Partisans without parties
A forum on our partisan paradox - and how to escape it.
The summer of 2024 will be remembered for many reasons, but in the future, it may just be known as “the summer of parties.”
The Democrats demonstrated their resolve by removing a sitting president during the peak of his reelection campaign, showing a capacity to execute judgments about fitness for office that many Republicans will secretly admire. This summer may have reminded politicians that political parties, when united and purposeful, can wield influence for the good of their members.
This shift occurred amid a backdrop of growing intellectual ferment in favor of revitalizing the parties. Political scientists have long recognized, as E.E. Schattschneider famously noted, that “democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties.” Parties are essential for structuring conflicts in ways that enable voters to make informed choices, connecting citizens with the machinery of government, and fostering an ethos of forbearance. However, simply having entities labeled as “parties” doesn’t guarantee they will actually do all we ask of them, let alone reconcile the tensions among their multiple tasks. So, why are our parties failing?
The pithy diagnosis that is increasingly gaining traction is that we are trapped in a partisan paradox — a phenomenon political scientist Julia Azari describes as a condition of “weak parties with strong partisanship.” Labels like “Democrat” and “Republican” have become potent markers of personal identity for millions of Americans — telling them, at least, what they oppose. However, these identities are not cultivated by cohesive organizations that identify dependable leaders, communicate policy ideas, and transform campaign promises into effective governance. Instead, they are stoked by a nationalized media that thrives on conflict and by entrepreneurial candidates who rely on their own donors and consultants to directly court voters.
Political scientists Daniel Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld tackle this issue in their new book The Hollow Parties, which has sparked significant interest throughout the summer (including on Niskanen’s two fantastic podcasts, The Vital Center and The Science of Politics). Schlozman and Rosenfeld offer some prescriptions about a path forward, but many questions remain unresolved. A recent forum in the Boston Review centers on how reforms to the electoral process might strengthen parties, adding to the buzz generated from a major report on parties that the American Political Science Association and Protect Democracy released last year. That report, a follow-up to a much-maligned 1950 report that advocated for more ideologically distinctive parties, shifts the focus to restoring the parties as functional intermediaries. Yet despite widespread agreement among scholars on the problem, there is little consensus on solutions, and the “hollow parties” framing has yet to become widespread among political practitioners.
In other words, this conversation is just getting started, and this volume of Hypertext aims to drive it further with insights from leading political scientists. While many reformers take an engineering approach to party reform — like focusing on adjusting primary rules — these essays take a more evolutionary approach. Our contributors explore how parties have responded to broader societal changes and how they might adapt in healthier ways moving forward.
In this issue of Hypertext:
Danny Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld elaborate on their new book, arguing that moderate politics requires an investment not just in technocratic policy but in grassroots civic life.
Seth Masket revisits the “party decides” thesis of presidential selection in light of the Democratic ejection of Joe Biden and the Republican embrace of Donald Trump.
Ray LaRaja says political professionals and donors have dangerously neglected the longtime anchors of the American party system — the state-level parties — and made them vulnerable to the kinds of takeovers that a healthy political organization should be able to fend off.
Daniel DiSalvo argues that modern communications unmade the strong, hierarchical parties of the past but that sharper factional identities can restore some of what’s been lost.
Julia Azari explores how race has the potential to structure political conflict not just between the parties but within them in an era when old alignments may be starting to shift.
Heath Brown examines a remaining arena of relative party strength — the presidential transition.
Jennifer Dresden urges electoral reformers to focus on changes that would strengthen the parties rather than trying to run around them.
In addition to these illuminating pieces, more essays on the topic are in the pipeline, so please be sure to keep an eye out for them. I also strongly recommend you tune in to Danny and Sam’s interviews on Niskanen’s podcasts, The Vital Center with Geoff Kabaservice and The Science of Politics with Matt Grossmann.
We hope you find this volume of Hypertext a fitting extension of our last edition, where we debated whether moderate Democrats should consciously try to build an “abundance faction” within the party. Please share these pieces widely and keep in mind we are happy to publish response essays. If you have thoughts to share, please pitch your idea to me at ddagan@niskanencenter.org.
David Dagan is director of editorial and academic affairs at the Niskanen Center. You can find him @daviddagan or @daviddagan.bsky.social.