Why Do They Call it a Party When No One is Having Fun?
One of the most significant miscalculations by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the failure to anticipate the rise of political parties. Instead, they created a legislature in which they believed many diverse interest groups would form a series of shifting coalitions to deal with specific problems. Thus, sometimes northern congressmen representing districts near the Atlantic coast might band with their southern counterparts, while sometimes—frequently actually—those representing free or slave states might join to either put forward or prevent legislation of regional interest.
In this way, James Madison insisted in Federalist 10, one of the most famous essays on political theory in American history, the Constitution had created a “well-constructed Union” that could “break and control the violence of faction.”
“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens,” he wrote, “that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Madison then insisted that the new Constitution, because there would be no “overbearing majority,” provided the means to avoid the “mortal diseases” of “instability, injustice, and confusion” in popular government. (The notion of an overbearing minority, such as currently exists in the United States, did not enter into the delegates’ calculations.)
If brought to fruition, Madison’s pluralist vision would result in the centrist rule most delegates favored, as those in government would realize that today’s adversary might need to be tomorrow’s ally.
Madison’s idealistic vision fell apart a dozen years later, when Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans, with Madison himself as a celebrated convert, wrested control of Congress and the presidency from John Adams’ and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists. In addition to requiring those who wished to unseat the Jeffersonians to organize as well, the rise of political parties doomed pluralism and ushered in a period where factionalism became so intense that a Civil War was necessary to mend the rift.
Even after the defeat of the Confederacy, political parties continued to split the nation, with white voters in the defeated South and those in the North opposed to spending any more time, money, and resources to protect Black Americans flocking to the Democratic Party. After a series of defeats, Republicans, once the party of equal rights, largely abandoned their Black supporters.
In the 1890s, during the Progressive era, focus shifted to how candidates were chosen, with party leaders feeling increasing pressure to end the rule of “smoke-filled rooms.” This led to the adoption of primary elections, a movement begun by Wisconsin Governor Robert La Follette in 1904. By 1916, twenty-five states, more than half, held presidential primaries.
As primaries proliferated, white supremacists in the South realized they could use them to cement Jim Crow rule. If state laws approved, which they did, political parties, as private organizations, could make whatever rules they wanted for participation, including specifically excluding Black voters. Democrats in the South thus successfully employed the “white primary” until 1944 when the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in Smith v Allwright, ruled that Texas could not delegate control of elections to a private entity as a contrivance to end run the Fifteenth Amendment.
With the demise of the white primary, state party bosses reclaimed nominating power from the rank and file. By 1960, Democrats held primaries in only 12 states and Republicans in 11. Four years later, those numbers actually decreased. Pressure from ordinary voters against bossism again created a move to primaries, but not until 1976 did Republicans hold them in every state, while for Democrats it was not until 1984.
Although the shift to primaries was hailed as a victory for democratic rule, the system created problems of its own. As primary elections became more vital to securing the nomination, they also became more competitive, demanding candidates spend exorbitant sums of money setting up a full election apparatus and beginning their campaigns earlier and earlier, to the point that they now seem continuous. With costs skyrocketing, potential candidates have been forced to solicit funds from the very fat cats whose influence primaries were supposed to diminish.
With only two parties covering the entire spectrum of political views, the policy debates and shifting coalitions Madison envisioned taking place in the halls of Congress should have moved intra-party, but primaries have foiled that. With the election season now never-ending, campaign fatigue has caused many of the less fervent to stay home for the primary, handing control of the cycle to the most committed, who are often, especially on the Republican side, the most radical. As such, the threat of being “primaried” has intimidated many Republican aspirants and pushed the party that much further toward what used to be termed “the lunatic fringe.”
Some Republican leaders, Mitch McConnell for example, or the Koch brothers, are aware the party is being held hostage by primary voters. Their party has underperformed in three consecutive national elections since Donald Trump’s ascension and their fear is palpable that 2024 will run the streak to four. With even panderer-in-chief Ron DeSantis now admitting the 2020 election was not stolen—he likely had to run for the Maalox after saying so—it is apparent that fear is spreading even to those who must court Trump supporters. Still, beyond trying to persuade more rational conservatives to participate, they are largely powerless to do anything about it except sit, watch, and hope.
Ah, how they must pine for the return of the smoke-filled room.