Political parties are indispensable to good citizenship

No institution comes under more attack than our political parties, yet they are necessary for our republican form of government. Let us consider not only how and why political parties are necessary but why we as citizens are better off for their pivotal role.

Political party activity is so common, one might think that parties must have been established by the United States Constitution. In fact, they grew up entirely outside of the Constitution. Yet parties were resorted to in the earliest days of the republic.

Americans have a kind of love/hate relationship with political parties, expressing dislike for them, even as they participate in politics through political parties. This ambivalence is parallel to how many of us feel about trade and commerce, as we both enmesh ourselves in that realm yet affect disdain for it.

Our two fundamental acts of founding are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither says a word about political parties, yet neither could be effective without those despised institutions. Consider that the Declaration holds that government exists to secure everyone’s rights and must be based on the consent of the governed. How does that work?

The Declaration faults the King of Great Britain for preventing elections, implying that these are necessary for good government. The Constitution actually provides for elections every two, four or six years for representatives, presidents and the senators respectively. So, everyone just goes to the polls and votes, and that’s it, right?

Wrong. Citizens of political ambition, and those determined to help elect them to office, spare no effort to win. How could it be otherwise? Does anyone really succeed in business without really trying, not to mention sports, entertainment, education, health, or the crafts? Nothing happens simply by accident.

The Constitution says little or nothing about those other fields of endeavor either, yet free people have made their mark on the world, providing something which others are willing to pay for. Why should it be otherwise for politics?

All of these fields are opportunities, but they are not entitlements. The rewards go to those who earn them by talent and skill. I, as a consumer, may contribute to the success of someone’s enterprise, but I have no right to demand anything without something in exchange. Nor do I have the right to govern any organization in which I have not substantially invested my talents, time and treasure.

Now, if these propositions are true, not only are Americans free to participate in politics to the extent they wish, but preference should be given to those who contribute the most of themselves. Just as the governing structure of a corporation should make the decisions for that company, so should the governing institutions of political parties determine their direction.

In these days of multiple direct primaries, the idea has gained ground — and perhaps there is no turning back from the idea — that the fate of political parties should be determined by those with the least stake in their long-term success. We have abandoned the allegedly nefarious practice of political bosses picking candidates in “smoke-filled rooms” toward the open selection of candidates by millions of voters.

And did I say voters? Many are interlopers, as members or supporters of one political party may, sometimes on the day of the election, participate in the primaries of the other political party, frequently with the intent of voting for the weakest candidate.

I write as one who did not appreciate Democrats voting in Republican primaries, but also one who understands the feelings of Democrats who are not happy about Republicans voting in theirs. In short, primary elections should be “closed” to anyone who is not registered with that party. That, at least, limits selection of party nominees to people who are likely to vote for them.

But there is considerable public outrage about the Democratic party superdelegates who may well determine whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is nominated for president this year. But what is wrong with that? The divvying up of delegates according to each candidate’s share of the popular vote, in a close race like the one this year, practically guarantees a deadlocked convention. The super delegates are not only an insurance policy, but the most reasonable back-up plan for a flawed system.

More, it is fair, and not merely expedient, for the Democrats to rely upon elected officials and party bigwigs to make presidential nominations.
Sure, delegates ought to have the benefit of the best information, and that includes knowing who the voters are likely to vote for in the general election. But justice demands that those who have done the most for their political party should decide who they’re going to work with for the next four, six or eight years in government. The party members for only a day will cast a vote and turn their attention to more pressing matters in their private lives.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause”  (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.