet meaningful, choices for the voters on Election Day. In this way,
disciplined, issue-oriented, competitive parties are seen as the principal means by
which the people would direct public policy and hold elected officials accountable.
Critics say such a party system would make bipartisanship more difficult.
Problems with the Model
Over the years, the “realists” have outlined many shortcomings of the “responsible
party” model. Among the most commonly cited are:
The parties do not offer the voters clear policy alternatives. Instead, each tries to
capture the broad center of most policy dimensions, where it believes most Americans
can be found. There is no incentive for parties to stand on the far right or far left when
most Americans are found in the center. So the parties echo each other, and critics
refer to them as “Tweedledee and Tweedledum.”
Voter decisions are not motivated primarily by policy considerations. Most voters
cast their votes on the basis of candidate “image,” the “goodness” or “badness” of
the times, and traditional voting habits. This means there is little incentive for either
parties or candidates to concentrate on issues. Party platforms are seldom read by anyone. Modern campaign techniques focus on the image of the candidate—compassion,
warmth, good humor, experience, physical appearance, ease in front of a camera, and
so forth—rather than positions on the issues.
American political parties have no way to bind their elected officials to party positions or even their campaign pledges. Parties cannot really discipline members of Congress or state legislatures for voting against the party position. Party cohesion, where
it exists, is more a product of likemindedness among Democratic or Republican legislators than it is of party control.
The Rise of Candidate-Centered Elections
In addition to these underlying problems, over time candidate-centered politics has
been on the upswing due to:
The rise of primary elections. Party organizations cannot control who the party’s
nominee shall be. Nominations are won in primary elections. Progressive reformers
introduced primary elections at the beginning of the twentieth century to undercut the
power of party machines in determining who runs for office. Nominees now establish
personal organizations in primary elections and campaign for popular votes; they do
Parties and Campaigns in the States
160
The decline of party identification. Democratic and
Republican party loyalties have been declining over the
years. Most people remain registered as Democrats or
Republicans in order to vote in party primary elections, but
increasing numbers of people identify themselves as “independent” and cast their vote in general elections without reference to party. Split-ticket voting (where a single voter casts
his or her vote for a Democrat in one race and a Republican
in another) has also increased.
More focus on the candidate, less on his or her party affiliation. Primary elections, the decline in party identification,
and the importance of direct media communication with
the voters have all combined to create candidate-centered
politics. Candidates raise their own campaign funds, create their own personal organizations, and hire professional
consultants to produce their own ads (many no longer even
include their party affilation in the advertising3 or, if they
do, the party label is minimized so as not to call attention
to it).
The influence of the mass media, particularly television and A growing number of Americans do not identify with
the Web. Candidates can come directly into the voter’s liv- either the Republican or Democratic Party. Conseing room via television (broadcast, cable) and into a citizen’s quently, in many states, there has been a surge in the
number of voters who either register as independents
computer and wireless devices via the Internet. Cyberspaceor with third parties (Libertarian, Reform, Green,
related campaigning has become more essential, particularly Socialist, and others).
in large, fast-growing states where it is more difficult to
PARTY
reach a large proportion of the voters by going door-to-door
IDENTIFICATION
(shoe leather campaigning). Utilizing social networking sites is a must for today’s
Self-described
campaigns.
identification with a
The decline of patronage. Civil service reforms, at the national, state, and even city
political party, usually in
levels, have reduced the tangible rewards of electoral victory. Party “professionals”—
response to the question:
who work in political campaigns to secure jobs and favors for themselves and their
friends—are now being replaced by political “amateurs”—who work in political
“Generally speaking,
campaigns for the emotional satisfaction of supporting a “cause.” Amateurs work
how would you identify
intensely during campaigns, while professionals work year-round, in off-years and
yourself: as a Republican,
election years, building party support with small personal favors for the voters. These
Democrat, independent,
party “regulars” are disappearing.
or something else?”
The rise of single-issue interest groups, PACs, and “527s.” Parties have always coexCANDIDATEisted with broad-based interest groups, many of whom contribute money to both
Democratic and Republican candidates in order to ensure access regardless of who
CENTERED
wins. But many of the more militant single-issue groups require a “litmus test” of
POLITICS
individual candidates on single issues—abortion, gun control, immigration. Their
Individual candidates
support and money hinge on the candidate’s position on a single issue. Most PAC
rather than parties raise
(political action committee) money goes directly to candidates, although some does
funds, create personal
go to state party organizations. The newest type of group, a “527” (named after the
organizations, and
portion of the IRS tax code that covers it), can spend unlimited amounts of money
rely on professional
on campaign ads or activities but is expressly prohibited from coordinating its efforts
consultants to direct
with either a party or a candidate. (Examples of 527s are MoveOn.org and Swift Boat
their campaigns.
Veterans for Truth.)
AP Photo
not have to negotiate with party leaders, especially if they
are self-financed candidates. Of course, the party organization may endorse a candidate in a primary election, but this
is no guarantee of success with the party’s voters.
Parties and Campaigns in the States
161