Heterogeneity and Decentralization

In my view the decentralization of political parties is a response to the heterogeneity of the American political system. “Big Tent” parties need to be large and diverse, as they are active at federal, state, and local levels. This leads to decentralization, as there is not a centralized Democratic or Republican party for the entire country. Instead, there are factions within these major parties that share similar goals, but not all are exactly the same. As stated in the lecture video, party members can be very different and have different wants from government, depending on their location, race, religious preference or any other interest they may have.

The structure of the U.S. political system is dependent on a system of two large parties, and the homogeneity of the population creates a need for the “Big Tent” parties’ philosophy to adapt to regional differences. Both parties need strong support to win positions in the federal government, but as lecture also pointed out, the goal of a politician is first to win power, second to create policy. It is in the interest of the voter that his desires from politics are met, and this can often de helped by voting for the party closest in line with his/her ideological preferences. However, since parties are not centralized and can vary among regions, a politician can use a party label to attract voters, particularly at local levels where party status isn’t as important. The fact that the major parties are adaptable and lack a strict set of rules or guidelines results in disagreements or differences among members of the same party. This can be seen very clearly when looking at the 2008 Presidential elections, or even the debate over the economic stimulus package going on right now.

In the 2008 election, we saw divisions and differences among both major parties. In the Democratic party, the main candidates going for the ticket during the primaries were Hillary and Obama, each attracting different sectors of the Democratic voting force. During the Republican primaries we saw a similar situation, as Romney, McCain and Huckabee each represented and attracted different aspects of the Republican party. Then Sarah Palin was brought in to help McCain’s campaign attract the more right-wing Republicans. With the economic stimulus package, we now see differing opinions on the bill from members of the Democratic party, Obama and House Speaker Pelosi in particular. With all of the hype around Obama recently, he seems to me to be the most “in control” of the Democratic party, although there is a visible opposition of fellow Democrats who are not quite as moderate. The Republican party on the other hand, seems to lack a controller at the moment. The party seems sort of split up on the federal level without a clear direction, and I think this could result in a loss of confidence in the party from voters.

All in all, I believe these divisions and differences among the large parties do hinder partisan action. Most politicians’ first goal is reelection, so pleasing their constituents is a must. Because of this, you cannot rely on a member of your own party to vote in line on all issues. If the large parties had a strict set of rules/platform, they may be able to more effectively vote as a bloc, but they would not be able to gain as widespread support as they can under the “big tents.” For this reason, the major parties in our system need to stay large and diverse, in order to appeal to as many different types of voters as possible.

Source: Time Politics, "Obama vs. Pelosi: Can Obama Work with the Democrats?" 2/4/09, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1876912,00.html