The Republicans may be in for a tough road ahead and their Grand Old Party might possibly collapse. The political party that would rise out of its ashes would most certainly learn from the GOP’s mistakes.
It all starts with formation. Parties represent a type of collective action. John H. Aldrich explains that problems can arise with collective action. “The problem of collective action… arises when there are shared interests-ends that all value within some collectivity- but when it is not in people’s individual interests to contribute to that end, “(100). A political party formed by shared interests can only achieve the desired ends when it is in individual’s interests to contribute. It is only after these problems are overcome that a political party can form and be functional in American Politics.
Besides the collective action problem I just discussed, the formation of this party might not be as difficult as I first thought. As we saw with the Whigs, members left when the party had nothing to offer them. In our scenario, members of the Republican Party find that it no longer serves their best interests. They will therefore leave looking for a new party that will now suit them better.
The ideological position of the new party is of great importance. Aldrich contends that the increased numbers of political party activists are pulling candidates away from moderate policy positions in the center towards more ideologically distinct positions at the left or right. As we saw with the Republican Party, the activists would pull the candidates towards the right, but in an attempt to learn from the past, this new party would establish itself closer to (if not) dead center.
Parties are always going to have activists or purists as Aldrich likes to call them. Placing this new party near the center of the spectrum would counteract the activists’ efforts. This way, the activists in the party would try to pull candidates closer towards the center (the ideological base of the party). Also being in the middle of the spectrum would most likely attract the greatest amount of voters. (Candidates often times try to moderate their positions before a general election in order to gain the greatest number of votes.) My party would simply eliminate the need to do so.
The party’s role in Congress or possibly even the White House would only be a matter of time. The moderated ideological stance is important here. This party will appeal to the biggest number of people. In spatial politics, each voter will vote for the policy (or candidate) closest to his or her own preferred ideological stance. Being in the center, this party would attract those from the right and left. Those on either side only stand a good chance to attract those in the center. My party, being in the center, has an increased chance of attracting members from either side.
John H. Aldrich Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Policital Parties in America 1995
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think your centrist party has possibility, and the future party I wrote about is, I think, fairly centrist. I wonder, though, if parties that are intended to be centrist really have enough dynamism to get the activists involved. Aldrich and others have written about how the committed activists for various issues can have a pretty big role in the primary process. Would a party that aimed to be "middle of the road" really excite the voting public enough? That is why, I am afraid, it would take some major catastrophe to really make a replacement for the Democrats or the GOP likely.
ReplyDeleteThinking about it, if there was something like true and secure internet voting, that might make also make a replacement party viable, as I think it would increase voter turnout to unheard of level. It also could possibly greatly decrease the money costs associated with getting into an election.
I agree with the both of you. I too wrote about a new centrist or "middle of the road" political party. A catastrophe would of course have to happen for the Republican party to fail because we have known nothing other than Republicans and Democrats as our two major parties. If there was to be a rise of a more middle of the road party, do you think that the democrats would fizzle out as well?
ReplyDeleteWho would be the leader of your centrist party? Would a third party on the right threaten your party?
ReplyDeleteYour party seems like it could do well. A centrist party would obviously cater to the majority of voters. What would a centrist party look like though? To one idea, like universal healthcare, where would they stand? To say that they would agree, then they would be a more liberal party, or if they disagreed, they would be a more conservative party. Could a party tend to the needs of liberals and conservatives at the same time? Although terms like "liberal" and "conservative" only exists because of the two parties we have now. The only problem with a purely centrist party is that if the very conservative and religious right were to form yet another party, it would cause the democrats and this new centrist party to compete with each other for the same kind of voters. It could totally work though. I think about in Europe, many parties exist in their systems, and how they work together is through coalitions. Plus, if this centrist party were to hold on to a unique platform, that would also help its chances of success.
ReplyDelete