Weakening of Political Party Structures - Essay Example

Political Parties YourFirst YourLast Political Parties In the recent past, it has been a fashionable trend that conventional American political parties seem to lose their identity in US politics. Many observers are of the opinion that these political parties are on a declining trend and that their role has been relegated to that of flag bearer in major elections including the major congressional and presidential elections. Political scientists have gone further to claim that the functions of the political parties in the US have transformed over the years, making them irrelevant and unwanted in todays politics. In their place, it has been asserted that PACs (Political Action Committees) have effectively displaced these traditional political parties, rendering them obsolete and unwanted. Because political candidates are no longer dependent on these parties to be elected to office, political parties have therefore become less important and significant. The decline of the American political parties goes on as the real power and funding in political events transfers unavoidably away from party structures to these Political Action Committees and other informal makeshift organizations. Local political arrangements and the combination of local citizenry masses organizations, devolved political party arrangements and the huge sums of money circulating within the conventional party structures is altering in a big way the political landscape and the way politics have traditionally operated. There exists a very big difference in the way American politics operates in comparison to other countries. In the US, the weaknesses of the political parties are attributed to PACs, especially when approaching electioneering periods. Individuals elected to office are more concerned about their approval and acceptance among voters than about their approval and rank with officials of their political parties. PACs mainly execute functions typically related to financial matters. Different from other political systems in other parts of the world, the US political parties do not get funding or any form of financial aid from the US Treasury department. Many democratic nations have enacted laws that prohibit political, financial aid from external sources such as unions and other organizational establishments. Such governments fund these political parties using government money subsidizing them about the size of each political partys electoral numbers. In the United States, the Congress had adopted a comparable system in 1974. The system was known as the PCF (Presidential Campaign Funding) and it permitted the US taxpayers to give approval to the IRS (Internal Revenue Services) to make a significant contribution of their income tax to the kitty that was to be applied in subsidizing presidential appointees. However, the US taxpayers voted against this idea as only three out of ten individuals approved this move. As a result, the US Congress subsequently abolished this political funding structure. The US public through the public authority does not sponsor political party activities. Individuals interested in running for office are therefore required to source financial help privately to support their political campaigns. The drive to acquire financial help for their operations leads the political individuals who are determined to get into office to depend on outside sources for funds. Traditionally, the US political parties have executed these tasks over the years, alongside other roles. These parties have been the central collecting points for individuals who intend on making such contributions to their favorite candidate. In this regard, the political parties have been very successful in this role, and candidates have aligned themselves in the past to these parties primarily for the financial muscle that these parties can provide. However, in the recent past, these political parties have been immensely weakened with the advent of PACs, especially in attracting such funds. Populism and plutocracy are many times regarded as direct opposites. In the US, however, these two forces in the world of politics are seen to work closely together. The same powers that permit insurrectionary political candidates and organizations to come up additionally develop the circumstances that permit contributors massive influence. Voters are no longer seen to vote in blocks as they did a few decades ago. They are also unlikely to be influenced by prominent, influential political individuals, unlikely to belong to either of the two main political parties and are probably prone to divide their votes. This situation operates well with two types of political candidates: emergent candidates with well-structured local political support and individual candidates, who have the financial muscle to purchase the advertising time for branding and making a statement to the electorate. Currently, the US politics inhabit a position that is considered weak institutionally. Political candidates endowed with financial resources can instantaneously popularize themselves. A political movement that invigorates the masses can break down well-established party-supported individuals to elect their individuals to public positions. For instance, in the year 2008, currently sitting US president, President Obama won the Democratic Party nomination, triumphing over Clinton and her well-established supporters. Similarly, it was a surprise victory for the Tea Party in the US senators GOP primaries, and these victories pointed to a weakening Republican Party. The presence of unusual political figures is one indication of this drift. Well-developed party structures are inclined to produce gloomy and unmemorable candidates. Candidates nominated by these traditional political parties might have to explain to the electorate obvious personal character traits. On the other hand, nominated candidates who are popular among the electorates tend to be lurid and colorful; they easily pull individuals to themselves, mobilizing masses wherever they go. From President Barrack Obama, Sarah Palin and populist politician Jesse Ventura, it is therefore observed that candidates who are able to command attentiveness and rally the electorates through political charisma counts for more than the capability of rising through political ranks of the well-established political party. The dwindling political party frameworks additionally play a big role in one of the nastiest elements of the US political trends: the escalation of political families. Even though these trends were unknown in the nations political history, since the Kennedy family initiated its proposition for political control, it has been witnessed that many sons, wives and daughters of former presidents attempt to continue the family profession. For instance, the Bush family has seen father and son become president. Generally, systemized political establishments attempt to battle that awful trend; progression in politics is offered to the devoted as a reward for extended lengthy periods in service, not too desirable nonentities as a prize for their political genetic factor. Household political candidates do well in a period of fragile parties; the prominent name acknowledgment and personage status of political successors blend with a readily available fundraising system. In as much as the 19th century political era of William M. "Boss" Tweed cannot be regarded as a US golden era of political virtue, the development of dynasties, plutocratic and populism have customarily been understood as signals that a nation is in a lot of troubles. The upsurge of populism signifies that a huge gap has developed between the electorate and the political elite of our society. Estranged from an arrangement that is seen to be stalling, the electorates accept as true the notion that the political establishments and their systems of operation are the enemies. Undoubtedly, a framework that permits such a political environment to develop is a system deprived of the charisma, character or even the skills to lead. Ultimately, the weakening of political party structures renders the American politics less intelligible and more conditioned to rapid change in moods. Little can be done to alter the intrinsic factors driving these political trends. This is because, in the recent past, the American public is moving towards a more individualistic tendency and more captivated by direct democratic systems every time. However, the current political framework has enough that it needs to attain in the coming years. As the traditional methods of political associations, continue to decline, the American society needs to come up with new methods to change political processes to become more coherent, or else, the whole society risks a national political catastrophe, similar to the kind experienced in California. It happened that displeasure with the current political environment in California resulted to populist’s interpositions that rendered the political framework worthless, snowballing the electorate discontentment. References Krehbiel, K. (2005). Parties in Elections, Parties in Government, and Partisan Bias. Political Analysis, 13(2), 113-138. doi:10.1093/pan/mpi007 Schwartz, M. (2010). Interactions Between Social Movements and US Political Parties. Party Politics, 16(5), 587-607. doi:10.1177/1354068809342989 Read More