Decentralized, Not Disorganized

As discussed in this week's readings and lecture, the decentralization of America's political parties has had, at times, a crippling effect on the abilities of these organizations to act in concert on various issues. At the same time, however, this decentralization appears to be an essential evolutionary course for parties attempting to reconcile the many opinions and preferences of an ever-growing populace.

One can no longer argue that the major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) represent single segments of the population as they may have in the past. For example, Republicans, though generally regarded as the party of the rural and well-off, have, in recent years, gained a large contingent of the Latino vote. Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, the Latino vote was often taken for granted by Democrats, as the party has historically represented the interests of minority and urban voters. Likewise, the Democratic party has, in the past decade, extended its base to encompass a larger number of rural (more specifically, agriculturally-minded) voters in need of Federal assistance for struggling farms. These two minor examples help to illustrate the diverse needs and preferences parties are forced to address in their attempts to maintain a loyal voting base. As this is the case, decentralizing parties along local, state, and national lines is absolutely necessary if the organizations wish to satisfy voters at all levels, and thus, accomplish their ultimate goal of winning elections.

This decentralization, however, does have negative effects on the abilities of parties to act cooperatively in achieving preferred public policy. It is impossible to argue that the issues most pertinent to Republican voters in the backwoods of Louisiana are entirely compatible with Republicans on Capitol Hill. These discrepancies then pose a substantial obstacle to the recruitment of universally acceptable candidates, as well as to the overall image of the party and its platform.

For evidence of this, one must look no further than to the 2008 Presidential election. Many Republicans were outraged when Sen. John McCain received the party's nomination due to the legislators moderate voting record. Many strategists (e.g. Carl Rove, Bill Kristol, etc.) felt that McCain did not appeal enough to the party's "Christian-Conservative base," a segment of the party that was instrumental in securing victory for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Others, however, argued that McCain's moderate stances legitimized him as a candidate for the large sector of the voting public who would characterize their own political opinions as moderate. However, McCain lost the election, and some have attributed his trouncing to losing the support of Christian-Conservatives, as well as other, more socially-conservative segments of the party.

Thus, decentralization may have proved itself the death-knell for Republicans in 2008. However, it is still difficult to imagine a successful party who caters to only one or two key groups within the organization. Such preferential treatment would surely alienate the neglected portion of the party, causing more harm than good.

As our major parties stand now, the issue of leadership is somewhat clouded. The Democrats have sensibly united behind a single, dominant leader, President Barack Obama. This is nothing new, as the administration's party invariably looks to the President as the party head. The Democratic National Committee's Chairman, Tim Kaine, is also viewed as a party leader, though his duties consist of more day-to-day party activities than actual public policy. Leadership in the Republican party, however, is not so well-defined. Following the party's loss in the 2008 Presidential election, the Republican National Committee appointed a new Chairman, Michael Steele. The party's first African-American Chair, Steele is now viewed by many as the nation's top Republican. By title, this is absolutely true. In practice, however, Steele does not yield nearly as much direct influence on voters as political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. As this is the case, many Republicans at the state and national levels are looking to these talking heads as a means of gauging the current political attitudes of the electorate. This has been increasingly apparent in recent weeks, exemplified especially by the exchange between Limbaugh and Congressman Phil Gingrey on Limbaugh's daily radio show last week http://punditfight.blogspot.com/2009/01/chris-matthews-discusses-rush-limbaughs.html . Whatever the case, Republicans will have to find stronger, more viable leadership in the coming months if they hold any hope of regaining control of the Legislative and Executive branches.