A Case for Political Parties
A Case for Political Parties
“I vote for the best person for the job”
“I vote the person not the party”
“I think politicians should earn my vote”
“We need to get money out of politics”
“Our elected officials are bought by the big corporations”
I make the case that we actually need STRONGER political parties, rather than weaker or none.
Going back to the old days, people who affiliated with parties and worked on their behalf and were engaged were the ones who went to conventions and picked who was running for which offices to represent the party and their interests. Yes there was corruption then as well. So-called party bosses lined their pockets and the pockets of members by wrangling votes for their candidates to stay in office. The 1800s certainly seemed like a spoils system run amok.
However, as investigative journalism got stronger in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the ability to use this corruption as a standard daily practice waned quite a bit as it was more readily exposed.
Let’s fast forward to the 1960s. The two parties evolved and morphed to some extent, driven greatly by the issue of civil rights, to what we now have.
From 1968 onward the Democrats have largely been the liberal party- espousing expanded rights, support for minorities and labor and the social safety net. Republicans largely became the party of big business, low taxes on the wealthy, voter suppression and cutting the social safety net if not eliminating it.
For the most part, if you see a “D” or an “R” behind a name on a ballot, you know what you are getting. Yes, there are always exceptions. But the D and R become information readily available. If elections are all about “the person” which I myself have on occasion succumbed to, then real errors can be made. I voted for Republican Snyder for Governor in Michigan as the personality of Democrat Verg Bernaro just struck me as not competent. Snyder presented himself as a moderate and fact-based businessman. However, once in office with a majority Republican legislature this moderate signed nearly every rightwing piece of legislation sent to his desk. Frankly I will never vote for another Republican again, nor rely on “personality” as the driver of my vote.
Elections through the 1970s were very much party affiliation driven. There’s always a personality aspect now with television beginning with the Kennedy/Nixon debates. But Reagan took on a personality element to a slightly higher level. Media exposure is necessary to get the message out and that costs money. But when the costly exposure is all about personality and ceases to be about issues, the voters are the losers. But they bought into it- especially in 2016.
During the last election “personality” was a key factor. “Hillary just seems cold” “Hillary seems aloof” Etc. First of all, even if true, how was this relevant to the issues and the policies she would espouse as well as the legislation she would have vetoed from a Republican dominated legislature?
During the last election a lot of vitriol was thrown at the Democratic Party in particular, especially the DNC, as some sort of monolithic behind-the-scenes mover & shaker, kingmaker group. The fact is the DNC as well as the DCCC (the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee- dedicated to getting Democratic congresspeople elected with whom I personally had a negative interaction) are simply not that strong or monolithic nor kingmakers. They are largely figureheads raising money at the federal level and have to spend it, if on candidates, within the guidelines of the Federal Election Commission.
But what about the money? It is my opinion that the increase in money raised and spent has gone hand-in-hand with the decline of party affiliation and party influence and with the rise of “personality” politics. This last election was largely a personality contest rather than one of issues. Had it been run on issues and policy positions and had the voters focused on those aspects I believe the election outcome would have been different.
