Party Decline v. Party Renewal

David Broder popularized the theory in the 1970s after publishing his book, The Party’s Over. Broader argues that parties are in decline as they are failing to carry out several of its core functions.

PARTY DECLINE	PARTY RENEWAL
In the last decade there have certainly been instances where it has appeared that both parties are merely just broad coalitions of a range of factions and there similarities outweigh their differences. For instance, George Bush campaigned presenting himself as a ‘compassionate conservative’ and he expanded the scope of federal government through programmes such as No Child Left Behind which saw the federal government take a lot of control over education from states, which was seen as the biggest expansion of education since the 60s. Similarly under the Bush administration federal spending increased excessively and a lot of intervention was put into expanding Medicare (e.g. signing up $534 billion prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D). Bush’s new federalism truly aligned himself with the left. Moreover, there’s also a lot of compromise between factions from both parties, for instance, Blue Dog Democrats who are more fiscally conservative and centrist sided with the Republicans in opposing Obamacare and later, the public option which was eventually scrapped. A lot of attempts at bipartisanship in Congress are clear signs of party decline.	POLARISATION. Growth of polarisation, the parties have moved further from the centre ground in recent years with the 113th Congress going down in history as being the most polarised, with the most obvious indication being the 2013 government shutdown. The Tea Party has acted as a polarising force in US politics and this is a clear sign that theory of party decline is outdated. The Tea Party are forcing GOP members of Congress to toe a specific policy line, they are seeking to refuse any compromises with the Democrats and no where as polarisation been more evident than on the issue of healthcare reform, which led to a government shutdown. While the Democrats are in favour of Obamacare, which essentially expands the scope of federal government and requires higher taxation, the GOP on the other hand firmly oppose Obamacare – believing it enforces the rhetoric of ‘government creep’ and since fiscal sentiments are strong in the party, they oppose any tax hikes. During his State of the Union address Obama standing at the bully pulpit epitomised party renewal when he made clear that any GOP attempts at repealing Obamacare or blocking measures on immigration reform will get an immediate veto. This lack of bipartisanship and polarisation from both sides of the political spectrum emphasises the point that parties are being renewed
Party leaders have lost control in Congress, further reinforcing this image of US political parties being in decline. Party control over its members in both houses of Congress are relatively weak at forcing its members to toe a particularly policy line. For instance, recently in the Senate there has been rebellions from some Senators such as Rand Paul over the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, in which eventually the Senate blocked the bill to renew it which went directly against the wishes of the GOP establishment and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Moreover, John Boehner has also been seen as being weak in recent years. Earlier this year Boehner attempted to get the Republicans to pass his bill for a 3 week extension to fund the Department of Homeland Security – however, he was only supported by a dozen Republicans and the bill was dropped leading to only a 1 week extension passing. Boehner has been criticised as being the ‘prisoner of the extreme wing of his party’, therefore highlighting how party leaders have not only lost control over the nomination process but their party also. This also demonstrates there has been a decrease in party votes, with members of Congress voting more in accordance to either their own ideological beliefs or their constituents (or a range of others) – not the policy laid out by the party establishment or leaderships. The emergence of the Tea Party has also contributed to party decline because their ability to win their preferred candidates over the party’s establishment emphasises how party loyalties are no longer strong, e.g. Marco Rubio in 2010 won over Charlie Crist and in 2012 Richard Mourdock	Party leadership’s control in Congress remains very strong showing that the parties are more internally united and members of Congress are voting in accordance to the policy line set out by the leadership in Congress and the party’s establishment. The year of the government shutdown was also the year that Republicans and Democrats voted among themselves like never before. House Republicans in 2013 voted with their caucus an average of 92% of the time, breaking the record of the previous 91% in 2011 – a look at the Senate offers a similar picture but in reverse; Senate Democrats broke their previous record of party unity when they voted on average 94% with their caucus. This highlights the very fact that party leadership in Congress has continued to exert immense amount of influence as well as whips in getting members of Congress to toe a particular policy line, thus highlighting the premise that party decline theories are out of date. Also, party leadership control remains very strong as seen by John Boehner’s 2012 purge of three Republicans from top committee posts (House Budget and Banking Committee) for not following the party’s ambitions on the fiscal cliff, which some Congressmen saw as a warning from the leadership that their members votes are in fact being watched.
One of the arguments for party decline outlined by Broder is that there’s been a loss of clout from parties in having a say over the nomination process. Prior to reform in the 1960s and 70s party bosses from the party establishment in smoke filled rooms nominated presidential candidates whereby through peer review they knew of the qualities associated with making a good president. Today however, parties have lost this core function and now the decision to select a presidential candidate has been put into the hands of ordinary voters through primaries. While this arguably more democratic as it allows for wider choice for voters and allows ‘outsiders’ like Obama and Bill Clinton to become presidential candidates, the demise of this core function by the parties is a manifestation of party decline	Although parties don’t have a considerable role in the nomination process, some control and power has been returned to the parties. For instance, in 1986 the Democrats introduced superdelegates that are a part of candidate nomination process, meaning elected office-holders like members of Congress and governors can have a say in nominating a candidate. The superdelegates vote totals up to 20%. These superdelegates played a decisive role in the nomination of Barrack Obama in 2008 as the Democrat Presidential candidate which clearly highlights that parties still retain some clout over the nomination process. Today voters are more entrusted to vote for presidential candidates, allowing for democracy to flourish more, this is party renewal by giving the job of selecting a presidential candidate to the people as it illustrates how party’s have in fact evolved
Studying interest groups, E. E. Schattschneider, asserted that it was interest groups that largely set the political agenda and this argument still seems true to this day. Perhaps the most prominent example today comes from the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which began in 2011 in New York City but expanded across to 70 major cities in the US. The Occupy Movement’s slogan, “we are the 99%”, sought to raise the issue of the social and economic inequality in the US (and around the world with similar Occupy Movements), seeking to make economic and political relations less vertically hierarchal and more distributed, specifically targeting the richest 1%. Barrack Obama responded to this, speaking for the Democratic Party, “we are on their side”	The increasing nature of nationalised congressional elections or ‘wave elections’ emphasises the point that parties are not in decline as they are effectively setting the political agenda through nationalised campaigns, some earlier examples include the 1994 Contract With America by the Republicans which carefully detailed the actions the Republicans promised will take if they win control over the House (e.g. an amendment to the constitution which would require a balanced budget. Another early example would be Six for 06 campaign by the Democrats in 2006, which effectively acted as a national referendum on President Bush. The 2010 midterms were clearly another referendum on the performance of President Obama known as the pledge to America, most notably though it was a referendum on Obamacare. The 2014 midterms have gone down as being the most nationalised ever in 56 years
Pressure groups have also replaced party’s as being the communicator between the politician and the voter and vice versa. Politicians who wished to communicate with voters would do so through a party rally. Today, politicians communicate their message largely through television, while voters ‘speak back’ to the politicians through opinion polls. The role of the party is cut out. Moreover, today campaigns have become more candidate-centered rather than party centered, candidates develop their own campaign teams during the invisible primary season, their own strategies, media consulters, pollsters, managers and have their own way of gathering up support which may sometimes go against the wishes of the party – e.g. Rand Paul’s been trying to gain himself a reputation through all his cheeky filibusters. People nowadays vote for a candidate they find most appealing without actually considering the party they belong to, in fact, candidates today campaign as independent candidates without campaigning with their party’s name and is further fuelled by the fact that split-ticket voting is high showing that party loyalties are no longer what they used to be. +CAMPAIGN FINANCE	This is perhaps the most over exaggerated aspect of party decline as virtually every member of Congress, aside from two indepdenents, are either Republicans or Democrats showing how these two parties have remained at the top table and continue to dominate US politics as is every state governor aside from one independent in Alaska (Bill Walker). Also, split-ticketing voting is no longer as significant given the fact that in 2012 it was at 5.7%, the lowest its ever been since 1920 showing how traditional parties loyalties have been entrenched in recent years which could come as a result of the growth in polarisation which has entrenched party loyalties. Parties have also become more energetic in campaign planning, polling and the production of campaign advertisements.