System of political parties

Among the several aspects of American government puzzling to foreign observers, none is more puzzling than the American party system. Those familiar with the British system, with its long tradition of two major parties, expect a clear division of opinions between the parties. They expect party loyalty in the legislature to assure support for bills decided upon by the party leadership.

In America it seems that almost one-third of the voters classify themselves as «independents» and a large number of others do not hesitate to vote for candidates of the other party. The essentially non-party character of much of the Congressional voting has already been noted. Even Congressional support of the President is not infrequently found among those of the opposite party. In part, this reflects the basic values of American thought, which are found in both parties.

As in Britain a certain powerful trend seems to cause public support to be attracted toward two major parties. There have been and are other parties. Once it is clear to the voters which two of three rival parties are the two strongest, there is a fairly rapid lessening of support for the remaining one.

Some people say that in the United States there is no real difference between the Democratic and the Republican parties. The element of truth in this lies in the fact that persons of almost any «respectable» opinion on any issue can in fact be found within the ranks of both parties. We have already seen the effect of this in Congress, where party plays a relatively minor role in the majority of issues and where, almost without exception, a large percent of each party is found on each side of issues on which there are differences of opinion.

Are there any nationwide issues that today really divide the two parties? Agriculture is not a party issue; neither is international cooperation, public power, organized labor, social security, or public housing. There are substantial disagreements about these issues. The majority opinion of the two parties may frequently be found on opposite sides. But always there is a substantial minority of each party opposing not so much the other party as its own leadership on the particular issue.

Why is this so? We have already suggested that the two principal factors are the many different issues sharing little in common and the fact that party organization is mostly local. On the national scene, an independent executive is elected for a fixed term. If Congress does not agree with the executive, he does not have to resign as the Prime Minister does in the British system. The same absence of a single party principle that we have noted in Congress is found also in the voting public which is increasingly independent and disposed to place its confidence in a man, rather than in a party. With so many issues and with the practical impossibility of finding a party whose position on all these issues is the same as his own, the voter has apparently become convinced that perhaps it is better to elect a man of great honesty and ability. Such a man will then use his judgment and do what he thinks is right. Such independent voting must not be overemphasized, however. Even this man must not do too much in opposition to what is locally important.

The localism of party organization deserves close attention. In general, the Constitution left election laws to the states. When parties were organized they came under not national but state rules. For the most part, this has meant, because of either party laws or state laws, that parties have been built from the local unit up through the state to the nation, rather than in the opposite order.

The concern of the state and local party organizations is still mostly in the success of the candidates for state and local offices. But there are also national candidates to be nominated and elected. The interest of the local party organization in the election of members of the House of Representatives and Senators, and even of the President, is usually distinctly secondary to its interest in state and local successes.

Considering the whole institution, what may be said of the American party system? Many have been critical of its apparent failure to take definite positions on national issues. Many have been critical of Congress for not being responsible to party. Many mention the British system as what party government ought to be. Yet, there are virtues in the American system. It is because of the lack of definite party divisions that American Presidential candidates address their appeals to all groups. Such a campaign tends to unite the nation rather than divide it. Within the voting public and within Congress, the individual independence of members makes it more possible for them to exercise their individual honesty and intelligence than does a system in which party loyalty on issues is the price paid for success. Finally, the system is locally suitable for the continuation of the two-party system with its advantage of constant presentation of two different candidates.

The Americans in general feel the present system is serving them increasingly well. They are not likely to change it fundamentally.

11.4. Answer the questions below:

1. What puzzles foreigners in the US party system?

2. What makes the US party system different from the British one?

3. What proves the fact that there is no real difference between the Democratic and the Republican party?

4. How do you understand the localism of party organization?

5. Why are many people critical of the American party system?

6. What virtues are there in the US party system?

7. Do the Americans want to change the present party system?

11.5. Read the sentences below. Are they true or false?

1) The British party system is the same as the US system.

2) There are two political parties in the US.

3) There is no real difference between the Democratic and the Republican parties.

4) There are no nationwide issues that really divide the two main parties.

5) If Congress does not agree with the executive, he has to resign.

6) The absence of a single party principle is found in Congress as well as in the voting public.

7) When parties were organized they came under state rules.

8) Congress is responsible to party.

9) American Presidental Candidates address to all groups of people.

10) The Americans intend to change the present party system.

11.6. Complete the sentences below using the following words.

Democratic Party; Constitution; two-party system; Federalists; basis; Whig Party; Republican Party; scene.

Political Parties are the ... of the American political system. Curiously, the ... makes no provision for political parties nor for their role as the vehicle by which candidates for public office are proposed to the voters. At the national level, the United States employs a ... that has remained remarkably durable throughout the nation’s history, even though rival national parties have appeared and disappeared from the political .... The ..., for example, who rallied around President George Washington, disappeared slowly after 1800; and the ..., which arose in the 1830s in opposition to President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, collapsed two decades later. Today, the ..., which traces its origins back to the nation’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, and the ..., founded in 1854, continue to dominate politics at the federal, state and local levels.

11.7. Complete the puzzle below, with one of these words

issues, state, local, minor, resign, virtue, well

Down:

1) In Congress a party plays a ... role in the majority of issues.

3) If Congress does not agree with the executive, he does not have to ... .

5) The Americans feel the party system is serving them ... .

7) When parties were organized they came under ... rules.

Across:

2) The ... of the American party system is the address of American Presidential candidates to all groups.

4) Social security and public housing are not party ... .

6) The party organization is mostly ... .

11.8. Complete the following dialogue.