Unit 3: Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Mass Media

Unit 3: Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Mass Media

To Do List

• 
  Drill 1
  
• 
  Drill 2
  
• 
  Drill 3
  
• 
  Read
  

DRILLS!

Remember that hypothetical about the redhead-hating senator from last unit? Well, it may have been a good teaching tool, but we're afraid we have to admit that it was a bit unrealistic.

The anti-redhead legislation wasn't the unrealistic part, though (because that could totally still happen). The unrealistic part was imagining a politician coming up with the idea entirely on his own. In reality, politicians don't operate in a vacuum like that. Their choices and priorities don't come out of thin air, or even from communing directly with public opinion; instead, those choices are shaped by pressures from their political parties, the interest groups that try to influence them, and the mass media's effect on the public.

So to make our story more complete, we'd have to add an anti-redhead plank in the party platform, the effects of interest groups (like the National Association for the Prevention of Redheads), and the influence of the media (like some hard-hitting anti-redhead reporting from Anderson Cooper).

In this unit, we're going to cover those pressures—how parties, interest groups, and the media shape our politics.

The Two-Party System

Have You Read This?If yes, click here.

Choice is good—in fact, choice is American. We don't want only 12 or 20 or 50 television channels, we want the bonanza package offering 259 different viewing options. When we want a burger fast, we thank God we live in America where three, four, and five burger joints sit side by side—each offering a dizzying array of value menus, supersizes, juniors, doubles, and jumbos. We also want to be able to choose a pizza with a crust made out of cheeseburgers, because that's why we won the Cold War.

So why do we only get to choose between two candidates when selecting a president? Why does our political menu offer only two political parties?

And why do we even have political parties—why can't we just have candidates? Aren't we a nation of individualists? Didn't the twentieth-century political theorist Groucho Marx hit the nail on the head when he said "I would not want to be a member of any party that would have me as a member"?

Well, technically we don't have only two parties. In the 2008 election, there were more than ten different parties running presidential candidates. And candidates may run as independents. But the truth of the matter is that only the major parties (Republicans and Democrats) and their candidates have a real chance of winning.

Why is that? How did parties become so central to our political system? What roles do they fill? And why do we rely on just two?

Ready for this one? It's hilarious. The founding fathers actually believed that statesmen and citizens could and should subordinate their private interests to the greater good—so we wouldn't even need political parties!

Good one, guys!

While they generally had a realistic view of human nature, the founders were altogether too idealistic when it came to their thinking about political parties. They thought of political parties as "factions," narrow groups that would only be out for themselves; what they envisioned instead was a political process based on collaboration rather than competition (at least between politicians of different viewpoints, if not between branches of government).

The founders were wrong about this one: American political parties emerged within a decade, and they have been competing fiercely ever since. In fact, some of the statesmen who most feared the emergence of parties (like Washington and Jefferson) contributed most to the divisions that brought them about.

Party Functions

So what's the big deal here? What do parties actually do, besides cluttering your town with yardsigns every other year and pestering your parents for money over the phone?

Well, parties actually do a few other things—things that make them (despite the founders' wishes) a critical part of our country's political and governing processes.

• 
  Selecting candidates. How would you know who to vote for without that little D or R next to his or her name? You'd actually need to be, like, an informed citizen or something. Fortunately, by selecting and nominating candidates, political parties help compensate for the millions of us who aren't too informed. They narrow the field, simplify the voters' role, and bring order to what could be an even more chaotic electoral process.
   
  
• 
  Mobilizing voters. Without political parties, how would you know who's DESTROYING AMERICA or SELLING MIDDLE AMERICA TO THE CHINESE or UNDERMINING YOUR FAMILY'S VALUES? Political parties inform and energize their members. They send out brochures, run media campaigns, knock on doors, and call voters on the phone. In addition, parties have fundraising apparatuses in place that simplify their candidates' ability to finance their campaigns.
   
  
• 
  Facilitating governance. Parties unite like-minded policymakers, strengthening their efforts to pass and implement legislation. In addition, party alliances close the gap between the legislative and executive branches helping them work together.
   
  
• 
  Monitoring the opposing party in power. The adversarial relationship between the major parties ensures that the party out of power (not in possession of the presidency) will keep a close eye on its opponent and notify the public of any wrongdoing or policy misstep. Without Democrats, who was going to point out that the Iraq war was not going so hot? And do you think Bill Clinton was going to 'fess up about that blue dress on his own?
  

A lot has changed since the 1790s. We bathe regularly these days, and doctors hardly ever use leeches. But one thing hasn't changed: we still have two parties filling those crucial roles we just talked about (though the parties themselves have changed). Sure, there are always fun and mainly harmless third and fourth parties, like the Anti-Masonic Party of the 19th century, or the more recent Reform Party (which brought us Governor Jesse Ventura). But, while third parties contribute in important ways to our political discourse (mainly when established parties steal their ideas), we are largely living in a two-party system.

But while two is almost always the magic number, the philosophies dividing these parties and the coalitions making them up have regularly changed, as the issues confronting our nation change. Roughly every thirty or forty years, new parties replace the old, or the political coalitions within the parties change. Elections in which this sort of realignment occurs are labeled "critical elections."

So why has the two-party system stuck around for so long? Here are a few reasons:

• 
  Structural features of our political system. Most elections occur in single-member districts that elect one person, not several people, to fill a position. This gives the large established parties, which are more likely to win a plurality of the votes cast, a far greater chance of success.
   
  
• 
  Electoral laws (passed by the dominant parties) complicate the ability of minor parties to even get their candidates' names on the ballot.
   
  
• 
  Ideological consensus in the United States. Americans may disagree on policy details, but the vast majority agrees on fundamental principles.
  

Man, the best party era was totally when the Shmoop writers were back in high school. When our parents were out of town, we'd invite the whole senior class over and build a giant pyramid of…

Sorry, lazy joke.

Anyway, historians generally break the history of American political parties into five eras or party systems.

• 
  First Party System: Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans, 1796-1816: 
Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, wanted a powerful national government to push for aggressive economic development. They favored a loose construction of the Constitution. Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wanted a small national government, feared the nation-building policies of Hamilton, and were strict constructionists. Federalists controlled government through the 1790s, Republicans dominated after 1800; Federalists disintegrated as a national party after War of 1812.
   
  
• 
  Second Party System: Democrats vs. Whigs, 1828-1850s:
 Competing factions within the old Republican Party split into two new opposing parties during Andrew Jackson's presidency. Jackson's faction, now known as Democrats, was rooted in the West and South and favored small national government. Jackson's opponents (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster), rooted in the Northeast, called themselves Whigs and favored government action to improve American society. Democrats controlled the presidency for most of this era.
   
  
• 
  Third Party System: Democrats vs. Republicans, 1850s-1890s:
 Sectional dispute over slavery led to collapse of Second Party System during the 1850s. The Whig Party was largely replaced in the North by the antislavery Republican Party after 1854. Democrats became mainly a proslavery regional party based in the South. Republican Abraham Lincoln's victory in the1860 election triggered secession of Southern states. Republicans mostly dominated national politics in the decades after the Civil War.
   
  
• 
  Fourth Party System: Republicans vs. Democrats, 1890s-1930s:
 Democrats remained strong in the South, also gained support from western farmers and northern urban immigrant communities. Republicans abandoned their earlier agrarian emphasis, becoming the party of big business. Republicans dominated presidential politics. After 1896, Democrats co-opted some of the farmer radicalism of the Populist Movement. Middle-class reformers of the Progressive Movement belonged to both parties.
   
  
• 
  Fifth Party System: Democrats vs. Republicans, 1930s-?: 
President Franklin Roosevelt built a new Democratic voter coalition of union workers, southerners, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, urbanites, and intellectuals. Republicans became more strongly identified as the party of business and the wealthy. Democrats dominated national politics into the 1960s. Republicans gained the upper hand in national politics after the 1960s; especially after the revitalization of the party under President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. Scholars disagree over whether or not to call the recent period the Sixth Party System (one major change—beginning under Nixon, accelerating under Reagan, and almost complete today, is the South's shift from Democrat to Republican).
  

Some political analysts argue that political parties are growing less essential to the electoral process. Modern media, especially television and the internet, has reduced the candidates' dependence on party networks to spread their message. Political Action Committees (PACs) and internet fundraising make candidates less dependent on party fundraising apparatuses. In fact, campaign finance reforms introduced in the 1970s (theFederal Election Campaign Act) allow political interest groups such as union members, business associations, environmental groups, and gun associations to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of a candidate as long as the spending is not coordinated by the candidate's campaign organization.

In addition, party identification among voters is declining. The number of independents—those claiming no party affiliation—has increased dramatically over the past thirty years. In 2009, more voters identified themselves as independents than as Republicans or Democrats (37%, 27%, 36%). And split-ticket voting is more and more common; rather than voting a straight-party ticket, more individuals vote for both Democrats and Republicans in the same election. Analysts refer to the growing disenchantment with all political parties as "dealignment."

Study break

While America has historically had a two-party system, minor parties have regularly surfaced. Some, like the Populist Party, have been influential. Others, such as the American Nazi Party, have been hateful. Still others have been most noteworthy for their names. Have you ever heard of the Working Families Party or the Aloha Aina Party? Most have heard of the Green Party, but how about the Blue Enigma Party? Did you ever meet a member of the Toleration Party, the Looking Back Party, or the Vegetarian Party? And what do you suppose members of the Readjuster Party advocate?

Depending on whom you ask, Democrats are the only party standing up for the common folks out there, or bleeding-heart spendthrifts who never saw a problem that they thought a new tax and a new government bureaucracy could not fix—who are also weak on defense, indifferent to morality, and generally a bunch of gun-hating hippies.

Like we said back in the last unit, there's no such thing as a precious, individual snowflake in American politics. Demographics and group identities matter—and the parties can make an educated guess as to who you're going to support based on where you live, how far you went in school, and even what magazines you subscribe to. So what makes you more likely to vote for the Democrats?

Some argue that the historic particulars of the 2008 presidential election may paint a misleading picture of the actual core constituency of the Democratic Party. In addition, some argue that presidential races do not reveal party allegiance at the local level. These questions aside, in the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama held significant advantages among the following voters:

• 
  The least and most educated. Among high school and college graduates, Democrats and Republicans draw roughly equal percentages of voters. But Democrats won most voters without high school diplomas and with college post-graduate degrees.
   
  
• 
  Non-whites (African Americans, Latinos, Asians)
   
  
• 
  Urban residents
   
  
• 
  Liberals
   
  
• 
  Moderates
   
  
• 
  Moderate- and low-income voters (among voters earning more than $50,000 the candidates drew within 3 points of one another)
   
  
• 
  Women
   
  
• 
  First-time voters
   
  
• 
  Jewish and Catholic voters
  

When Democrat Andrew Jackson was running for president in the 1820s, his opponents called him a "jackass" (to be fair, they had a point). But Jackson, like true jackasses everywhere, was totally unfazed by the criticism—so much that he made a donkey the official symbol of his party. There's a lesson for you in that: the next time someone's making fun of you, embrace it. Isn't that right, Snotnose Buckteeth?

Many Democrats like to trace their party's origins to the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson advanced a philosophy celebrating the common man and insisting on the vigorous protection of rights of speech and religion. But he also favored a small federal government and very strict construction, or interpretation, of government's powers under the Constitution—neither of which are consistent with the contemporary Democratic Party.

Others identify the party's origins in the coalition that formed around Andrew Jackson during the 1828 election. Here again, Jackson's party and the contemporary party don't line up perfectly: Jacksonians defended states' rights and slavery, opposed a federal bank, worked to block federal spending on internal improvements, and stood against a broad interpretation of government powers. But there is an institutional continuity between Jackson's Democrats and the Democratic Party of today.

The Democrats controlled the presidency during most of this second party era (1820s-1850s) and succeeded in advancing most of their major policy ambitions. Yet the party was unable to maintain its alliance of southern and western farmers once slavery became the dominant political issue in America. The party split into two factions (one representing proslavery Democrats in the South and another representing antislavery Democrats in the North) and struggled on the national stage until late in the century when Northern farmers, upset with Republican policies, returned to the party.

The contemporary Democratic Party took on much of its philosophical and policy identity during the 1930s. President Franklin Roosevelt forged the "New Deal Coalition," a collection of supporters—union members, immigrants, minority and low-income voters, Catholics, Jews, Southerners, urbanites, and intellectuals—who would vote Democrat for the next forty years.

You know that country song, "Song of the South"? Did you know it's about the New Deal?

Daddy was a veteran, a Southern Democrat

When's the last time you met a Southern Democrat who listened to country music? The party has changed a bit since then.

But Roosevelt did have a lasting effect on the party's philosophy and policies. His response to the Great Depression was the New Deal, an ambitious collection of government programs designed to generate jobs and provide direct relief for the unemployed. He dramatically increased the size of the federal government, leading to unprecedented levels of government spending. In short, he redefined the role of the federal government in American life.

And many democratic successors followed his lead. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and Barack Obama's health care reform are all grounded in Roosevelt's vision of a federal government that aggressively confronts America's social and economic challenges.

Since the 1970s, the Democratic Party has slightly altered its political vision. "New Democrats" argue that government activism must be balanced by fiscal responsibility. In doing so, they are responding to the revitalization of the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan. In the decades since, Democrats and Republicans have passed the presidency back and forth.

Barack Obama's strong election victory in 2008—combined with success among independents and in traditionally Republican states like Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina—suggested to many political analysts that we were in the midst of another widescale political realignment. But Republican victory in the 2010 midterm elections made things more complicated—the jury on realignment remains out.

Franklin Roosevelt was so popular that he was elected president despite rumors that he was a philatelist. His wife Eleanor even admitted that the president, despite being confined to a wheelchair, engaged in philately in the White House.

Depending on whom you ask, the Republicans are either the only party standing up for the American dream and the values that made this country great, or they're heartless militarists, hellbent on putting prayer in the classroom and defining the family, while cutting your garbage pickup so they can cut taxes even more for Fortune 500 CEOs.

In looking at who votes for whom, the same caveat we mentioned above still applies—2008 was a very good election for Democrats (it helps to be in the middle of an economic crisis that happened on the other party's watch), so the demographics might even out as things become more competitive in years to come. But judging from the last election, here are the groups that Republicans tend to win:

• 
  Whites (Republican John McCain drew 55% of all white voters; whites represented 73% of all voters in the election)
   
  
• 
  Protestants
   
  
• 
  Regular church-goers
   
  
• 
  Small-town and rural voters
   
  
• 
  Conservatives
  

Its nickname may be the "Grand Old Party," but historically speaking, Republicans are still the new kids on the block (which reminds us, btw, of Shmoop's favorite boy band). The Republican Party may date to 1854, but that's relatively young in American party terms.

The party was founded within the political realignment triggered by the growing sectional crisis over slavery. Republicans were defined largely by their opposition to slavery, but it would be more accurate to say that the party favored "free soil"—that is, the preservation of western lands for northern-style "free soil" farming (on the theory that big slave plantations kept small farmers out of work). Electing their first president (Abraham Lincoln) in 1860, Republicans ended slavery and pursued several measures that promoted western agrarian expansion such as the Homestead Act and the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad.

After the Civil War, the Republicans dominated the presidency for more than twenty years, while the Democrats—a party strongly linked to the defeated Confederacy—exercised little influence outside the South. Yet toward the end of the century, the Republican Party distanced itself from the pro-agrarian policies that had marked its original growth in the 1860s. William McKinley, the Republican nominee for president in 1896, ran as the candidate of business, and his greatest support came from the urban northeast. Since embracing big business at the turn of the last century, Republicans, for the most part, haven't looked back.

Over the next several decades, the Republican Party solidified its identity as the party of business, while the Democrats increasingly drew support from less affluent and more recent members of American society. But factions within the Republican Party also led the movement for economic and social reform known asProgressivism. Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette campaigned for increased regulation of big business, the rights of workers to organize unions, and protection of consumers against impure and mislabeled products (today, they'd be labeled big-government socialist fascists, and beaten in primaries by the Tea Party).

Between 1896 and 1932, Republicans dominated national politics. Only one Democrat won the presidency (let's hear it for Grover Cleveland—America's second-most-famous Grover). But beginning with Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932, Democrats controlled the presidency for 32 of the next 48 years.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency and revitalized the Republican Party with a pledge to restore American power abroad and reduce the size of government at home, all while looking like an irresistibly rugged cowboy. Arguing that since the Vietnam War, Americans had lost sight of their nation's greatness and had lost confidence in their ability to be a force for good in the world, he rapidly increased American military spending. Complaining that government regulations inhibited economic development and that too many assistance programs were dulling the American spirit, Reagan worked to reduce government regulations and to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy.

Since the election of Barack Obama, the dominant story in Republican politics has been the rise of the Tea Party movement, made of up assertively small-government conservatives. Again, though, the jury remains out on whether the Tea Party revitalized the GOP in the wake of its 2008 defeat, or whether it has turned off too many moderate voters to make the Republicans nationally competitive.

John McCain, the Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent almost six years in a Vietnamese prison camp. But had he won the election, he would not have been the first former prisoner of war to serve as America's president. Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic president, spent several months in a British prison camp after he was captured as a member of the South Carolina militia. He was fourteen. But hey, studying for the AP exam is tough, too, right?