Parties and Platforms

A number of posts have discussed party platforms.

 Donald Wolfensberger at The Hill:

Some partisan purists think the positions taken by national committees and conventions should be considered ironclad “pledges,” binding all party members to execute their platform’s mandates. However, presidents, senators and representatives jealously guard their branches’ prerogatives and processes to get things done.

At least going back to Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-Ga.) “Contract with America” in 1994, congressional parties adopt their legislative agenda at the beginning of each Congress, which committee chairs take quite seriously. By the same token, presidents signal their policy priorities through their inaugural addresses, state of the Union speeches and legislative messages. 

In summary, party convention platforms do matter because they tend to reflect the general consensus of party members nationwide. But they are competing with an array of other intra-party actors and groups that struggle to leave their own mark on the nation’s direction and policy outcomes. National leaders thrive on these complementary forces. They know that effective governing is 80 percent perspiration and 20 percent aspiration. Party platforms can help stimulate the latter.

Informal Party Organizations

An excellent new book lays out a concept that we shall include in future editions of the text. In No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures, Seth E. Masket coins an important and useful term: informal party organization, or IPO. A deliberate play on David Mayhew’s traditional party organization (TPO), the term refers to a set of legislative leaders, interest groups, activists and other party figures that can play a dominant role in deciding party nominations. Masket tells how IPOs took shape and how they retain power by channeling campaign resources to candidates who cluster at the ends of the American political spectrum. Click here to see my review of the book.