Arsalan's Blog: Political Parties

What do Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens all have in common? Not much, but each of these groups do seek to attain and maintain their power within the United States government. Each of these groups represents various different ideologies and represents numerous constituencies. By these standards, what these groups have in common is that they are all political parties. Political parties are an inherent part of the system of democracy, as a democracy is essentially "rule by the people", so the parties are the necessary link between the people and governmental process; with the links (citizens -> parties -> political influence/control), the chain is forged within the American government.The term "faction" has become another way to phrase "political parties". Usage of the word "faction" goes back to the Federalist 10, written by James Madison. In F10, Madison defines the faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse, passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent or aggregate interest of the community." (Woll, Madison, 174-5). This definition applies to interest groups, but is also synonymous with political parties; political parties are comprised of citizens (who have merely ran for political office to represent their constituencies, obviously also citizens), who support a certain agenda that will indeed go against the rights or interests of another group. A prime example of this scenario is evident in differing economic policies; Republicans feel that it is important for the economy to take its own course and that government should not interfere, which should lead to a prospering economy. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that government regulation and involvement is important, as it prevents matters from getting out of hand and the government can keep an eye on it. John McCain represents the former ideal, so his supporters would naturally agree and vote for him (this is only a small example, many variables come into play in the real world, but this is just my blog, and I call the shots here). These economic ideals are adverse to those of Democrats, who will support the nominee Barack Obama, as he supports the latter of the economic ideals.Madison goes on to discuss within F10, that factions are by their very nature, divisive and that a "factious spirit has tainted our public administrations." (Woll, Madison, 174). He described two methods which could remove the causes of faction, which include "destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence" and "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests" (Woll, Madison, 175). Madison describes the first method as unacceptable, saying that "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.". The second option is declared as impractical, as "The diversity in the man faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of those faculties is the first object of government." (Both quotes: Woll, Madison, 175). Indeed, while separate ideologies and agenda create division, that is only a natural phenomenon in a democracy, as all different ideas must be acknowledged; division may be caused, but that is only inherent to the system of democracy, and in the end, the voice of the people - the diversity of goals and ideals - are heard, and that is what a system of government run by the people should be.E.E. Schattsscheiner describes the complexity of the interests involved with a political party and how interests are not always uniform. Schattschneider goes on to discuss in Document 31 that interests lead to conflicts which are generally not cumulative. It is a mere generalization to say that there is a dividing line between two groups of people that stand across from each other because they disagree on a certain issues. Even within issues there will be disagreements. People who agree on one matter will disagree in another, and so on. According to Shattschneider, "the alignment of people according to interests requires an enormous shuffling back and forth from one side to the other, tending to dissipate the tensions created." (Woll, Schattschneider, 181). Simply, there is not just Red or Blue, Right or Left, or Democrat or Republican. Some politicians may even disagree with the stance taken by their own parties (Maverick McCain and Joe Lieberman are notable examples). Schattschneider ends the document by saying that "there are many interests including a great body of common interests, (2) that government pursues a multiplicity of policies and creates and destroys interests in the process, (3) that each individual is capable of having many interests, (4) that interests cannot be mobilized perfectly, and (5) that conflicts among interests are not cumulative, it seems reasonable to suppose that the government is not the captive of blind forces from which there is no escape." (Woll, Schattschneider, 181).The last critical points in relation to political parties I would like to bring up is from Document 32, which discussed the role and importance of the effectiveness of parties. The document brings up the point I discussed earlier when it says that the "popular government in a nation of more than 150 million people require s political parties which provide the electorate with a proper range of choice between alternatives of action." (Woll, Document 32, 183). Political parties, contrary to what Madison said about factions and their divisive nature, are inherent to a system of democracy, and the document treats them as "indispensable instruments of government". I wholeheartedly agree with the authors of the document when they describe that the party system that is needed in the country must be a system that is "democratic, responsible, and effective-a system that is accountable to the public, respects and expresses differences of opinion, and is able to cope with the great problems of modern government." (Woll, Document 32, 184). A major concern amongst citizens in the nation is that politicians are corrupt and only wish to earn their fare share of cash; this is an understandable concern, and politicians must remember their constituencies, for without them, officeholders would not be in the position they are in. With concerns to differences of opinions, politicians must stand by their ideals; certain politicians tend to not have a backbone and do not support their agendas with vehemence. Any officeholder that does not have the courage and resolution to stand by their beliefs should not be in that office.The document also brings up another important aspect of a party: the effectiveness of the party and party system. The requirements for an effective party system include "that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves, and second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs.". The document also discusses the necessity of the "accountability of a two party system in which the opposition party acts as the critic of the party in power, developing, define and presenting the policy alternatives which are necessary for a true choice in reaching public decisions." (Woll, Doc. 32, 184). Indeed, it is not merely up to the party in control, but the effective party system requires effort from both parties, regardless of which is the majority or minority party.Arthur Paulson also brings up the importance of the importance of effort from both parties in Document 33 when he says that "Responsible parties present clear ideological or programmatic alternatives, can govern when in the majority, and can offer organized loyal opposition when in the minority." (Woll, Paulson, 189). Democracy is essentially a never-ending conflict between ideologies, and the war between Republicans and Democrats is the epitome of that conflict. When the Republican Bush Administration makes an error (and mind you, it's made many), it is up to the currently Democratic Congress to present a plan of action to remedy that mistake. Different ideas are indeed divisive, like Madison said, but those differing ideas can also lead to a better outcome, even if requires endless debate.James Madison was right when he said that factions cause division and conflict. But what he should have realized that in a democracy is division and conflict, not of violence thankfully, but of the never-ending war of words and ideas. Political parties are beyond a shadow of a doubt a necessary and intrinsic aspect of democracy. The interests of the people must be voiced, and the policies and platforms of the parties reflect these dogmas. What makes a democracy so much different than a monarchy or dictatorship is that instead of a single voice, thousands are heard; it is not just a solo, but also an entire chorus (though perhaps cacophony might be more accurate). Interests divide, but they also unite, and in a United States of America, you would only expect there to be different unions around a certain idea. Political parties also ensure the involvement of the people in government, which is above all the paramount goal of a democracy. Even now, the war between Senators Obama and McCain is ravaging the United States, because while both these men have opposing views, what they both have in common is that it is the philosophies they represent, that is paramount to this country. With men like these, who keep the interests of the people at heart, the chain that is forged between the people, political parties, and government is kept strong and untarnished.