Congress: History and Parties

How We Arrived at Today's Quandary

History

(From my book Combative Congress, Your Power! Your Voice!)

This home in New York state depicts our long and proud history.

History References

Drutman, Lee. The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America, Oxford University Press, 2020. Eckam, Dan. Beyond Two Parties, Why America Needs a Multiparty System and How We Can Have It, 2019 Bullock, Dennis R. The Role of Political Parties in Preventing Congress from Functioning. Real Clear Policy.

Congressional Functionality Goes Downhill

Tale of Two Parties – History

Lee Drutman writes in Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop about the views of Madison, Washington, and John Adams regarding political parties.

Madison said, “different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power…have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity.” Crisis comes when the state is “violently heated and distracted by the rage of party.” Washington in his famous farewell address warned America about “the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities.” President Adams spoke “a division of the republic into two great parties…is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”

It is incredible that these three great men were so farsighted! They articulated our woes of today two-and-a-third centuries ago.

“ Political parties are essential to democratic governance…America’s system was designed to operate in an environment where most factions would be ephemeral, developing over issues and then dissolving when those issues faded or were somehow resolved.” Adapted from The Role of Political Parties in Preventing Congress from Functioning, Dennis R. Bullock, Real Clear Policy.

A system with more than two parties is required to foster the alliance of different factions coming together temporarily to solve various issues.

Political parties have existed in America almost since its inception. They are basic to the operation of a democratic government and are about the art and science of governing.

Politics is fundamentally a way to sort out differences of opinion, so there will be disagreements – about policy at least. However, there are choices about which electoral systems are used to select and organize governments, and these can have important influences on how well the system works.

Two effective parties have existed for the most part since our country was formed. Until roughly the latter part of the twentieth century, the two-party system worked better than it has in the past two or three decades. Why was this? Well, for one thing, members of Congress used to socialize more, developing relationships with each other including those of the other party. The advances in aviation and communications have made it easier for them to spend more time at home – spending less social time together in Washington. Regular order including the reliance on committees to lead members to work with one another well has almost disappeared as senior leaders choose issues and craft the legislation, often behind closed doors.

For the most part of the second half of the twentieth century, our country effectively had four parties. Two branches of each the Democrats and the Republicans existed because each party had a conservative leaning and a liberal leaning wing. These four groups with various viewpoints had to cooperate to enact legislation; they required and enabled the necessary different viewpoints, negotiations, and civility to govern. Congress functioned, passing considerable major legislation with real bipartisan voting. So, while America didn’t have four parties, this situation proved the concept of needing more than two parties.

Around the mid-1990s, this semi-four-party situation began accelerating into a more rigid two-party situation as some members left and new ones were elected. As the two main parties hardened in their views and became more combative, the civility assisted by the societal issues mentioned above faded, and the two parties implemented several electoral methods at both the state and federal levels that became major hurdles for other parties to compete; stay tuned for details on these later.

Leaders in Congress amassed much more power for themselves, thereby leaving the other members with less meaningful roles. Bills increasingly have been created by the elite and put before the membership in a hurried and non-transparent manner, further aggravating most members. Politics in Congress was becoming a zero-sum game where every win for one party was a loss for the other. Bipartisan legislation of significance was almost a thing of the past. By around 2010, the two parties had stiffened their stances to the point of being basically against whatever the other party wanted. The wild swings in ideological philosophy and legislative focus each time one party displaced the other in power stimulated efforts for the incoming party to undo what the previous party had done. These changes of direction irritated the citizens. Doesn’t all this sound very familiar?

Our founders had anticipated many issues, protecting against their maturing to serious issues with checks and balances among the three branches of government. But they did not include in the constitution anything that specifically dealt with the present two-party standoff that has occurred within the legislative branch. Our present two-party system fosters two diametrically opposed points of view – and stalemate!

America is very much the exception in having effectively only two parties, meaning parties large enough to influence votes and policy. See the graph below. Drutman says that in multiparty democracies, coalitions work and that America’s two-party and “first-past-the-post” or single-winner plurality voting system is the global outlier.

What has been happening in Congress the past decade?

Regular order has all but disappeared! Per Wikipedia: Regular order within the context of the United States Congress refers to the semi-strict or strict application of committee and subcommittee processes, including public hearing opportunities and the holding of multiple votes. Said processes are designed to promote consensus-based forms of decision making, particularly in terms of fostering accommodations for minority viewpoints. The present ways of doing business give many members a feeling of being demeaned, making it easy for them to give up and just collect the prestige, money, and perks. The net result is that a very small number of people is running Congress and therefore controlling the agenda – and the spending. Results include reduced respect for the constitution, the rule of law, decorum, and interpersonal relationships. The tasks of the federal government – including Congress – may well have grown to an unmanageable size. But, even if we accept this is true, it isn’t the root cause. A dysfunctional Congress also isn’t the “root” cause, but a symptom. Our electoral systems blocking the path to having a smoothly functioning Congress are at fault.

Wrap-Up

The next post will begin our non-partisan discussion about electoral methods for Congress that are blocking the path for competition to the duopoly, parties A and B. There will be a list of good references.