Party continuity

If as Ware claims, there has been more continuity than discontinuity in the parties since 1820, then perhaps parties should be seen as more of an expression of the basic weakness of our government than as a cause of it. The supposed strength of the parties from about 1820 to about 1900 could be seen as more of an aberration resulting from the use of patronage than as a genuine strength of the parties themselves. If we define parties as institutions that aggregate and rationalize the interests and values of their members and adherents, that provide ideologies by which their members can promote programs and policies, then patronage has to be seen a means to the end of developing and promoting this ideology. On the other hand, if patronage is able to overpower the ideology, as I believe it did with the Jacksonian spoils system, then the function of parties in the operation of government is irretrievably distorted.

Granted that technology has added another dimension to the current dysfunctions, but the basic weakness of parties and of government is not something new. It only strengthens my contention that stronger parties would produce a stronger and more effective and efficient government. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking, but many of the recent changes in the parties can be seen as tentative movements toward becoming stronger, and in this sense are positive. The transition from what we have had for the last two hundred years, and a genuinely national, ideological, programmatic party will be difficult and wrenching, but the result will be a more efficient government.