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.
No comments:
Post a Comment