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.