What is a Political Party?

A political party is a collection of individuals sharing similar interests, values, and worldviews. Included in this definition are "big tent" (what a stupid name) or mainstream parties that are watered down to accommodate a wide collection of individuals. Also included are smaller, narrower parties that exist for the advancement of one or two particular issues. A good metaphor for this is beer. A person with left wing views can drink Miller Lite and join the Democratic Party or s/he could drink Lakefront Holiday Spice (and its 9% ABV) and join the Communist Party USA. Most individuals drink the Miller Lite and associate with the mainstream party to advance their views slowly. Because of their wide reach, the modern Republican and Democratic parties are financially sustainable and do maintain some flexibility by not requiring their members to blindly follow the party platform (that would be impossible). Despite the minor differences most party members possess common ideals and perceptions. For instance the Democratic Party platform officially supports abortion rights, but still accepts members that have pro-life views as long as the rest of her/his beliefs loosely adhere to the platform.

This leads us to the question in the lecture notes about interest groups. They are not considered parties because they lobby major parties for the advancement of their very narrow interest. For example, the Chamber of Commerce does not take an official position on stem cell research. Similarly stem cell advocates do not care about the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Another reason why interest groups are not parties is because they do not directly elect government officials (they may endorse, lobby, and campaign for specific candidates). So unless either group denounces all major parties and starts their own, with their own candidates, they are simply issue advocates.

Completely unrelated to interest groups and my definition of political parties are my thoughts about the readings. Washington was correct when he stated in his farewell address, "common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." Yes parties can be toxic and must--as Washington advocated--be restrained. But on the other hand Madison correctly argued in Federalist 10, "it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency[.]" So basically parties are necessary to maintaining liberty while preventing tyranny.

In addition to agreeing with Madison's call for some faction, I also concur (frighteningly) with Tom DeLay's assessment. I must say I was a bit skeptical when I saw that we were going to be reading Congressman DeLay's farewell address. However after reading his words and not listening to them, they made quite a bit of sense. Particularly striking was when he argued, "You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny. For all its faults...partisanship...clarifies our debates...prevents one party from straying too far... and...constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders." I think this is good. Discussion and disagreement are healthy. Seeking middle, fertile ground can only be reached through significant disagreement by the fringes. DeLay's notion is supported by American politics during the 20th century. A wave of conservative Republicans dominated the early parts of the century, but they were eventually swept away by the failure of their economic ideology and replaced by liberal Democrats that thrived in the middle part of the century until they overreached allowing conservative Republicans to rebound and dominate national politics until (possibly) very recently.

Where the GOP is Headed...

This is an article written for politico.com by House Minority WHIP Eric Cantor. He--like many in his party--is trying to articulate a new vision for the Republican Party. However he is in a tough spot. As someone in the House Republican leadership it is his responsibility to be partisan. But at the same time he must attempt to craft a message that appeals to a nation that widely rejected not only his party's ideology but also its combative recent history.

Interesting read...

Hopes, Dreams, Fears

Throughout the semester I would like to gain a deeper understanding of how our current political parties started, how they have evolved through some of the major crises we have faced, and how they reached their states. Particularly interesting is how the Republican Party began in the 1850s as a northern, somewhat liberal alternative to the more rural, conservative, slave-driven, southern Democratic Party. And then in just more than 150 years the parties have basically swapped positions. The Republicans are strong in the South and rural parts of the country and certainly adhere to a more conservative ideology (although they have given up on the whole slavery thing) than their predominantly northern, liberal, urban, Democratic counterparts.

I am also interested in learning more about the modern culture war. Is it going to maintain steam during these serious times? Or is this just a product of peacetime and lethargy? I've extensively studied 20th Century American History and noticed that during times of serious crisis (e.g. Great Depression and World War II) cultural issues such as sex, abortion, religion, etc. take a metaphorical back seat on the back pages. Also, with a new president that campaigned on directly ending the "baby boomer psychodrama" will these issues remain prominent? Our previous two presidents (and many of the voices in the various political parties) have staggered through the last several decades fighting the same battles over and over and over again. As someone who finds these arguments stale, I am relieved when I talk to conservative friends that are strictly pro-life, but who's views are shaped by other "moral" issues (e.g. poverty, education, etc.). I also exhale when I talk to liberal friends who care more about economic development and trade and the uses of soft power in foreign affairs rather than what form of sex education should be taught in public schools. It seems to me that society is calling a truce to the a culture war that is now being fought primarily on the vocal fringes of red and blue. For example abortion and other hot-button social issues were barely discussed during this past election, except by some of those crazy commenters that belligerently ramble at the end of blogs and online articles. Maybe I am wrong and in a decade or two after the current issues fade, social issues will forcefully return to the conversation.

Those are my hopes and dreams. I don't really have any fears for this class (except maybe rekindling the culture war).

Now about me. I am a post baccalaureate student seeking a teaching license in broad-field social studies (hence why I am taking this class). I graduated with a degree in History from UW-Oshkosh in 2005. I lived in Chicago and got bored working in the "real world." So my wife and I moved to Kenosha (ick, no offense anyone from Kenosha) and I came to UWM. Baseball (the New York Mets), Books (Studs Terkel's oral histories are some my favorite takes on the 20th Century), Jazz (Miles Davis and John Coltrane), Food (Italian), and Booze (Beer and Wine) are some of my favorite pastimes.

Good luck this semester...