Political Parties

Review of Interest Groups

INTEREST GROUPS: ARE, groups that put pressure on (lobby) key officials in government to shape policy to the benefit of the group's members.

PLURALISM: IS, the theory that the direction government takes, or problems that it solves, is determined by "groups."

ELITISM: IS, the theory that the direction government takes, or problems that is solves, is determined by the few individuals who have acquired -or control- large amounts of scarce resources.

ELITE THEORY: IS, the view that power in American is held by the few, not the masses of people.

MATERIAL BENEFIT: IS, an economic benefit that comes from belonging to a group.  

PURPOSIVE BENEFIT: IS, the internal benefit one receives from "standing up for what is right.

SOLIDARITY BENEFIT:  IS, the internal benefit one receives from being able to relate with like minded individuals.

Know that ANY GROUP (a hunting club, car enthusiasts gang, the Mid-Michigan Orchid Society. . .) has the potential of becoming a "Political Interest Group" depending on the issues being considered at the capital. 

Political Parties-

PARTIES - not the kind you have at your parents home (you know, when they're away for the weekend, "trusting you to use your head."), we're talking POLITICAL PARTIES - Those groups of like minded individuals who's aim is to "win government" through election/appointment.  

Unfortunately, "Parties" are pretty important to setting up the future lectures on Campaigns, Voting, and the Branches (including the struggles within), so this page of "Instructor's Notes" may be a bit lengthy.  So bear with. . . 

The first thing you should know about parties is that they quite nicely, although not inclusively, match up with our "ideological spectrum". See Below:

Now, if we take a look at who are our Conservatives in this country, who are our Liberals, and who are our third parties and independents -then match these "like minded individuals" up with a current party of today- we can then use the above spectrum to show where the parties lie.

If I were to ask you what is a probable trait of some one who is a Conservative (top half of the 'Quality of Life Hill' wanting little or no change in the 'System'), what would you say?  Probably something like; "Wealthy, white, old, male, very likely educated, and maybe a business owner or at least a white collar employee."  Well, that's the stereotype. . . and it's pretty true to life. [Note: Like I said, you can probably find a bunch of Conservatives who are "blue collar, " or not white, or not male -BUT remember, we're talking in general terms - more likely than not, probability] And, what about the Liberal (bottom half of the 'hill,' direly wants, or needs, change in the 'System')? How might you describe them?  Well, probably everything that isn't Conservative, right? Like; "Less affluent, less educated, less old, less male and less white (in other words a "MINORITY"), probably blue collar or maybe unable to work."   Hey, again, sounds like stereotypes, but it is true to life.  CONSERVATIVES are doing well with the system, so why change it? LIBERALS aren't doing as well so they want/need to change it.  But then you know this since we already went over it in Chapter 4.

Now look at the Party Platforms (those lists of goals each party will pursue if/when it 'wins government') of any existing party, and -taken as a whole- you can probably guess on what side of the spectrum they would sit.  Republicans for example, hold a platform that focuses on less-government, more economic freedom, and currently a focus on a 'moral obligation.'   Democrats, hold a platform that focuses more on issues of equality (both social and economical) and therefore a larger, more proactive, government.  So where does that put them on the Ideological Spectrum?  Note, that what mainstream calls "Conservativism" and "Liberalism" would be better to refer to as "Republicanism" and Democratism" See Below:

Notice the "cross over" at Socialism/Libertarianism and the "gap" in the center where the Moderates are. You might be thinking that there is a Libertarian Party, and a Socialist Party, so, "why do the Republicans and Dems cross over their respective ideological area?" And, why don't Republicans and Dems butt right up against each other? The answer lies in the fact that "Ideology" and "Party" are not the same thing.  The members of a party  -for the most part- hold similar ideologies, but not exact.  Because of this, (since it's a spectrum)  when it's a party on the same side of the spectrum (right or left) there will be 'cross over.' In other words, some individuals with Socialist ideologies may see themselves as Democrats and therefore identify with that party (or visa versa) -same holds true for Republicans and Libertarians, thus you get cross over.  The 'Gap' is explained the same way.  Individuals near the center of the 'Spectrum' are there because they are most likely uncertain which value (Freedom or Equality) serves their "self interest," and, therefore, are uncertain about which party to identify with, hence you get a gap of independents.  So, are there more Republicans? Dems? or Independents?  See Below: 

Before I go on, I want to get back to something mentioned above.  When describing the traits of Conservatives and Liberals, I used the term "Minority," and I wanted to clarify.  A Minority IS NOT a designation of race, it's a designation of  POWER.  Those in power (or those generally in control of the resources) are not minorities.  Conversely, those not in power (with limited or no access to resources) are minorities.  Usually we're talking numbers but not always.  For example, Whites outnumber all other races in the US.  In fact, currently (although the last Census tells us 'not for long'), approximately 70% of the U.S. population is Caucasian. Blacks make up about 12-14%, Hispanics are right around there, as well.  So regarding race, it's a numbers game in this country.  However, regarding gender , Women outnumber Men, and yet are still considered minorities (though this is changing) -again, minority designates "power." [One last example, is one of oppression.  Up until the last decade, in South Africa, Whites were at the top of the Power Structure, though grossly outnumbered by Black South Africans. This has since changed, as "apartheid" has been ended.]   And, what is POWER? It is the ability to cause (or to resist) change. Obviously, there is the 'brute strength' kind of power, but,  there is also the power that comes from how one manipulates the resources they control.   Understandably, when one takes into account ideology, no wonder 9 out of 10 African Americans voters voted for Gore in the 2000 election.

To continue with Parties, the text does not address the conventional history of the parties. It should be noted, the "birthplace" of the Republican Party is/was - Jackson, Michigan. . . not Ripon, Wisconsin.  It was in Jackson where the platform was created, and the name adopted.  Like they say, "Conceived elsewhere? Probably.  Born in Jackson? Definitely!" There is no birthplace of the Democrat Party, though we know Andrew Jackson (and his supporters) started it back in the 1820's.   

Many conclude, and there is some merit to this, that Jefferson's Democrat/Republican (Anti-Federalist) party was the predecessor of the Democrat party.  And that the Republican party started with Lincoln to combat slavery.  Well, Yes and No.  Remember, parties are products of ideologies - and to associate the Democrat or Republican parties today with those of our past is really an incorrect step to take to try to explain the histories of the parties.  For example, if I were to ask you which party today stands more for equality? You'd say without hesitation, "Democrat."  And, you'd be right.  But, if I were to ask you the same question in 1965 regarding Voting Rights, you'd have to clarify your answer.  You see, it was the Southern "Democrats" - who vehemently opposed extending Equal Rights to Blacks.  Same holds true for Republicans.   The Republicans that were so steadfast in their defense of personal freedoms and smaller government in the past, are now the advocates of "Moral Correctness" and "Family Values," and using the Government to ensure the ideal of both are followed.  Both of the major parties of today can find their roots in the first two political parties our "United" States harbored and neither should claim these founding institutions as their own.  In short, times change, and with them so do the Ideologies, Parties and Platforms.  

But be sure to read the chapter and not simply rely on the summary (it leaves too much out).

| Back to top of page | Email Instructor |

________________________________________________________________________________________

This page is designed and maintained by Jon Williams. 
Last modified date: 05/19/15
©2001 Kellogg Community College