Why Parties

I have just finished reading Aldrich’s book, Why Parties?, in which he presents his version of what passes for theorizing about parties in political science. He starts from the assumption that individuals are atoms of self-interested wants and needs. From this position, he reasons, it is necessary to justify why these individuals would get together into a party. He uses the theorizing about collective action, social choice, and utility maximization to justify why basically selfish individuals would go against their own self-interest to form parties. For me all of this theorizing is unnecessary, since I take the urge to associate with others in groups as basic, not needing explanation. Thus much of what Aldrich says in this book misses the goal of explaining how parties operate and function in the larger picture of governing.

Nevertheless, Aldrich does have some things to say about the history and structure of political parties that come through in spite of his superstructure. He divides the history of political parties in the US into three phases: 1. The early non-acknowledged parties of 1790 to 1828, 2. The “mass” parties created by Van Buren, lasting until 1960, and 3. The candidate centered parties since then. I am not sure I agree with this division of the historical record, but it is something to think about. His description of the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs is interesting, especially after reading about the 1850 Compromise that effectively destroyed the basis of the alliances of both parties that tried to ignore the issue of slavery.

Aldrich does not follow up on his discussion of the Democrats and the Whigs with a similar discussion of the Democrats and the Republicans after the Civil War, and their implicit agreement to again ignore the continuation of slavery in the south. Aldrich also does not really discuss the role of the professionalization of the federal executive, and the consequent loss of patronage as a tool for the parties to discipline their members. Such loss of patronage places for me the transition from the “mass” party Aldrich describes in the 1910-1930 period, rather than the 1960s. Jacksonian parties were not just “mass” parties, but parties organized in terms of patronage primarily at the state and local levels.

Further, Aldrich does not discuss the role of two world wars and the depression on the structure and organization of the parties, as if these events had no effect on the parties. Another problem I have with Aldrich is that he seems to focus much of his attention of the presidential elections, and when he does discuss parties in congress, he does so almost exclusively in terms of the house, where majority rule is more clearly a major factor. This allows him, though, to largely ignore the interaction between the house and the senate, and between the congress and the executive. These to me are crucial to a real understanding of how the parties function-or do not function-in our government.

In sum, Aldrich provides some useful details of the history of parties, but his orientation prevents him from going beyond the conventional history. His claim that parties are in fact not weak but are actually stronger than they have ever been, seems to me to misunderstand the way in which they may seem to be stronger. To say that parties function in service to the candidates is to admit that they are now subordinate, in a position of weakness, relative to the candidates. This is especially true given the Citizens United decision, which he could not have known about.

I am still in search of a good account of the role and function and history or parties in the US.