Citizen's United

I have started reading a recent book by Alan Ware, “Political Conflict in America”. Hopefully it will expand my knowledge of parties, but it will be a difficult read. Meanwhile I just read a book by Thomas Edsall, “The Age of Austerity”. It poses the question of whether we are going to have to get used to the loss of abundance, and the consequent growing ugliness of politics. The Republicans have taken advantage of the politics of scarcity to promote fear and an “us versus them” attitude in politics. They have been successful with this tactic, and the Democrats have not been able to counteract it, but the question is whether this is a contrived position, given the Republicans opposition to raising taxes, or is it a harbinger of a more serious worldwide collapse of credit foreshadowing the end of oil, global warming, and general chaos. If the latter, there is not much anyone can do.

In any case, perhaps the world has been too stable for too long. We seem to be reverting to the world before the great depression and the new deal, where racial discrimination was ignored, and the federal and state governments were not allowed to interfere with business. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, if nothing else, is a sign of the efforts of the Supreme Court to reestablish its role as ultimate arbiter of government actions. The Supreme Court has always taken an activist role in government: the difference is that in the 50s and 60s it ruled about what the government had to do, in a positive way, such as with regard to segregation, reproductive rights, and police procedures, whereas previously it had only been concerned with what the government could not do: enforce individual civil rights, discriminate against businesses, regulate labor relations.

It is time for the government, for congress to stand up to the court, and declare that it, not the court, reflects the will of the people. But if disaster is on the way, as the Republicans claim, perhaps it is too much to ask that we try to improve the way we operate.

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.

The 1850 Compromise

I have been reading, as a slight deviation from reading on democracy and parties, a book on the Compromise of 1850, where supposedly the Civil War was delayed for ten years. The book is The Great American Debate by Fergus Bordewych. I had read about this period in our history before, but this book provides a more detailed look at the events of that time. The book makes it clear that far from delaying the Civil War for another ten years, what the debate did was to galvanize the North into a much more explicit antagonism against the institution of slavery. From the founding to 1850 the effort was to avoid the issue, given the dominance of the South in the federal government, in the presidency and in congress, and it may have been that the moral and economic dimensions of slavery were just not as well recognized. The Compromise of 1850 ended this willful ignorance. It was the end of an era, with the deaths of John Calhoun, the apostle of the virtues of slavery, of Henry Clay, the great compromiser, and of Daniel Webster, the great orator and traitor to his principles. It was the beginning of the career of Jefferson Davis and Stephen Douglas. The only heroes were William Seward, who spoke early of the moral evil of slavery, and Abraham Lincoln, who came only ten years after to make the same argument.

All of the elements I discuss in my book, the dominance of the senate, the ability of the south to use the lack of discipline in the senate to delay proceedings, the changes in demography, the blatant effort of the south to enshrine minority privileges for its institution of slavery, the inability of the north to take a principled stand on the issue, in part because of the south’s control of the senate—all of these things were present then and did not get discussed. These issues continue to plague us today. There is still little discipline in congress, and the minority is able to prevent action. I learned that the first mistake was to give to the south the ability to count every slave as 3/5 of a person, giving them an advantage in the House in terms of representation. This prolonged the dominance of the south, and allowed them to develop the delusion that they were somehow privileged even though they were a minority. Another aspect of the basically undemocratic constitution.

Separating finance from campaigning

I have been talking about doing a study of the role of political parties in America, and I mentioned this to my brother recently. He told me about his experiences working at the local level with politics. He was involved in recruiting candidates for the local city council. At the local level at least for him money did not seem to be much of an issue. The real problem was finding people willing to serve on the council. This got me to thinking about at what level in the process does money become a real problem, and how is the candidate involved. In the case of primary elections, where the candidates are chosen through preliminary elections of candidates, money raised by the candidates is clearly an issue. In this case the potential candidates are actively seeking the position, rather than being recruited by the party. Some of them may in fact be unwelcome to the leaders of the party. Under these circumstances, the money the potential candidate can raise independently of the party may be important in determining whether he becomes a candidate.

If the potential candidates were by law limited to spending only money provided by the political party, and the party were required to allocate money to the potential candidates equally as long as each qualified, through some petitioning process, to be a candidate, then the issue of raising money for candidates in a primary battle would go away. The onus for raising money and allocating it to the candidates would be on the party, not on the individual candidates. This would deprive the candidates of their freedom to act independently of the party through their ability to raise money, but it would relieve them of the burden of raising money. Competition between candidates would shift to their positions on issues and abilities to communicate with voters and manage the campaign.

At the national level, preventing candidates from soliciting funds would make fund raising dinners where the candidate himself appeared illegal. The party as an entity would be able to hold fund raising dinners, but the candidate would not be able to appear. This would perhaps reduce the attraction of the dinner for donors, but it would make it clear that the donations are to the party, not to the candidate, removing the ability of the donor to specifically (and improperly) influence the candidate. PACs would be forced to coordinate with the parties, not the candidates. They could still spend as much as they want, but only on the parties, not the candidates—unless of course, they spend so much money that they in effect take over the party, making it an appendage of the PAC rather than the other way around, as may occur with the Republican party.

Parties and budgeting

With this posting I launch into an area with which I have no first hand experience or expertise. It is the area of budgeting, or more generally the process by which a government raises revenue and allocates it to the programs the government provides to the people. In Britain, as I understand it, the budget is prepared by the executive departments in consultation with the ruling party. There is a special period during which the budget is presented to parliament, but it almost invariably approved, since the ruling party has the majority, and the budget is a high priority item. On approval, the budget, the appropriations, and the associated taxes to pay for the expenditures is set. These are all taken care of in one period. The rest of the time in parliament is taken up with legislating on new programs and policies that I suppose will be paid for in the next budget if they have not already been incorporated into the current budget.

In the US, on the other hand, the process of budgeting, authorizing, and appropriating are separated and chaotic. The House, especially lately, has come up with a budget, and then complains that the president and the senate have not produced a budget. One would think that it is especially the House’s responsibility to produce the budget, since it is responsible in the constitution for raising and appropriating funds, but this has become more and more blurred over our history. It used to be, before we began to have deficits, and needed to raise taxes to pay for them, that the allocation and appropriation of money for the executive departments was carried out by the individual House and Senate committees responsible for the departments, without much coordination between them, since, with a surplus, it was not necessary.

Once coordination became necessary, the question of who would do the coordinating became an issue, and since there were no strong ruling parties, the tendency was for the executive departments to do the coordinating. Congress resisted this, and tried to establish its own independent coordination process, but the result was only that the process became a contest between the executive and the legislative. This contest goes on today, and the process is chaotic. Often there is no budget, appropriations are delayed until the last minute, and then bundled into continuing resolutions that only continue the chaos. The House goes through a process of developing a budget, but it is only a sham, since it does not require that authorizations and appropriations conform to the budget, and usually they don’t.

Clearly the US government is dysfunctional with respect to the budgetary process at least. My contention is that it is so because the parties are not strong enough to force a rationalization of the process. The ruling party in the House has come a long way toward imposing order on the process in the House. If it were only up to the House, we would have a rational, organized, effective process. Unfortunately the House is only one of the parties currently involved, and it is overshadowed by the president and the senate. If the ruling party were stronger it would be able to diminish the power of the president and senate, and establish the proper dominance of the House.