2 Discussions

chapter_9.pdf

Home >Government homework help >2 Discussions

9 Political Parties and Interest Groups

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter you should be able to do the following:

• Describe the functions of political parties in America • Analyze the role of political parties in mobilizing the electorate, choosing candidates and party

platforms, and organizing governments • Analyze the historical evolution of the American party system and the forces that have served

as catalysts for their transformations • Distinguish between broker and responsible party models and analyze the political implications

of each • Describe the role of interest groups in American politics • Analyze the difference between political parties and interest groups • Analyze the relationship among political parties, interest groups, and democratic processes

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 261 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Introduction

As you recall from the discussion in Chapter 1, when Congress overhauled the health-care system in March 2010, it did not pass a single-payer system similar to the one in Canada, which is funded entirely by public money. Rather, it passed a host of regulations along with a requirement that uninsured individuals purchase insurance from private companies, the so-called individual mandate. Additionally, it provided for subsidies for those too poor to pay for insurance on their own. The principal reason the legislation took the form it did was the nature of the legislative process, which required sufficient compro- mise between the various constituencies and interests to attain a consensus for passage. On the one hand, that healthcare reform was passed was a major accomplishment for the Democrats, the political party that has attempted to secure this type of legislation since the 1930s. But on the other hand, the inability to achieve it for so many years speaks to the large number of interest groups arrayed against it and their tremendous influence in the American political system.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton attempted to introduce healthcare reform, only to be opposed by numerous interest groups, including the American Medical Association (AMA), the Insurance Industry, various union groups, and even AARP—the American Association of Retired Persons. The reasons that these groups opposed reform were as varied as the groups themselves. The AMA objected because it was concerned that its members (primarily doctors) would earn less money. AARP opposed reform because it was concerned that reform would mean inferior healthcare to that provided by Medi- care. Insurance companies worried that their profits would be diminished, and unions were concerned that any public health insurance would be less comprehensive than the premium packages they already had won through collective bargaining. These interest groups each played a role in defeating Clinton’s plan in the halls of Congress.

It thus was no surprise that when the issue came up again following the 2008 election, the same interest groups appeared with the same concerns. Initially, the House of Represen- tatives passed a healthcare bill that included a “public option,” a government-sponsored plan for those who did not have or could not get private insurance. The interest groups opposed the public option for the same reasons they opposed the concept of “universal” healthcare in the past. Insurance companies were also joined by pharmaceutical compa- nies similarly concerned about their profits.

This time, though, the White House made a series of deals with these interest groups to gain their support for the Senate version of the bill, which left out the public option. The AMA supported the deal because they were promised higher reimbursements. AARP supported it because the organization was promised cuts would not be made to Medicare. The insurance industry supported it because the individual mandate promised that more customers would be buying policies. Unions began to support it because their premium insurance packages would be exempt from taxation. Understandably, the casual observer might think that the law was written to serve the interest groups, not the public. At the same time, the passage of the new law was clearly labeled a Democratic Party victory.

Political parties and interest groups are very much part of the American political land- scape, and these entities direct much of the nature of current American politics. In this chapter, we will examine the roles of both interest groups and political parties in Ameri- can politics, and their implications for American democracy.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 262 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Purpose Does It Serve?

9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Purpose Does It Serve? Political parties are organizations that seek to influence government policy by nomi- nating candidates and trying to get them elected to office. The Framers of the Constitu- tion took a dim view of political parties. They considered them to be factions of self- interest that placed the welfare of one group above that of the general public. Worse, the founders feared that such groups might ride roughshod over individual rights and liberties. The Framers also understood that party formation would be an inevitable byproduct of liberty. Free association, after all, meant that like-minded individuals could interact with one another and that formal organizations would develop around those associations.

Initially, there were two relatively small political parties (the Federalists and the Demo- cratic-Republicans, both of which no longer exist, at least in their original form), and they tended to operate primarily in Congress. But as more people were granted franchise—the right to vote—political parties emerged as vehicles to get them to the polls.

Political parties in modern democratic societies perform five essential functions: (1) they seek to win elections, (2) they get people out to vote, (3) they organize the government, (4) they gener- ate symbols of identification and loyalty, and (5) they implement policy objectives. The primary purpose of the American party system is to win political office, which means that getting out the vote is secondary to that primary purpose. In the United States, winning political office would cer- tainly be more difficult if there were not parties in place to mobilize voters behind specific can- didates and their policy positions. But this also means that party platforms—the political posi- tions of the party—are secondary to the primary purpose of winning political office.

There are three types of parties in the United States: party-in-the-organization, party-in-the- government, and party-in-the-electorate. The party-in-the-organization consists of activists who seek to define the issues on which the party will campaign and who will, at times, run for office. These activists may also work the phones or go door to door just prior to elections to remind voters that an election is coming up and try to attract voters to their particular candidates. Party activists also often serve as delegates to national nominating conventions.

The party-in-the-government consists of the majority party in Congress, whose members get to organize government and work to pass the agenda on which they campaigned. Party-in-the-electorate consists of all voters who are registered for a particular election.

American political parties have been in place since shortly after the nation was founded. Their main function has always been to have their candidates elected to office.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 263 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Purpose Does It Serve?

Get Out the Vote

Overall voter turnout is rela- tively low in the United States, but it tends to be high among those who are registered to vote. Thus, getting people out to vote usually consists of party activists attempting to register unaligned voters. Those least likely to vote are poor people in poor commu- nities (the reason for this is discussed in Chapter 10), so political party activists often hold voter registration drives in poor communities and knock on doors to get people to register. In a tight race, reg-

istering new voters can be the difference between victory and defeat for a party and its can- didates. This then leads to the next critical function of parties, which is winning elections.

Win Elections

The American party system differs from the party systems common in Europe in that the primary goal is to win an election rather than to win a specific policy program. In practical terms this means that the issues that a party campaigns on are of secondary importance— that is, they are a means to an end.

The positions taken by American political parties change over time as the preferences of the electorate change. As an example, the Democratic Party was considered to be the party of racial segregation until 1965, when a Democratic Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and a Democratic president signed it. The segregationists, largely concentrated in the South, abandoned the Democrats, and the party became one of racial inclusion. As it sought new voters, it appealed to more people on the left of the political spectrum. As this happened, many others grew uncomfortable in the Democratic Party and began to switch over to the Republicans. In an attempt to appeal to disaffected Democrats, the Repub- lican Party became the states’ rights party and moved toward the right of the political spectrum. In many respects, American parties follow the competitive market model. In an effort to attract new customers, a business will introduce new products. So too will political parties.

Both political parties have large national party committees (The Democratic National Committee, or DNC, and the Republican National Committee, or RNC). These are essen- tially umbrella organizations that are responsible for governing political parties on a day- to-day basis. But their most essential functions are fund-raising and recruiting candidates to run in various congressional races. The two national party committees also engage in public relations efforts on behalf of their parties’ political platforms.

As part of the “get out the vote” effort, political party activ- ists seek to register unaligned voters.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 264 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Purpose Does It Serve?

As part of their efforts to win elections, the DNC and RNC raise large sums of money. By October 2010, the DNC had raised $74.6 million during the year in the run-up to the 2010 election. Meanwhile, the RNC had raised $200 million for the 2010 election. These monies were then used to assist both Democrats and Republicans in House and Senate races.

Organize Government

Political parties, especially what we refer to as the party-in-the- government, organize the leg- islative branch. The party that wins the most seats gets to control the leadership of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Because the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Represen- tatives during the 2010 mid- term election, a Republican, John Boehner, became speaker of the House. The winning party also takes control of com- mittee chairmanships, so all House committees also fell un- der Republican control when the new Congress was sworn in in January of 2011. The benefit of holding all committee chairs is that the winning party then gets to set the legislative agenda, at least until the next election.

Although all members of Congress represent their own respective districts, both parties have party caucuses within each chamber of Congress. The caucuses often determine pol- icy agendas, political strategies, and leadership positions. The House Republican caucus, for example, determines the party leadership, the Republican policy agenda, and the polit- ical strategy for achieving it. Meanwhile, in the House Democratic caucus, decisions are made about who will serve as minority leaders and ranking members, or vice-chairs, of committees. The ranking members are always members of the minority party. The Demo- cratic Party caucus also determines its strategy for opposing the majority party strategy.

Party-in-the-government also plays a role in the executive and judicial branches. When presidents make appointments to their cabinet and other departments and agencies, they usually choose members of their party. This reinforces continuity with previous adminis- trations of that party. As an example, when President Obama was looking for experienced Washington Democrats to staff his administration, he found that he was picking among those who had served in the previous Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton. Larry Summers, who was selected to be head of President Obama’s White House Eco- nomic Council, had been Clinton’s Treasury secretary, and Eric Holder, who was selected to be Obama’s attorney general, was an assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Clinton administration.

President Obama shakes hands with Speaker of the House John Boehner before his 2011 State of the Union address. Boehner became speaker of the House because Republicans gained control of that chamber following the 2010 election.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 265 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Purpose Does It Serve?

Similarly, presidents look to appoint members of their party to positions in the judiciary. This helps to ensure that their appointments will share the same values.

Generate Symbols of Identification and Loyalty

Political parties are generally a source of identification. Voters are identified by their party registration. Public officials are identified by the party whose ticket they ran on. Even fed- eral judges are identified by the party of the president who appointed them.

Until the 1980s, voters tended to vote on the basis of party loyalty. Most people joined the party of their parents and grandparents. From the 1930s, the Democratic Party was viewed as a party of the middle class, whose members were primarily blue-collar working class, low-income groups. The party was also built as a broad coalition of ethnic groups and labor unions, at least in urban areas. The Republican Party tended to be more patri- cian and composed of more educated, affluent individuals. For many years, even Demo- crats who became educated and financially successful tended to still identify with the party of their parents because of party loyalty.

Because of this tradition, elections were relatively predictable: Democrats would always vote for Democratic candidates and Republicans would always vote for Republican can- didates. In recent years, however, fewer people identify with either party and increas- ingly more voters consider themselves independents, or political moderates who swing back and forth between the parties. The number of independents has increased since the 1980s (Figure 9.1). The trend actually began during the late 1960s, with what was really a dealignment, whereby long-term Democrats chose not to be identified with the party for a variety of mostly cultural reasons.

From the 1930s until the late 1960s, the Democratic Party was the majority party in terms of voter affiliation. Following protests over the Vietnam War and the perception that the Democratic Party was moving to the left, blue-collar Democrats, primarily in the South and in ethnic enclaves in the Northeast and industrial Midwest, began to vote for Repub- licans. While Southern Democratic voters dropped their Democratic Party affiliation, they did not reregister as Republicans. Data from the National Election Studies (NES) show that between 1952 and 1992, identification with the Democratic Party decreased from 59 to 47.5 percent, while identification with the Republican Party increased from 31.6 to 39.4 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of the population that identified themselves as inde- pendents tripled from 6.5 to 19.6 percent.

Today, both political parties have their own respective “bases.” The base of the modern Republican Party is considered to be very conservative, while the base of the Democratic Party is considered to be very liberal. Both adhere more strictly to ideology than more centrist members of their parties. Modern conservative voters tend to favor smaller gov- ernment, states’ rights, lower taxes, restrictions on privacy and abortion rights, school prayer, and traditional family values. Modern liberals favor more government programs and regulation to achieve a more fair society, higher taxes on wealthier individuals and families, along with strict separation of church and state, rights to privacy and freedom of choice, and strong civil rights for groups such as gays and lesbians.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 266 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.1 What Is a Political Party and What Purpose Does It Serve?

Because political parties seek to mobilize voters to support a particular candidate and win an election, they often seek to be an open tent with a wide diversity of views. But if mod- erates drop out to be independents, both parties may be left with ideological extremists.

It is not uncommon to identify the typical Democrat, both the voter and the politician, as being liberal. Similarly, the typical Republican is viewed as conservative. The Democratic Party still has a base of low-income and blue-collar groups with a high school education. But the Democratic Party also has many highly educated professionals, academics, and business people who are more liberal on social issues. A member of the Democratic base, for example, may feel that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, including during the third trimester, past the point of viability. The very liberal Democrat might contend that an individual’s right to privacy, and to control her body and reproduction, always supersedes the government’s right to protect a fetus.

Figure 9.1: Rise of Independents Since the 1980s

Though the percentage of Americans who identify as independents has varied since 1990, it has risen substantially since the 1980s. Data from “Democratic Party ID Drops in 2010, Tying 22-Year Low” by Jeffrey M. Jones, Jan. 5, 2011, www.gallup.com. Used by permission.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 267 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Political Parties in American History

Modern Republicans tend to be white, evangelical Protestant, conservative, and in favor of states’ rights. The Republi- can Party today is still home to the very wealthy and the old Patrician classes, but it is also home to more working- class people, including Catholics who are conservative on social issues, especially regarding the family. The position of a member of the Republican base on abor- tion would likely be the opposite of the liberal Democrat. The very conservative Republican might assert that abortion should be prohibited under all circum- stances, even in cases where necessary to save the life of the mother, if, for exam- ple, his or her religious beliefs encourage this position.

Implement Policy Objectives

To the extent that parties represent specific policy agendas, they also identify the objec- tives for policy implementation. Policy is technically implemented by the bureaucracy, but policy objectives are established by political actors, and these objectives often reflect the values of the parties they are identified with. By extension, then, parties implement policy objectives. Consider for a moment that if it is an official Democratic Party position to support abortion rights and the Democratic preference would be for the new healthcare law to pay for abortions, then the Democratic Party would seek to meet that objective by crafting or amending the new healthcare legislation so that it covers abortions. Mean- while, as a traditional plank of the Republican Party is opposition to abortion, Republican members of Congress will seek to block funding for abortions from the language of the new healthcare law so that when the law is fully implemented, individuals with publicly funded insurance will not have coverage for abortion services.

Implementation of policy objectives ultimately requires the mobilization of support. In this vein, political parties organize dissent and opposition, as well as institutionalize, channel, and socialize conflict. When they are able to mobilize bias in favor of something, thereby making it easier to implement, they effectively legitimize the decisions of government.

9.2 Political Parties in American History Today’s Democrats and Republicans were not the original parties in the American political arena. In fact, political parties have evolved throughout the nation’s history (Figure 9.2). Historians have found it convenient to divide the history of American parties into “party systems.” The “first” party system lasted from the beginning of the republic until about 1824.

As political moderates have left both parties to become independents, the “bases” of very liberal and very conservative voters have been left to steer the parties.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 268 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Political Parties in American History

Evolution of the American Political Parties

1789 1792 1796 1800 1804 1808 1812 1816 1820 1824 1828 1832 1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Major parties Third parties

Anti-Mason

Liberty Free Soil

Whig-American Constitutional Union Southern Dem.

Liberal Republican

Greenback

Union Labor Populist National Democratic

Prohibition

Prohibition Socialist

Bull Moose

Farmer Union Progressive

Socialist Union

Progressive States’ Rights Democratic

American Independent American

Libertarian Independent

Independent Reform Green

National Republican

Whig

Republican

Democratic

Democratic- Republican

Federalists

Figure 9.2: Evolution of the American Political Parties

Though many of the parties had similar sounding names, in some cases they represented dramatically different points of view. This chart shows the general evolution of the American political parties. From: Harold W. Stanley and Richard G. Niemi, Vital Statistics on American Politics, 2007–2008 (Washington, DC: CQ Press 2007). Reprinted by permission.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 269 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Political Parties in American History

The “second” party system, sometimes referred to as the Jacksonian party system, lasted from 1824 until the eve of the Civil War. The period of Reconstruction following the Civil War ushered in a time of Democratic Party rule in the South and Republican Party domi- nance at the national level. Beginning in the early 20th century, the party system changed again due to an era of reform. Then, from the mid-1960s into the early 1970s, both political parties introduced reforms in their attempts to attract more voters, but these also weak- ened party loyalty and increased the number of political independents.

The First Party System

Recall from our discussion of the development of the Constitution in Chapter 2 that at the time of our nation’s founding, those supporting strong centralized authority were known as the Federalists. The three principal Federalists were George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, who served in the first administration as president, vice presi- dent, and Treasury secretary, respectively. Hamilton, in particular, wrote reports about how to develop a strong commercial and industrial economy. Passionately opposed to this plan was Thomas Jefferson, who favored small agricultural economies.

Initially, Jefferson organized his followers to oppose Hamilton and his “nationalistic” policies. Hamilton and his followers took this as opposition to the national government itself. It was out of this dispute that the first party system emerged. Jefferson’s followers formed the first political party in the United States, called the Democratic-Republicans, in an effort to recapture the republican spirit (discussed in Chapter 1) that animated the American Revolution. (This was the precursor to the modern Democratic Party.) Meanwhile, Hamilton’s sup- porters maintained the Fed- eralist label that had referred to those originally support- ing the Constitution. The intent of the new Democratic- Republicans was to paint Hamilton and his supporters as secret monarchists—peo- ple who wanted to reestablish the king in America—and the intent of the Federalists was to paint Jefferson and his sup- porters as anti-federalists and enemies of the Constitution. By the 1820s, the Democratic- Republicans had become so successful that the Federalists ceased to exist.

Washington’s cabinet consisted of Federalists, Washington (l) and Hamilton (r), and anti-Federalist Jefferson (second from right). Jefferson followers formed the precursor to the mod- ern Democratic Party.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 270 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Political Parties in American History

The Second Party System

The second party system began in 1824 with Andrew Jackson’s first run for the presidency. In part, it was a response to political participation being opened to the masses, as prop- erty requirements for vot- ing were abolished and more white men were enfranchised. Additionally, by 1832, virtu- ally all presidential electors were chosen by popular vote.

The Jacksonian party sys- tem, as it came to be known, was a grassroots movement intended to mobilize the newly eligible electorate. In the first party system, presi- dential candidates were nomi- nated by caucuses made up of members of Congress. The

idea was to give members of Congress some control over who might be president, but these caucuses were not popular among the presidential candidates themselves. In the Jacksonian party system, caucuses were replaced by conventions, where party delegates, who could be ordinary citizens, gathered to nominate a candidate.

In 1831, a new party of anti-Jackson National Republicans nominated Henry Clay in the first convention of a major party. The Democratic Party (which had by this time dropped Republican from its name) held a convention in 1832 that nominated Jackson for reelection and Martin Van Buren for vice president. Van Buren would be nominated for president by a Democratic convention in 1836. The second party system developed into the first Ameri- can national party system, with Jackson supporters voting Democratic and opponents of Jackson, originally known as National Republicans, now forming the Whig Party.

The Impact of the Civil War and the Emergence of the Modern Republican Party

In the 1836 through 1852 elections, both the Whig and Democratic parties attempted to avoid the issues of slavery and sectionalism, but by the middle of the 19th century these matters became unavoidable. The slavery issue shattered the old parties and caused new ones to emerge. The modern Republican Party, founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activ- ists, began as a third party, but the sectional conflict leading up to the Civil War made

In the Jacksonian party system, Congressional caucuses were replaced by party conventions, where some ordinary citizens were involved in nominating presidential candi- dates. In this cartoon, Andrew Jackson leads James K. Polk and George Dallas to the 1844 presidential election.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 271 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Political Parties in American History

it a major force that began to dominate national politics. With the election of Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, the Republicans established themselves as a major party in American politics. Those who supported the Union side in the Civil War became loyal Republicans for generations and, likewise, those who supported the Confederacy became loyal Demo- crats. With few exceptions, northern states tended to be solidly Republican while southern states tended to be solidly Democratic.

The Republican Party was further strengthened by the presidential election of 1896. Run- ning for the Democrats, William Jennings Bryan campaigned with strong populist rhetoric that alienated many voters in northeastern states while attracting voters in the South and the Midwest. This only reinforced the split between North and South that was created by the Civil War.

One consequence of this split was that most states were in effect one-party states. The party that controlled each state controlled who was nominated, in effect limiting the choices for voters. This meant that competition for office at the state level took place within a single dominant party. Within each party, especially the Republicans, there emerged two fac- tions. The first faction, which could be said to reflect party-in-the-organization, consisted of the party regulars, professional politicians, or the Old Guard who were preoccupied with building the party machinery, developing party loyalty, and obtaining patronage jobs for themselves and loyal followers. The second faction was referred to at different times by terms such as “mugwumps,” “progressives,” or “reformers,” and sought to do away with patronage and weaken the power of the political machines.

Parties under Reform

Progressive reformers at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries sought to weaken the influence of politi- cal parties, and in some cases abolish them altogether. The first major issue was the par- ties’ control of the nomination process by machine bosses. Political machines were disci- plined organizations in which a single boss or a small group could command the support of individual voters and busi- nesses (who were often cam- paign workers), who in turn could expect to be rewarded for their efforts. The power of the machine lay in the ability of the workers to get out the vote on election day. Following the

In New York City, machine bosses used to meet and divide up public contracts in the Tammany Hall clubhouse (shown here), which over time came to symbolize the corruption of machine party politics.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 272 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Political Parties in American History

model of the old spoils system, bosses picked nominees who would serve the interests of the machine. Because they could offer patronage to supporters, they were able to guarantee that their candidates would get elected. Naturally, this lent itself to corruption. Machine bosses, especially in large cities, owned construction companies and would get contracts to build public works. In New York City, for example, machine bosses used to meet and divide up public contracts in the Tammany Hall clubhouse.

The machines provided pathways of upward socioeconomic mobility for ethnic minori- ties, like Irish and Italian immigrants. They also offered a social welfare framework at a time when great economic transformations (due to the Industrial Revolution) were caus- ing dislocations and massive poverty, and government still had no welfare services. For example, machine bosses, who often were ward leaders, commonly appeared at wakes to offer assistance to widows and children of the deceased. At a minimum this assistance might pay for funeral expenses. It could also cover the rent and pay for food for a short time. Reformers (also called Progressives), who considered themselves more qualified to govern because they were part of the educated social elite, were effectively excluded from the machine party system.

For the educated elite to regain leadership, the rules of the game had to change. The principal platform that Progressives used to weaken the stranglehold of the machine bosses was the primary election, where the voters could choose their own party nomi- nees rather than having party bosses choose for them. Reformers also sought nonparti- san elections at the local level and strict voter registration requirements to reduce voter fraud. Finally, they sought to establish civil service systems to eliminate the patronage system altogether.

These reforms, however, were slow in coming. Some states, like California and Wisconsin, were more successful than others. Over the years more and more states adopted primary elections, but as late as 1960 only eight states had presidential primaries. This meant that presidential candidates, even as late as 1968, could bypass primary election states alto- gether and secure the party nomination by negotiating with state party chairs.

The Decline of Parties

The decline of the political parties really has more to do with party-in-the-electorate than within organization and government, and ironically has its roots in late 1960s and early 1970s reform efforts to increase party bases. Several events converged to create an impetus for reform. First, growing opposition to the Vietnam War led Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota to challenge President Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic Party nomina- tion in 1968. Shortly after McCarthy entered the race, Senator Robert Kennedy of New York, the brother of slain President John F. Kennedy, did too. Both McCarthy and Ken- nedy sought to win the nomination through the states that had instituted primaries. After Kennedy declared his candidacy, Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection. Johnson’s withdrawal paved the way for Vice President Hubert Humphrey to enter the race, but Humphrey had no intention of entering any primary contests, in part because he had a late start. So while McCarthy and Kennedy battled it out in primaries, Humphrey negotiated with state party chairs and secured delegates.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 273 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.2 Political Parties in American History

Kennedy won the California primary and looked likely to win the party nomination, but on the night of that victory he was assassinated. Hum- phrey, having never entered a primary, had the nomina- tion wrapped up going into the Democratic Party conven- tion in Chicago, but there was a pall cast over the gathering by protestors and violence in the streets outside. In the gen- eral election, Kennedy and McCarthy supporters refused to support Humphrey, in part because he would not dis- avow his earlier support for the Vietnam War and, more significantly, because they felt he stole the nomination. The result was a split Democratic Party, which contributed to Republican Richard Nixon’s election in what was other- wise a close race.

The 1968 election appeared to be a watershed event for several reasons. Some believed that it was the beginning of an emerging Republican Party majority. Democrats believed they lost the election because the party was split during the primary season. Close elec- tion results implied that had the party not been fractured, it might have won the election.

The 1968 election also saw the independent candidacy of George Wallace, the Democratic segregationist governor of Alabama, who was able to capitalize on white anger in the South over civil rights. The effect of Wallace’s candidacy was to peel Democratic voters away from Humphrey. Nixon also took away Democratic voters, but for different reasons. Nixon ran on a platform of law and order and ending the Vietnam War. For many blue- collar workers and social conservatives, the violence of the 1968 convention, which was broadcast on national television, fueled a perception that the Democrats stood for licen- tiousness and depravity. In this vein, the 1968 election marked a major turning point in the nation’s cultural wars.

Democratic Party activists convened a couple of commissions in an attempt to unify the party on the assumption that the fracture was due largely to the nominating process. The first commission, known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission, chaired by Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and Representative Donald Fraser of Minnesota, rec- ommended that all states adopt either primary elections or party caucuses. They argued

Riots outside the 1968 Democratic Convention were indica- tive of the Democratic Party split over the Vietnam War. Candidate Hubert Humphrey backed the war, and Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy supporters did not, which caused a major rift in the party.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 274 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Two-Party System Versus Multiparty System

that this would democratize the nominating process and remove it from the influence of state party chairs. They also recommended making the party more inclusive by selecting more women and minorities as delegates to the convention.

In many cases, state legislatures had to pass new laws to accommodate primaries, but after a series of negotiations many did. If one party adopted reforms, the other party had to do the same to remain competitive. As states adopted these reforms, the result was that anybody could enter primaries without necessarily representing the parties’ traditional bases. Another result was that the nominating conventions were to become little more than pep rallies.

Between 1968 and 1992, with the exception of Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976, the country did not elect a Democratic president. Part of the reason may have been a perception that the party moved too far to the left, which was one consequence of its losing control of the nominating process. The party attempted to make adjustments, such as having “Super Delegates” who would vote for the nominee they thought more likely to win the general election.

9.3 Two-Party System Versus Multiparty System The American political system is characterized by a two-party system, while the typical parliamentary system includes multiple parties. The United States has always had only two main parties. Although there have been attempts to form third parties, they have never really succeeded. Why has this been the case?

Why the United States Has a Two-Party System

The principal reasons the United States has a two-party system are that it has single- member congressional districts—each voter gets one vote for a given office—and election to office is based on a plurality of votes. In the 1950s French sociologist Maurice Duverger noted, in what has come to be known as Duverger’s law, that a plurality election system tends to favor two-party systems. In other words, the candidate who wins the office is the one who receives the most votes. In practical terms this means that if in District 2 Joe, George, and Dan run for office and Dan gets 49 percent of the vote, George gets 35 percent, and Joe gets 16 percent, Dan is the winner.

This is very different from a parliamentary system, where there is proportional represen- tation, which means that voters can vote for several candidates to represent the province they live in. As an example, say Province A will be represented by 10 people out of per- haps 20 people running. Each party understands that the number of seats it takes in Par- liament for this province will be in proportion to the percentage of votes that it receives. So if the Liberal Party receives 30 percent, the Conservative Party receives 20 percent, the Labor Party receives 40 percent, and the Consumer Party receives 10 percent, the results will look as shown in Table 9.1.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 275 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.3 Two-Party System Versus Multiparty System

Table 9.1 Example of Proportional Representation Party Percentage of Votes Number of Seats

Liberal 30 3

Conservative 20 2

Labor 40 4

Consumer 10 1

Total 100 10

Because more than one person can represent the district, there is room for more than the two strongest parties. The weakest parties can survive by achieving a minimum threshold. In many cases, a party has to receive a minimum of 10 percent of the vote to secure at least one seat. A party receiving 10 percent in a single-member district system like the United States would not secure representation in office and in the long term would not be able to survive.

Broker Party Model

Two-party systems tend to be examples of broker party models because their primary pur- pose is to win elections, and the issues on which the party campaigns are based on what will attract the most votes. As the preferences of the voters change, so too do planks in the party platform. Because Americans tend to vote for personality more than platform, the candidate who runs for office shapes the position of the party platform. Whoever appeals most to the voters in a primary election gets to represent the party in the general election. In the broker party model, the party is non-ideological and merely acts as a medium for voters to express their preferences for particular candidates. This is not to say that ideol- ogy does not play a role in the selection of candidates, especially during primary cam- paigns. Rather, ideology is a tool that can be used to rally support among voters to help secure a nomination.

Responsible Party Model

In the responsible party model, which is more common in parliamentary systems, issues are primary and candidates are secondary. Planks in the platform tend not to change accord- ing to changing voter preferences; rather, voter preference affects whether the party gains or loses votes. This means that parties are more ideological.

When people contribute money in the responsible party model, they contribute to parties. The candidates who run on behalf of the party are chosen by party leaders, not primary elections. A candidate is merely a spokesperson for the party. Usually the person who would, for example, be prime minister is the leader of the party, and the only way he or she became party leader was by working the way up the ranks and demonstrating loyalty. Officeholders who challenge the party leadership or buck party ideology are generally displaced from the ballot in the next election. In the responsible party model, then, party

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 276 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Interest Groups

discipline tends to be tight. Political parties can be more ideological because there are more of them. Parties would rather lose an election than compromise on principles. But even a strongly ideological party is still likely to have seats, even if there are fewer of them.

9.4 Interest Groups As with political parties, the Framers assumed that interest groups would naturally form because people had the liberty to freely associate; however, also as with political parties, the Framers did not have a positive view of interest groups because they were pri- marily factions of self-interest. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison defined fac- tions as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a major- ity or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the perma- nent and aggregate interests of the community.” Insofar as interest groups would be factions, they would seek to pursue the interests of the group first, even if they were contrary to the larger public interest.

Today there are two dominant views of interest groups. One holds that they distort the democratic process because they succeed in having their interests trump those of the pub- lic. The other holds that interest groups reflect a dynamic democratic process built on pluralism. Within the context of interest groups, pluralism means that there are a multi- tude of interests within society and that there is no one correct view or one way of doing things. Classical pluralism has held that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups, such as inter- est groups, use their resources to exert influence.

The Role of Interest Groups

Interest groups tend to be single-issue organizations. People who join interest groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) or the Sierra Club do so because of their concern over a specific policy area. The NRA is only concerned with the rights of people to bear arms, and the Sierra Club is only concerned with matters that affect the environment. While individuals within these groups may be concerned with other issues such as gay rights, school prayer, and abortion rights, the formal organizations do not take positions on them.

Interest groups such as the National Rifle Association have proliferated as political parties have weakened. The same individualism that brought about the demise of political parties appears to strengthen interest groups.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 277 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Interest Groups

Interest groups pursue their goals by making policy-related appeals to government. They seek to influence elections through political action committees (PACs) , which are their financial arms. PACs raise money and contribute to candidates’ campaigns, and their donations are usually made to incumbents, regardless of party, who have a record of vot- ing in favor of their position. The NRA, for instance, does not care if a candidate is a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative; its PAC will contribute to whoever has a record of voting in favor of less regulated gun ownership.

Interest groups also seek to influence public policy through lobbies. A lobby is an organization made up of professional lobbyists who meet with elected representa- tives and attempt to influence their votes on a particular issue. Lobbies usually pres- ent information to legislators and attempt to explain why supporting their position is important to the interest group’s members. Lobbyists try to impress on members of Congress just how many peo- ple they represent and that the people they represent do indeed vote.

Difference Between Interest Groups and Political Parties

The principal difference between interest groups and political parties is that interest groups are single-issue while political parties are multi-issue. For just about any profession, sec- tor, lifestyle factor, social issue, or political ideology, there is a special group on Capitol Hill. Professional interest groups include the American Medical Association (for doctors), the American Bar Association (lawyers), the American Political Science Association (peo- ple who work in the realm of political science), and the American Economic Association (economists). Labor unions, like the American Federation of Labor (for factory workers), the American Education Association (teachers), and the Service Employees International Union (people who work in the service sector, like waiters and hotel employees) lobby for the interests of blue-collar workers. Businesses have a variety of interest groups, like the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Ameri- can Petroleum Institute. Social interest groups range from the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood (which represents positions on reproductive issues), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and various environmental groups. Additionally, there are public interest research groups (PIRGs) in many states, including California and New Jersey.

Whereas an interest group is more likely to be a homogeneous group with people who all think the same way on the one issue that brings them together, a political party tends to

Lobbyists from different interest groups wait to see con- gresspeople on Capitol Hill. The job of a lobbyist is to pres- ent information and argument to a legislator for the purpose of securing his or her support on a specific issue.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 278 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Interest Groups

be a more heterogeneous group with people who think the same on core party issues but may have differences of opinion on others. A political party seeks to win an election for its candidates. An interest group merely seeks to gain support for its cause. Anybody can be a member of a political party by registering with that party for the purposes of voting. But members of interest groups must pay membership dues and actively join the group. Political parties are big tents that seek to attract many different people. Interest groups seek to attract only those who agree with their cause.

Madison’s Dilemma

James Madison observed that factions were bad because they sought to place their selfish interests over the public interest. But factions were also the inevitable byproduct of liberty. The ultimate cure for factions would, of course, be to make them illegal, but that would be a cure worse than the disease. The only solution to this dilemma, then, would be to have more factions so that the relative power of each would be diluted. The more interest groups there are, the less influence each one has.

Interest groups, however, need not be viewed as bad. They can also be viewed as reflecting healthy democratic expression. Interest groups represent the diversity of American society. They speak to the issue of pluralism, whereby different people get involved with different issues at different times. The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to protect individualism. Pluralism is simply individualism in collective form. Instead of person A and person B each pursuing his or her respective interests, it is now Group A and Group B pursuing their respective interests. Because we are a large and diverse nation, interest groups become an essential tool for individu- als to express themselves and get their voice heard by gov- ernmental officials. Person A alone will not get the atten- tion of members of Congress, but Group A may because it might represent thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals.

Madison’s dilemma also suggested that one interest group might have too much power. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued that interest groups would ultimately be checked by what he termed countervailing forces. In the face of one powerful interest group, several smaller ones would come together in a coalition, and they would balance out the power of the larger group. Consistent with Madison’s notion that the effects of factions can be controlled by having more factions, the more interest groups there are operating in the system, the more countervailing forces there will be. This is an instance of the marketplace working to curb the excesses of interest groups.

Interest groups can be viewed as reflecting healthy demo- cratic expression. They represent the diversity of views in American society.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 279 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.4 Interest Groups

Rationality and Logic of Collective Action

An interest group is a voluntary organization, and many people who sympathize with it may derive benefits without having to bear the costs of membership. The rationality prin- ciple holds that if I can get the benefits of an organization for free, I will have no reason to join it. People nonetheless join interest groups. As an example, suppose you are a public school teacher in an urban school district and all teachers are members of the teachers’ union. You decide not to join and when the rest of the teachers go on strike, you opt to cross the picket line and go to work. By going to work, you will not get a better or worse contract than the rest of the teachers. Rather, when the strike ends, all the teachers get the same new contract. You did not bear the costs, but you still derived the benefits of the union’s action. This makes you a free rider.

A free rider derives the benefits of the interest group’s legislative and lobbying efforts, without bearing any of the costs associated with the interest group’s activities. Logic would seem to dictate that individuals have little incentive to join interest groups because they can be free riders. However, if everybody were to assume that he or she can be a free rider, there would be no interest group because nobody would have joined. As a conse- quence, individuals acting rationally by being free riders can cause collective irrationality, because the consequence of their inaction is the absence of an interest group to advocate for their interests.

If its benefits are so readily available to free riders, why would anybody join the union? For one thing, you might join because if everybody took that approach there would be no union and in the end, nobody would have a better contract. But in truth, you join because of something called asymmetric information. You don’t know really know what everyone else is doing. The teacher does not know for certain that she will fare just as well if she opts

to be a free rider. In fact, she may be in a worse position because all her colleagues, who chose to be faithful mem- bers of the union and go on strike, will ostracize her for crossing the picket line. More importantly, collective action achieves greater results than acting alone. This, after all, is the purpose of joining an interest group: to demonstrate that there is a constituency supporting a particular issue.

Interest groups have also found practical ways around the free rider barrier by offer- ing a variety of benefits, com- munity services, and individ- ual services. As an example, AARP offers its members dis- counts on a variety of items

The purposes of joining an interest group are to demon- strate that there is a constituency supporting a particular issue and to act collectively to achieve greater results than acting alone.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 280 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.5 Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation

including insurance policies. The NRA offers gun safety courses, as well as discounts on hotels and insurance policies. As a result, individuals may see some practical benefit to joining. People may also join interest groups for the opportunity to socialize with others on matters of common interest.

Impact of Interest Groups on Democracy

Political scientist Theodore Lowi argued that as government assumed responsibility for more things, Congress would delegate authority for policy implementation to the execu- tive branch, and the inevitable result would be a proliferation of interest groups. Indeed, not only did interest groups emerge to lobby Congress for specific programs, but they lobbied the executive for contracts to deliver services.

Lowi also concluded that a government founded on liberal principles, as it is in the United States, is unable to prioritize values. This owes to the fact that on a philosophical level, each person’s conception of the good is just as valid as any other. To treat everybody equally means that someone arguing for food for the hungry will not get preference over someone arguing for corporate subsidies. The old constitutional system, as Lowi referred to it, would not extend beyond its limited function. But once government found itself responding to new crises, delegating authority, and dealing with multitudes of interest groups, it would give priority to the cause with the largest and most powerful interest group behind it. If corporate subsidies are backed by a powerful interest group, they have a higher order of importance than feeding the hungry, even if it turns out that a majority of citizens disagree with these priorities. The end result is that interest groups distort democ- racy because representatives do not represent us equally. Rather, they are more responsive to interest groups.

But not everybody agrees with this position. Political scientist Robert Dahl has suggested that even if interest groups represent different groups on different issues, the effect is plu- ralism in action. Dahl studied community power structures in New Haven, Connecticut, in the 1950s. He observed that three separate interest groups emerged around each of three policy issues. In each case the actors, with the exception of the mayor, were different. This meant that individuals were able to get involved with issues of special importance to them and that the interest groups provided them avenues for participation in the political system that extended beyond merely voting. As far as Dahl could see, this was a demo- cratic system and it was doing precisely what it was supposed to do.

9.5 Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation Madison’s dilemma and the corresponding concept of countervailing forces assume that competition among interests produces balance and compromise. All interests effectively regulate one another. However, it is not clear that interest groups are really representa- tive of the broader public. As an example, the NRA might claim to speak for millions of Americans when it opposes any type of gun control. But we do not really know that these millions of Americans, who might believe they have the right to own guns for hunting, target practice, and personal protection, would really be opposed to laws that made it more difficult for criminals or the mentally ill to acquire one.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 281 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.5 Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation

Legislators might think an interest group speaks for more than its actual membership sug- gests because of its perceived power. Further, interest groups may not be representative because their membership may have a decidedly upper-class bias. For instance, many mem- bers of environmental interest groups come from more educated and affluent backgrounds, but they claim to speak for millions more of all classes who are not dues-paying members.

Money in Politics

The greatest challenge that interest groups pose to democracy is that they often enable those with the most money to enjoy the loudest voice. The PACs that collect money for inter- est groups usually enjoy generous contributions, which they can then channel into specific campaigns. As shown in Table 9.2, under federal election laws, an individual may contrib- ute $2,400 to an individual campaign, but up to $5,000 to a PAC. Meanwhile, the PAC is allowed to contribute $5,000 to as many individual campaigns as it wants. Because mem- bers of Congress have to raise huge sums of money to be elected and reelected, they tend to be beholden to those who contribute money to their campaigns. This has led to the charge that through their contributions, PACs effectively buy votes. In other words, the issue of money in politics raises the question of whether interest groups are engaging in bribery.

Table 9.2 Contribution Limits 2009–2010 To each candidate or candidate committee per election

To national party commit- tee per calen- dar year

To state, district, and local party committee per calendar year

To any other political committee per calen- dar year

Special limits

Individual may give $2,400 $30,000 $10,000 (com- bined limit)

$5,000 $115,500 overall biennial limit: $45,600 to all candi- dates; $69,900 to all PACs and parties

National party committee may give

$5,000 No limit No limit $5,000 $42,600 to Sen- ate candidate per campaign

State, district, and local party commit- tee may give

$5,000 (com- bined limit)

No limit No limit $5,000 (combined limit)

No limit

PAC (multi-candi- date) may give

$5,000 $15,000 $5,000 (com- bined limit)

$5,000 No limit

PAC (not multi-can- didate) may give

$2,400 $30,400 $10,000 (com- bined limit)

$5,000 No limit

Authorized cam- paign committee may give

$2,000 No limit No limit $5,000 No limit

Source: Federal Election Commission. Downloaded from fec.gov/pages

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 282 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Section 9.5 Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation

PACs claim that they only contribute to those who have a record of voting in support of their interests. That is, their contribution is a reward for good behavior. So when the NRA con- tributes through its PAC to every member of Congress who votes against gun control, it can technically say that it has not bribed anybody. If it were bribery, the NRA would have said to Congressman A, if you vote for our interests, we will reward you with either a campaign con- tribution or a large financial gift. That is not what the NRA PAC has said. However, members of Congress understand that opposition to the NRA means they will not get its contributions.

More importantly, however, members of Congress understand that a wealthy and power- ful group like the NRA can pour lots of money into efforts to defeat someone who opposes their interests. Now, suppose that Congressman A says he does not need the $5,000 con- tribution because it does not amount to much when he needs at least $1 million to be elected, so he votes for gun control. In response, the NRA decides to run advocacy ads in an attempt to get this person defeated by somebody who is more sympathetic to its cause. An advocacy ad is essentially a campaign ad that an interest group might run indepen- dent of a candidate’s official campaign.

The typical citizen who is not a member of an interest group, and who otherwise supports gun control, may feel that members of Congress are not really representing her concerns because of the role of money in politics. Needless to say, it poses a challenge to consti- tutional representation if those with more money can buy more influence. Members of Congress are supposed to represent all the people, not just those with money.

Table 9.3 Top Twenty Contributors in 1989–2010 Rank Organization Total ’89–’10 Democrat % Republican %

1 ActBlue $52,443,515 99% 0%

2 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

$45,237,853 94% 1%

3 AT&T Inc. $41,197,490 45% 54%

4 National Association of Realtors $39,707,910 47% 49%

5 National Education Association $36,310,095 81% 5%

6 Service Employees International Union $35,873,039 78% 2%

7 American Association for Justice $33,980,771 89% 8%

8 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

$33,475,254 97% 2%

9 Laborers Union $31,331,267 89% 7%

10 American Federation of Teachers $31,021,128 90% 0%

11 Teamsters Union $30,632,309 89% 6%

12 Carpenters & Joiners Union $30,572,687 86% 9%

13 Communications Workers of America $29,445,653 95% 0%

14 American Medical Association $27,405,040 39% 59%

15 United Auto Workers $27,106,207 98% 0%

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 283 6/12/13 2:21 PM

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021806

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000061

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000062

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000064

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000077

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000069

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000074

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000083

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000066

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000073

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000075

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000070

CHAPTER 9Section 9.5 Challenge of Interest Groups to Constitutional Representation

Rank Organization Total ’89–’10 Democrat % Republican %

16 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $26,788,209 93% 0%

17 National Auto Dealers Association $26,625,992 32% 67%

18 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $26,349,874 98% 0%

19 United Parcel Service $24,450,717 37% 62%

20 American Bankers Association $24,105,244 39% 60%

Source: Based on data released by the FEC on April 25, 2011. Center for Responsive Politics. Downloaded from http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A.

Interest Groups and Free Speech

In the past, Congress has attempted to regulate the role of money in politics through cam- paign finance laws. During the 1970s, Congress limited the amount of money that candi- dates could spend on their campaigns on the grounds that those spending more because they were able to raise more would have an unfair advantage. But in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that spending limits were a violation of free speech. A can- didate who is able to raise and spend more money on advertisements and radio and televi- sion time is exercising his or her rights to free speech.

Like individuals, PACs have the right to free speech, which in many cases means funding cam- paign ads for or against candidates who support their positions.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 284 6/12/13 2:21 PM

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000072

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000080

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000078

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000081

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A.

CHAPTER 9Summary and Application

Congress attempted to regulate campaign money again through the 2002 McCain-Fein- gold campaign finance law, which restricted the amount of money that organizations like corporations, unions, and other interest groups could contribute to a campaign. But, as noted at the beginning of Chapter 7, in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that these restrictions also violated free speech, since organiza- tions have the right, under the First Amendment, to express themselves. On one level, if interest groups can spend unlimited sums of money on behalf of particular candidates, then bigger and richer interest groups would appear to have more power and influence. But on another level, in terms of countervailing forces, the Supreme Court implied that individuals are free to join interest groups, which can in turn attempt to raise as much money as they choose and contribute as much as they want to the candidate who supports their cause. This would appear to be democracy in action.

Summary and Application Political parties and interest groups are key features in American politics. Both formed as a byproduct of our liberty to freely associate with whomever we want. The Framers took a dim view of interest groups and political parties because they considered them to be fac- tions that would pursue their self-interests at the expense of the public interest.

Political parties differ from interest groups in that the former are multi-issue while interest groups represent a single issue. Political parties exist to win elections and get out the vote, as well as to operate the government. Interest groups attempt to influence elections and the shape of public policy.

The principal reason that the United States has a broker model is that it is a two-party system, which is the result of having single-member districts; in this model the candidate who wins a plurality of votes wins the election. Parties in the United States have evolved through different periods, usually in responses to changes in the electorate, and they have declined, in large measure because of the individualism that underpins American values.

Interest groups give individuals voice and opportunities to participate in politics. As Madison observed, the more interest groups there are, the more self-regulating they will be through the effects of countervailing forces. Still, interest groups may be problematic because of the role of money in politics and the relationship between PACs and members of Congress. The Supreme Court has held the interest group to be a legitimate form of free speech.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 285 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Summary and Application

Concept Check

1. In the United States, the primary purpose of political parties is to

a) Win elections b) Win programs c) Raise money d) Control nominations

2. The term party-in-the-electorate refers to

a) Activists who seek to define the issues b) The majority party in Congress, whose members get to organize the government c) All voters who are registered for a particular election d) Get out the vote

3. The second party system in the United States arose

a) Because Andrew Jackson was a charismatic figure b) Because politicians did not know how to appeal to voters c) In response to the extension of franchise to more white voters d) Because money was needed to win elections

Key Ideas to Remember

• The founders knew that both political parties and interest groups were likely to form as a result of individuals having the liberty to associate with like-minded people; how- ever, they disapproved of both because they felt they would operate as factions pri- marily concerned with self-interest over the public good.

• Political parties in the United States perform a variety of functions, but their primary function is to mobilize voters so that their candidates will win political office.

• The United States is primarily a broker party model whereby the goal is to win elec- tions, and party platforms are secondary to this primary goal. The broker model is in contrast to the responsible party model, whereby the primary goal is winning pro- grams and elections are secondary to it.

• The American party system has evolved throughout history. The first party system started off as a couple of factions in Congress. The second party system was a mass movement in response to growing numbers of voters. Subsequent party systems have sought to appeal to increasingly more voters in efforts to be competitive in a two-party system.

• Interest groups differ from political parties in that they are single-issue organizations. Interest groups seek to influence who is elected and the policies that are adopted.

• Although interest groups could be viewed as narrow-minded factions, their presence in American politics speaks to the pluralism of American society, which contributes to a vibrant democratic system.

• Interest groups might be distortive of democracy in that those who contribute more money through their financial arms—PACs—have greater influence. The presence of interest groups is viewed as a legitimate form of free speech.

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 286 6/12/13 2:21 PM

CHAPTER 9Summary and Application

4. Interest groups are

a) Multi-issue organizations b) Concerned with the larger public interest c) Anti-democratic d) Single-issue organizations

5. The event that changed the Democratic Party from a segregationist to an integra- tionist group was

a) The rise of population in the western states b) The election of Abraham Lincoln c) The signing of the 1965 voting rights act by a Democratic president d) The rise of machine bosses

6. Political action committees are

a) The same as interest groups b) Subversive of democracy c) The financial arms of interest groups d) The public affairs committees of interest groups

Answers: 1a; 2c; 3c; 4d; 5c; 6c

Questions to Consider

• What are the functions of political parties in the United States? • Why is 1968 considered a watershed year for American political parties? • What are the primary differences between the American two-party system and

the multi-party systems found in many European countries? • How do interest groups differ from political parties? • How does Madison’s dilemma help us to understand interest groups as a system

of countervailing forces? • Why might one join an interest group? • What is the role of money in politics? • Do interest groups distort the democratic process? Why or why not?

Web Links

The Federation of State Public Interest Research Groups: http://www.uspirg.org/

Democratic National Committee: http://www.democrats.org/

Republican National Committee: http://www.gop.com/

Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/

Green Party of the United States: http://www.gp.org/index.php

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 287 6/12/13 2:21 PM

http://www.uspirg.org/

http://www.democrats.org/

http://www.gop.com/

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.gp.org/index.php

CHAPTER 9Summary and Application

advocacy ads Advertisements run by interest groups for or against candidates, independent of a candidate’s official campaign.

asymmetric information Imperfect and uneven information.

countervailing forces When smaller inter- est groups form coalitions to balance out the power of bigger and more powerful interest groups.

dealignment When individuals abandon their party memberships and seek to be unaffiliated with political parties.

Democratic-Republicans A political party founded in 1796 by followers of Thomas Jefferson in opposition to the Federalist followers of John Adams; the precursor of today’s Democratic party.

Duverger’s law The idea that single-mem- ber districts will tend toward two-party political systems.

electorate Those who are eligible to vote.

franchise The right to vote.

free rider Someone who derives the ben- efits of an organization without bearing the costs associated with joining it.

independents Voters who aren’t affiliated with any political party.

interest groups Organizations focused on a single issue.

lobbies Organizations that attempt to influence public policy by persuading lawmakers that it is in their interests to support the organizations’ causes.

machine bosses Leaders of political orga- nizations who were able to deliver votes in exchange for services.

National Republicans A political party founded in 1831 in opposition to Andrew Jackson; precursor of the Whig party, and later, the Republican party.

one-party states States in which there is, in effect, only one party operating.

party caucuses Party-affiliated subgroups in Congress that pursue their interests through the legislative process.

party-in-the-electorate Political party made up of voters who affiliate with the party.

party-in-the-government Public officials either in Congress or the executive who are identified with a particular political party.

New York Working Families Party: http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/

The American Citizen Interest Groups in American Politics: http://www.twyman-whitney .com/americancitizen/links/lobbies.htm

Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

American National Election Studies, Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior: http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/gd-index.htm#2

Key Terms

Lev66425_09_ch09_p261-290.indd 288 6/12/13 2:21 PM

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/

http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americancitizen/links/lobbies.htm

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/gd-index.htm#2

CHAPTER 9Summary and Application