"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat," the late humorist Will Rogers
once said. Rogers often poked fun at institutions, but in his comment about the
Democratic Party he was alluding to a basic tenet of American political life. Political parties in
the United States are much less structured and much less homogeneous than in many other
countries.
From the beginning, American political parties were umbrella organizations accommodating a
wide range of political views and interests, says political scientist Stephen Rockwood, author of
American Third Parties Since the Civil War. That is a major reason why third parties
have largely been unsuccessful in the United States, he adds.
The early Democratic Party, for example, was a coalition representing farmers, traders and
artisans who often disagreed on policy and ideology. The coalition evolved into the modern
Democratic Party, mushrooming to include groups as diverse as organized labor and business
interests. In addition, the party encompasses geographical and regional distinctions. Southern
Democrats, for example, tend to be much more conservative than Northern or even Western
Democrats. Sometimes called Boll
Weevils (named after an insect that infests cotton plants typically in the South) or more
recently Blue Dogs (named from
paintings by Louisiana artist George Rodrigue that feature a blue dog in political settings), these
conservative Democrats often have voted with the Republican Party.
Similarly, the Republican Party also is a grand coalition -- of business interests, conservative
social groups and those favoring traditional values. Although the ideological chasm between
conservative and moderate Republicans is not as wide as that between liberal and conservative
Democrats, the Republican Party also remains far from homogeneous.
The umbrella nature of American political parties directly affects the political process. For
example, electing a Democratic president and Democratic Congress is no assurance that the
president's legislative program will be passed. For example, Southern Democrats, who tend to
be conservative, might vote with the Republicans on any number of issues and help defeat
particular bills.
On the other hand, on some issues, many Northern Republicans might vote with the
Democratic Party. Party whips, a hallmark of parliamentary systems, are much less powerful in
the U.S. political system and rarely can compel a particular lawmaker to vote a particular way.
Votes in the U.S. Congress are not typically cast wholly along party lines, as is the case in
many parliamentary systems.
In addition, the separation of powers in the U.S. system ensures the independence of Congress
from the executive branch -- even if the same party occupies the executive and legislative
branches. The saying "all politics is local" is a very powerful refrain in American political life,
signifying that American lawmakers are much more prone to vote the interests of the district or
state they represent, even if that conflicts with the interests of the executive branch, the party or
even the national interest.
Because of weaker political parties in the United States, Americans tend to vote for the
candidate as much as the party, and this trend is increasing, spurred by political reforms that
began in the Progressive Era
at the turn of the last century and that accelerated, beginning in the late 1960s, says political
scientist Sandy Maisal. Americans identify much less with political party labels than in many
other countries, he adds.
Maisal's point is illustrated by U.S. opinion polling. According to a 1995 Gallup Poll, "twice as
many Americans did not self-identify as belonging to one of the major political parties as had
been the case when John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960." The polls indicate
that more than 40 percent of the electorate now considers itself to be independents, a much
higher figure than in most countries with competing two-party systems.
Political parties in the United States always have been less structured organizations than
elsewhere, says political historian Joel Sibley in his article, "The Rise and Fall of American
Parties." Sibley, too, says the tendency has been increasing, partly because of the growth in
the number of primaries that has transferred power from party organizations and officials to the
voters.
Sibley adds that it is important not to exaggerate the point. Political parties in the United States,
he says, are healthy organizations that are well-funded and continue "to play a political role."
But "they can hardly be seen as the vigorous, robust and meaningful players within the nation's
political system that they once clearly were," he adds.
Some commentators bemoan the relative weakness of political parties in the United States, the
lack of party discipline and the emphasis on character and personality at the expense of issues.
But others extol the benefits of a system they see as more democratic than parliamentary or
other systems of government because it is the will of the individual candidate or lawmaker --
and the people he or she represents -- that is paramount rather than the interests of the party.
Whatever the benefits, or drawbacks, of the party political process in the United States, the
important point to keep in mind is that a win for a political party in the United States does not
necessarily mean a fundamental ideological shift, as is the case in many other countries. Local
concerns, and the character and personality of the candidate, may play as much a part in
voter preference as the party platform and ideology.
For better or for worse, the United States has moved "from a party-dominated system of
campaign politics to a candidate-centered system," says Paul Herrnson, author of National
Party Organizations at Century's End. He, and other observers, argue the trend will likely
continue because of the growing importance of personality-dominated media as well as the
acceptance of reforms instituted by the parties themselves.