Political Party Over Nation Part 2
Can Loyalty to a Political Party Become Stronger than Loyalty to One’s Nation?
We are in 2024, an election year, a year I call “the Year of the Precipice” for our democracy. We are now examining forces in our politics that are abnormal to democracy but have come to seem normal to us. I call them “democracy destroyers.”
It’s Now that Time
It is now the presidential election season. The time in our democracy’s governing cycle where our political parties, as they hold their presidential nominating conventions, take center stage. Given the current state of American politics, we have been examining a relevant question. In today’s America, is it possible for a political party to command one’s allegiance over that of their nation? To do that, we covered the origins of U.S. political parties, including the fact that George Washington did not care for them and warned us against them.
Our Strange Relationships with Political Parties
Nevertheless, we have had political parties from the early days of this nation. Today Americans have a strange relationship with political parties rife with contradictions. On one hand, research has shown we are not that “sold” on them to the point of being willing to consider having more choices in political parties.[1] Even so, Stanford University research found that attachment to one’s political party is a stronger attachment than to one’s race, religion or ethnicity.[2] For that reason, despite our reservations about them, research shows that we continue to gravitate toward political parties and we do it largely because we are concerned of the “harm” the “other” party will do.[3]
What is Going on with Our Political Parties Today?
Yet, major forces have been and are underway today that have been impacting our political parties and thus, affecting American democracy. What are they and do we understand what these forces are doing to our political parties and to our democracy? Would understanding these forces help us deal with them in a manner that would improve American democracy? To answer that question, it helps to understand some of the major forces and changes affecting our political parties. While there are likely several other such forces, we will examine what may be the five largest changes our political parties have undergone that affect our democracy.
First Major Change- the Type of Polarization
Author Michael Tomasky makes a critical point about the way American political parties have worked over most of our history:
“We had polarization, but a decent chunk of it was intraparty polarization…starkly different from today…”[4] (emphasis mine)
To Tomasky’s point, we have had a seismic political shift in how our political parties govern. Tomasky argues that we have always had polarization in our political parties, but much of it was intraparty polarization. That is, it was polarization, but it was within the various factions of each party. This intraparty polarization forced the parties to have to work together across party lines due to the divisions within their own party.
Today, because of what Tomasky calls the internal “ideological homogeneity” (i.e., fewer factions within a party) of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, we have interparty polarization. This interparty polarization causes the conflict and deadlocks that has characterized our politics for at least the last several years. As Tomasky notes, “…This is a worse kind of polarization than the old kind.”[5] It is a major reason we Americans see that Congress has near total difficulty getting anything done legislatively.
The Second Major Change- Two Major Democratic Norms Disappear
But another change that has heightened interparty polarization is also at work. “Democracies work best- and survive longer- where constitutions are reinforced with unwritten, democratic norms,” so say political scientists Levitsky and Ziblatt. To Levitsky and Ziblatt, the two norms they have identified as playing the most vital role in providing America’s democracy with “checks and balances” are mutual toleration and forbearance.[6]
Mutual toleration is the understanding that competing parties accept one another as rivals. Forbearance rests on the idea that politicians should exercise restraint in deploying their institutional prerogatives, even when they have the right to do so. Levitsky and Ziblatt describe these two democratic norms as having “…undergirded American democracy for most of the twentieth century.”[7] But, not anymore.
Evidence of these two democratic norms being tested as never before is abundant. In 2019 Gina Masullo Chen and her colleagues at the University of Texas School of Journalism and Center for Media Engagement published a report that documented the breakdown of democratic norms by studying on-line user comments about news stories during the campaign for the 2016 presidential election. Using both qualitative and quantitative analysis, Chen et al concluded that these comments “…reflected the disruptive discourses of the campaign itself…and showed that while incivility was less frequent than impoliteness, overall, there was ample evidence of the violation of democratic norms of political talk in these comment streams…”[8]
Not only have these two democratic norms disappeared for many American voters, that disappearance has occurred within our two major political parties. Gone are the days where both parties, while they had deep political disagreements, still felt the other party “had a place at the table.” Gone is the belief that it is important to hear and understand what the other party’s position is and why they hold that position.
Today, too often the “other party” is seen as an enemy. The other political party is seen as something that has no “place at the table,” but in fact, should be minimized, ignored, and if necessary, destroyed and removed from office wherever possible. That is what happens when mutual tolerance and forbearance disappear from political parties in a democracy.
The Third Major Change- a Different Kind of Leadership
Leadership affects any organization, and our political parties are not exempt from the impact of their leaders, their leadership styles, and most importantly, their leadership values. Along with the evaporation of the democratic norms of mutual toleration and forbearance has been the change to how our political parties are led. Party leadership stopped embracing the norms and values of mutual toleration and forbearance. And as is often said, leaders “set the tone.”
One can argue exactly when this change in political parties’ leadership tone and style began. But by the mid-1990s, the style of leadership that encouraged “reaching across the aisle” by both the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader began to be absent. Replacing it has been leadership that has encouraged attacks on the rival party, attacks on individual rival party members, and refusal to work on much of anything with anyone from the opposing party in a non-partisan manner. When that cross-party non-partisanship happens, while it can be to the benefit of the American people, most of the time it has become surprising and rare.
Blame it on the leadership of Gingrich, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, McCarthy, Johnson, Jeffries, or whomever one chooses. Yet, the fact remains that political party leadership in the House and in the Senate has changed in style and approach. And when it comes to democracy, that change in leadership style has not been a change for the better, if it is measured by how much is accomplished that is of any positive legislative impact for most Americans. Fighting the other party is now seen by party leadership and their members as having far more value than reaching consensus on key issues and legislation.
The Fourth Major Change- Money (lots of it!)
Beginning in the 1980s, a major force of change began to affect our political parties- money. In 1976 the Supreme Court in its Buckley v. Valeo ruling, while upholding limits on campaign contributions by individual donors, “…said that campaigns and candidates themselves, as well as independent groups, could spend as much as they wanted to spend, because money, the Court held, was the same as speech.”[9] Costs of campaigning began to increase making it easier for wealthy persons to run for office as they could “self-finance” their campaigns.[10] Then the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (aka McCain-Feingold Act) was passed limiting individual contributions to political parties and campaigns, but expanded the type of financing donors could pursue outside the party via super PACS or 501(c)(4)s.[11]
However, a latter SCOTUS decision “finished the job” of opening the flood gates of cash into our political system. When in 2010 the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in in its controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) decision that corporations and special interest groups have First Amendment rights as citizens do, this “…reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited funds on our elections.”[12] Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group, challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC halted its promotion and airing of a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton “too close to the presidential primaries.”[13] This ruling has changed our political parties to their core.
While some predicted the Citizens United case would allow business corporations to unduly influence elections by their donations to campaigns, the real impact has been felt even more from the torrents of cash that have rolled into fund our elections from billionaires. Political influence has been consolidated and completely tilted their way. Nowhere is that reflected more clearly than our political parties and the campaign donations that fund members’ elections from these billionaires and their political action committees which are tied to their political “think tanks.”
The political influence of small donors has diminished since this ruling. It has been replaced by mega-donations by a small group of the super-wealthy who have created major change in our political system. The “plot thickens” because, as these uber-donors have taken over campaign funding, the source of their funds has become increasingly obscure. Jane Mayer, in her book Dark Money, has taken a detailed look at how the super-wealthy with a long-held agenda, have been able with virtual impunity to use their money to exercise vast influence over U.S. elections and the government. These super-wealthy, some of the names of which some readers will recognize, include families such as the Kochs, the DeVos, and the Olin families.
Mayer points out that “…large majorities of the American public- both Republican and Democrats- favored strict spending limits.”[14] Yet, any efforts to reform campaign finance and repair the damage caused by Citizens United are typically opposed by many the conservative right under the battle cry of “freedom of speech”.[15]
The Fifth Major Change- Emergence of the “Personalist Party”
Perhaps nowhere has change occurred more dramatically and more visibly than with the emergence of the “personalist political party.” In this type of political party, loyalty to the party is replaced and usurped by loyalty to the party’s leader. With that, often the experienced members of the party’s upper echelon are replaced with less experienced people that display the intense loyalty the party leader demands. In a personalist party, members (especially its “elite”) are expected, and where necessary demanded, to endorse the leader’s actions. This endorsement must be made by the entire party regardless of what those actions or positions may be, their legality, or their impact on democracy. Today’s Republican Party under the leadership of Donald Trump is a personalist party.[16] Sometimes one hears the word “populist” to describe it.
A Toxic Stew that May Answer the Question
So, there you have it. Five forces (or changes) that have created a toxic environment for our political parties to operate in- advent of the personalist party, a deluge of cash mostly from our billionaire class, interparty polarization, the disappearance of the norms of mutual toleration and forbearance, and a party leadership style that no longer values consensus building as a tool for making legislation.
Do we know definitively if these forces have changed our political parties to the point that they command Americans’ loyalty over their loyalty to the nation? While we may never know that answer for certain, the evidence is mounting today that party loyalty is, for some Americans, becoming extraordinarily strong.
Evidence of major concern that this is happening is a study which found that “…only 3.5% of U.S. voters would cast ballots against their preferred candidates as punishment for undemocratic behavior, such as supporting gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, or press restrictions.”[17] If we support a candidate or a party to the exclusion of their honoring democratic norms, this does not bode well for a democratic nation like ours. Let us beware.
We will continue exploring topics like this that are not given near enough time and emphasis in our civic education efforts, if they are even taught at all. Democracy is so important. But it’s hard to keep, and it’s easy to lose. It’s up to us, and only us, to protect it. Support democracy, become a Democratist! Spread the word! Please share this Democraticus with others. For more information, go to www.tomthedemocratist.com
[1] How Well the Major Parties Represent Americans, the Public’s Feelings About More Political Parties,
https://www.pewresearch
.org/politics/2023/09/19.
[2] “Americans’ Partisan Identities are Stronger than Race and Ethnicity, Stanford Scholar Finds”, Stanford News, August 21, 2017, https://news.standford.edu/2017/08/31
[3] [3] How Well the Major Parties Represent Americans, the Public’s Feelings About More Political Parties, Ibid
[4] If We Can Keep It, How the Republic Collapsed and How We Can Keep It, by Michael Tomasky, Copyright 2019, pg. 26, Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110
[5] If We Can Keep It, by Michael Tomasky, Copyright 2019, pg. xxi, Ibid.
[6] How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Copyright 2018, pg. 8, Broadway Books, an Imprint of Crown Publishing Group, a Division of Penguin Random House LLC, New York.
[7] How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Copyright 2018, pp 8-9, Ibid.
[8] “Breakdown of Democratic Norms? Understanding the 2016 US Presidential Election Through Online Comments, by Gina Masullo Chen, Martin J. Riedl, Jeremy L. Shermak, Jordon Brown, and Ori Tenenbolm, Social Media + Society, April-June 2019 1-13, https://jornal.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305119843637
[9] If We Can Keep It, by Michael Tomasky, Copyright 2019, pg. 156, Ibid.
[10] If We Can Keep It, by Michael Tomasky, Copyright 2019, pg. 157, Ibid.
[11] Republicans and Democrats face a crisis of confidence | Stanford Report
[12] Citizens United Explained, by Tim Lau, December 12, 2019, Brennan Center for Justice, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work-research-reports/citizens-unitied-explained
[13] Citizens United Explained, by Tim Lau, December 12, 2019, Brennan Center for Justice, Ibid
[14] Dark Money, The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, by Jane Mayer, pg. 292, Ibid
[15] Dark Money, The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, by Jane Mayer, pg. 288, Ibid
[16] Why Trump’s control of the Republican Party is bad for democracy (theconversation.com)
[17] https://news.yale.edu/2020/0811/study-finds-americas-prize-party-loyalty-over-democratic-principles