To come to any reasonable definition of exactly what a political party is and why it exists, it is important to understand the tragedies created by the lack thereof. Simply put, political parties act as buffers to channel the passions of the governed populace. They lend a voice to what otherwise could develop into sectionalism, better known as geographical or regional political dominance. A great example to illustrate the potential tragedies of a partiless government is the demise of the Whig party during the mid-nineteenth century and the Civil War which soon followed.
After the great Compromise of 1850, robust disagreement between the Whigs and Democrats all but disappeared. The parties quite simply ceased to be relevant in that they didn't offer solutions to problems most important to the people at the time such as temperance, and the evils associated with the current influx of immigration. As a result, the Whig party collapsed and in its stead several "extremist" parties arose. Some concerned themselves with what we would consider blatant racist agendas, while others developed into anti-slave/anti-democrat parties. Over the course of just a few years some of these lessor parties coalesced into the Republican party. This party was dominated by northern interests as opposed to the Democratic party which over the previous decades came to be dominated by the rich southern planter class. What happened as a result is written in every American history book ever made. A great divide occurred in our country because people could not find a constructive outlet for their concerns over divisive issues.
Parties exist therefore, similar to our governmental system of "checks and balances", to vent the passions of our populace into a constructive means of representation and debate. To go without would most certainly have dire consequences.
A new vintage debate...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What would Washington think about Parties and the Civil War?
ReplyDeleteWashington would probably think that rampant factionalism is at the cause of the civil war. In a way he would be right. But if that's the case what draws the line between vibrant debate and war? Wouldn't you agree that parties offer avenues to channel potentially dangerous rhetoric?
ReplyDeleteYour comment that political parties exist "to vent the passions of our populace into a constructive means of representation and debate" is a great way of defining part of parties’ role in politics. However, I would have to contend that parties are not necessarily always the most constructive in their representation and debate. Party bickering does sometimes create a headache in Washington, DC, preventing productivity because party members are too busy being mad at the “other side” rather than being constructive and working to find a solution that protects their interest while still appeasing “the other side.”
ReplyDelete