American political parties, relatively weak compared to similar nations, why and what are consequences - Essay Example

The Weakness of American Political Parties It is a broadly held principle that the existence of political parties resolves the tensions embedded in our three-branch, federalist system of government. Even though initially rejected by the founders and the earliest American presidents, political parties have been perceived as an important glue in a basically centripetal system. In principle, the party system can present theoretical and policy objectives, and also electoral incentives, across natural institutional divides (Webb 2002).

However, the American political parties are noticeably weak in comparison to other highly industrialized society because in reality and practice, the American political parties have always had severe internal divisions. In a two-part system, ideal internal ideological unity could be nothing more than political picture. The political parties are plainly too immense and varied to encourage stable internal unity. Yet, integrated party control confers an electoral incentive for party leadership to downplay, or even vigorously steer clear of, those matters on which the party is divided to protect the outward show of cohesion.

In the concern of electoral success and a significant party ticket, party member find motivating incentives to downplay intraparty conflict. Alternatively, it is in my own opinion that the capability of a divided government to provoke resentment rest partly in its capability to generate prospect for intraparty conflict to arise. Moreover, in a divided government system, the prevailing congressional party has the power to compel public concern of those matters most perceptive to the president’s party.

Through placing conflict-ridden issues on the agenda, the party dominating Congress compels the president’s party to discuss matters its congressional members would vigorously steer clear of. The typical justification for the irresponsible nature of American political parties is that our very Constitution makes our party system what it is. Richard Hofstadter, the historian, put it in a few words: “We have a Constitution against parties” (Disch 2002: 62). However, it is also possible that federalism contributes to national and state parties that are primarily self-governing but it is also possible that federalism is the cause.

The actual problem is in fact the failure of the political parties to attain an appropriate balance of power within the federal system, which demands a higher nationalization of party influence. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that there is no focus of party leadership in the American system, no personality who possesses authority over party activities, yet it nowhere burdens the constitutional separation of powers for this (Disch 2002). The constitutional reform is also unworkable and supports the parties to adapt more efficiently and effectively to the Constitution.

It urges the parties to investigate opportunities for more dependable operation within the present agreements and claims that it is reasonable to discover what is probable before taking into account what constitutional reforms are needed. The two parties are structured on a federal basis. Both the national and state part organizations are mainly self-governing, with no significant common framework to difficulties of party policy and strategy. The actual issue is not over the federal structure of organization but over the correct balance of powers within this form of organization.

A consequence of the form of federalism now manifested in the party system is an unnecessary measure of internal separatism. ReferencesDisch, L. J. (2002), The Tyranny of the Two-Party System, New York: Columbia University Press.Rose, M. (2001), Losing Control: The Intraparty Consequences of Divided Government, Presidential Studies Quarterly , 679+.Webb, P. (2002), Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.