Political Parties

Over the course of the history of the nation, debate has raged over the proper role of political parties and their beneficial and detrimental effects on the ultimate efficiency of government. The controversy surrounding factions, which are both special interests groups and political parties, has shaped government since the founding of the United States of America. In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote about the dangers of factions, and their ability to suppress popular government by silencing citizens through majority power. He states that “the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties; and that measures are too often undecided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minority party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” (Woll, Document #30, pg 174). He greatly distrusts the motives of factions, fearing that individual rights are too easily sacrificed and the public good too easily overlooked for the selfishness of the majority in power. He is torn; however, in his argument on eliminating the “injustices and unsteadiness” (Woll, Document #30, pg 175) created by factions. Popular government, he claims, is both the cause and justification of factions. The guarantee and preservation of liberty for all people of America allows for the rise of factions and to remove the causes of factions is to demolish liberty for “liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires” (Woll, Document #30, pg 175). He concludes that because it is the responsibility of those in government to protect the people from the dangers of factions while simultaneously preserving government, the solution is to control the effects of factions rather than eliminate the causes. This can be achieved he through constitutional means, primarily the creation of a large republic that could act to disperse political parties and reduce their impact on a national level. Madison’s concerns over factions have made up the foundation of the modern debate over political parties and America’s two-party system, which has existed since the 1800’s. Although he could not anticipate the evolution of political parties, Madison’s anxiety over the balance between political parties and individual freedoms has resonated for the last two centuries.

The Founding Fathers shared in Madison’s apprehension and fear of political parties, which they saw as means for corruption and “national divisiveness” (Government in America, pg 239), so they devised an elaborate balance of powers through the Constitution that E.E. Schattschneider argues in Document #31 is designed to make parties ineffective. He writes, “in a republic, parties are tolerated but invited to strangle themselves in the machinery of government” (Woll, Document #31, pg 179). His opinion is that the Constitution gave rise to political parties, but is structured to create a constant conflict and competition between them, guaranteeing that political parties never go from being part of the government, to controlling the government. He supports Madison’s early opinion that indirect democracy, where representatives elected by the citizens act as a filter to refine the public voice to better reflect the national good, effectively limits the dangers of political parties. He directly references Madison by confidently agreeing that he was right in his “disapproval of party government as distinguished from party tolerance” (Woll, Document #31, pg 179), and he continues the article examining how political parties are limited through their fragmentation. The decentralization of political parties and “the fact that every individual is torn by the diversity of his own interests” (Woll, Document #31, pg 181), as well as binded to others through common interests, suppresses the power of political parties. The competition and complications of the makeup of political parties makes it difficult to achieve policy out of public interests that rarely cohere.

Opposing dispersed and weak political parties, The American Political Science Association published a report in 1950 that stressed the importance of stronger political parties and majority rule. They argue that the way to define the national interest is to provide citizens with a choice between programs that determine the actions of the government. They called for a “more responsible two-party system” that focuses more on public policy and leaves behind the current slowness and irresponsiveness of political parties to the interest of the majority. The primary requirement of the APSA is that the political party in power is able to bring forth programs and formulate policies that they and the candidates they nominate commit themselves to and unite to carry out, as well as take responsibility for in both success and failure. An important element to the development of a strong and effective party system is the opposition party that holds the party in power accountable and presents alternative policies and solutions that they promise to the public in the event that they come to power. They believe that if parties worked towards meeting these conditions, the effectiveness of turning party promises into governmental policy will dramatically increase as opposed to political parties that are so decentralized that they are unable to take a national stand on an issue and then enforce it. However; especially in more recent times, many Americans believe that decentralized parties are appropriate for the limited government that the Founders originally sought to create, in which the scope of government cannot be increased through the persistent actions of one party’s members.

Both Documents #33 and #34 discuss the possibility of a “responsible party system”. Arthur Paulson explains that in order to have a party government the separation of powers that exists between the legislative and executive branches must be eliminated, which is very unlikely, and asserts that American parties have characteristically been diverse in their interests and therefore unable to create the unity necessary to fit the model of a “responsible party system”. He states that in recent decades the two major parties, or the Democrats and the Republicans, have experienced “ideological polarization” (Woll, Document #33, pg 189), meaning that a majority of Democrats are labeled as liberals and a majority of Republicans are labeled as conservatives, and both represent more distinct interests. Paulson concludes the article by saying that this trend has declined in very recent years and that there is the possibility of a “responsible party system”, but I disagree with this. I support David Mayhew’s conclusion that governing by party majorities is unlikely to occur and that political parties serve better as “policy factions” (Woll, Document #34, pg 198). Arguably, the role of political parties has decreased because of both the media and the nature of the Democratic and Republic parties. Media has transformed the role of political parties because citizens are no longer dependent on the party to find out what the candidates are like and what they stand for. This is evident in the increasing percentage of citizens that register as independent or vote against their party. Ultimately, parties “will survive and even moderately prosper in a society evidently unreceptive to strong parties and yet unready, and probably unable, to abandon parties altogether” (Government in America, pg 263).


I truly believe that political parties are inherent to democracy and necessary in maintaining and encouraging civic participation. Although it is true that political parties have the power to divide, they also possess the essential power to unite citizens who share interests and ideologies. Political parties serve as a tool for citizens who feel insignificant and drowned out by the voices of millions to unite in the pursuit of a common goal and be heard and effect change. Their power is not only checked and balanced by the branches of government, but by the people, who they are largely dependent on, and they are constantly attempting to cater to the majority opinion and gain support, while simultaneously creating distinct identities to hold on to voters. Admittedly, there are flaws to political parties, but ultimately their competition and the arguments they create generate citizen involvement and are essential to democracy because they act as a bridge between the American people and the government and its policies. I agree with E.E. Schattschneider’s statement that “political parties created democracy…and democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties” (Government in America, pg 239). Democracy and political parties are counter-dependent on one another and to regulate them or establish a “responsible party system”, which goes against the nature of people to have diverse and often conflicting interests, is a deprivation of individual rights and civic participation, both essential to the foundation of democracy and America.