Party-Agent Campaigns vs. Candidate-Centered Campaigns

Candidates in presidential elections, to many, seem like agents of their parties. Hand picked from the "smoke-filled rooms" full of scotch snifters, cigars, and six-foot fireplaces, an elite "chosen one" emerges to carry the flag of the party. Prior to the 2008 primary season, one candidate emerged quickly as the frontrunner: the immediate assumed president-to-be Hillary Clinton. Thought to be the next President of the United States, Clinton began her campaign with a sense of entitlement. But where did this (media branded) sense of entitlement come from? Not merely from being a former First Lady, as many have been before her. Nor was it from being a Senator, as no Senator since John Kennedy had won the office. It was a combination of fundraising power, favorable polling, and an entire career built upon networking due to her husband having been president himself. To much of the electorate, Hillary Clinton was seen as the ultimate "smoke-filled room" candidate.

But how did the candidates of 2008 break away from the "party-agent" image? Simply said, some candidates were not such. Barack Obama, for example, ran a candidate-centered campaign. He engaged the electorate, and utilized netroots to amass a coalition of supporters across the country. Barack Obama was never constrained by the netroots, but rather expanded his base of support, breaking away from the need to be (or have been) and party agent. As Howard Dean did in 2004, Barack Obama did in 2008. The swelling attention via the internet and quick support from select media outlets gave him the strength to break past the party candidacy of Hillary Clinton, as Howard Dean nearly did to John Kerry.

For the sake of argument and conciseness, the examples will be chiefly drawn from that of the Democratic candidates, although the same arguments can be applied to the Republican candidates as well (although it is murky as to who the "party candidate" for the GOP actually was). Tension existed between the candidate-centered and party-centric campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. From the beginning, the Clintons had put in place a political machine, capable of implementing the campaign infrastructure and funding needed to sweep through a primary battle. Her message was cleverly crafted, choreographed, and coordinated. But even such planning was not enough for the flexibility of a candidate centered campaign such as that of Barack Obama. With a clean slate, his message was able to resinate throughout the electorate, and he was able to win the critical contest of Iowa. This was a hard blow to the party elite, who even six months prior, would never had predicted such an upset after having worked for years to organize the fundraising and endorsements thought necessary.

Indeed, the balance between these two types of candidates had been affected by recent technological innovations and advances in communication. The political powerhouse of the Clintons (and I do say "the Clintons" due to Hillary never having been her own candidate, but rather an agent of her party and the former president) could not compete with the massive fundraising takes of the Obama campaign. His ability to raise funds (breaking records month after month) and ability to network his supports into meeting places put the Clinton campaign at a huge disadvantage (although Clinton was still able to raise money online and gather supporters, but never to the extent of Obama). Hillary Clinton was forced to lend her own campaign millions of her own dollars in a month when Obama has raised over $40 million from individual donors online. His supporters were able to form one of the largest grassroots campaigns in political history. All thanks to the advancements in technology and communication. The balance of power between than of a candidate-centered candidate and the party candidate has shifted. Not to say it has not since the nomination debacle of 1968, but the age of the party candidate being a sure shot is coming to a close due to "the forces of mass democracy."

Congressional candidates, however, face a similar yet different situation with respect to vulnerability posed by the internet. Like their presidential candidate counterparts, Congressional candidates utilize the internet to deliver their message, post free information and websites, and upload videos of commercials and debates. But theses candidates face a more focused opposition, and a smaller constituency. Although they have stronger odds of being incumbents (which adds a heavy advantage) they still face the same challenges of needing to raise funds quickly and have proper outlets for transmitting their messages. Any candidate at any level of office is vulnerable from gaffs and a video turning viral, but the internet is more of a benefit than a hazard.

Turning to Teachout (2006), and attempting to assess whether any of the recommendations made were applied to 2008 candidates' websites, it is evident that such tools have been implemented. Although the three major 2008 presidential candidates' websites are now inactive, candidates that currently serve in Congress employ these ideas. One such example is the independent (from the Senate website) organization for United States Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI):   www.russfeingold.org   Employing meet up information, email sign up, blogging references, links to contribute and volunteer, photos and videos, and visitor feedback allow Senator Feingold to gather a broad base of support through digital media and technological advancements that were not readily available even ten years ago. Now, with the power to reach his supporters with a simple mass email, Senator Feingold already has an advantage over any future opponent for the Senate seat, let alone his power of incumbency.

GOP readies for 2012

The future of the GOP may not hinge on taking back power in Congress, but rather unseating Barack Obama in 2012. In this "permanent campaign" environment, contenders are already poising themselves for a White House run. The brightest stars in the GOP? Those who have most recently been outspoken critics of the economic stimulus package signed by President Obama. But members of the Republican Congress are not the ones getting all the limelight. It is their gubernatorial counterparts, many of whom have expressed interest in rejecting any stimulus money for their state. They include rising GOP star Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (only 37 years old), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (who recently said he will consider what to do with any money given to his state), and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina (who, by geography could already be considered a heavyweight).

However, the list does not stop with those who oppose the measure. Florida Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, another possible contender for a GOP White House run in 2012, has voiced support for the stimulus in his state. But lest we forget, the American electorate has a very short attention span in the world of Presidential politics. What happens today can easily be overshadowed tomorrow. In four years, who supported the stimulus and who did may no longer be relevant. Why the sudden opposition by such people as Governor Jindal? He claims that taking the stimulus money puts the states in a situation to be mandated to continue programs created by the stimulus after the federal money is gone, at the states' expense.

What is to make of the field beginning to take shape? Jindal, Pawlenty, Sanford, Crist. Two big names are missing from the list: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and former Governor Mitt Romney (two people believed to be the "future leaders of the party"). Such a field represents almost every corner of America. A visible decentralized party emerges to pick up the pieces left over from 2008, and these governors are ready to carry the GOP torch. Jindal says he will seek reelection for governor in 2011. Other governors are not even speculating. But rest assured, Sarah Palin's absence from the National Governors Association meeting was strategically planned. For her, she needs to balance staying a national figure while attempting to not burn out interest.

There are a series of interesting things to look for:

1. Governor Bobby Jindal is scheduled to make the GOP response speech after President Obama addresses Congress tonight. "America, meet Governor Bobby Jindal."
2. Will voters take a second look at Mitt Romney, the former business man-turned-governor whose conservatism may be the right balance for what GOP voters are looking for?
3. Can Governor Crist appeal to conservatives who feel his fiscal stance is no different than the incumbent? Is it irrelevant considering he is Governor of Florida, which would most likely make him a frontrunner?
4. How will Sarah Palin (and the effects of her new "SarahPAC") fare in a field of new, fresh, conservative faces? Will she still maintain the base support as she did in 2008, or will it shift to a Bobby Jindal candidate?
5. Will the GOP default to the traditional southern candidate by supporting Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina? Be reminded that the Democrats stripped off Virginia and North Carolina in 2008.

Factions, Nominations, and the Debacle of Elections

It has been suggested that primaries were implemented to "diminish the influence of political organizations on political life." This statement reigns true when considering how the primary process diminished the influence of party leaders in selecting who shall receive the nomination of said party. Consider how, in the 2008 primary process for both the Democratic and Republican parties, each side was flooded with competition from heterogeneous America. People represented different constituencies, geographic locations, and even represented generational eras (such as a Joe Biden candidacy compared to that of a Barack Obama candidacy).

Of course, we have to take into consideration the different methods of having a primary, since there are many different ways for a state to determine who shall win. If not a caucus, then either an open primary, or a closed primary (in the past, a blanket primary was not unheard of, but was later ruled unconstitutional). Each possesses their own benefits and downfalls. Take for example the open primary, as we in Wisconsin have come to know and love (or hate). Any person, regardless of party, can vote for either the Democratic or Republican ticket. On the contrary, a closed primary requires that you chose a side, and in many states such a New York, require a stated intention of which party's election you intend to partake in. Regarless of the methods that each state may engage, the end result is the people chosing the candidate that they deem best, whether through a casted ballot, or by raising your hand and forming groups (as seen in the Iowa caucus system). There are plenty of unintended consequences from new rules in recent history. One such example is that of the front-loaded primary season whcih reigned down after January of 2008. States, in an attempt to gain influence in the primary system, began to move their primaries to an earlier date. As time will show, this resulted in one of the greatest debocles in political history, as both Florida and Michigan were penalized for such a move, and was the beginning to the hard fought Democratic nomination that requirted the party to intervene and determine whether or not the moves, and actions thereafter, were legit. The result was both Florida and Michigan being represented and the Democratic National Convention with their delegates on the floor.

Aside from the primaries themselves are questions of how to fund these everlasting campaigns. Current campaign finance regulatory regimes affect partisanship in a multuitude of ways. Take for instance, the influence of 527 groups. These independent organizations who are not as regulated as the candidates to raise money, and spend the cash on issue advocacy. A severe polarizing nature was experienced in 2004, when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began attacks on the Democratic nominee John Kerry. There partisan message was so resounding, and their influence so engrained in the electorate, that the term "swift boated" is now a common phrase among political junkies.

Efforts to reform elections through primaries and the regulation of money in elections work at cross-purposes. After the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was signed by then President Bush, new regulations were put in place to minimize the influence of money in politics, and to add to the Federal Elections Campaign Act which was signed by President Nixon in the 1970's. Now, not only are there regualtions on money, but also rules p[retaining to how and when campaign advertising can be aired on television prior to an election. The new(er) rules state that advertising cannot be aired 30 days prior to a primary, nor 60 days prior to a general election. This serves many purposes, one being to help the electorate drown in political advertising 365 days out of the year.

Unfortunately, factions will never be purged from American politics. The goals set to level the playing field and level off national elections, no matter how hard we try, is unrealistic. There will always be a loophole to exploit, and a law that can be skirted. The influence of money in politics is unavoidable. The discourse of 527 groups have a profound impact, sometimes greater than the candidate or political party itself. It has come to a point where any further actions may result in an infringement of out freedom of speech. To regulate what one group can say or do is acceptable to a point. However, would we really want to see these factions removed? Probably not. These vary factions that sometimes grant us trouble is what makes the American political system unique unto itself. We live in a country with the "permanent campaign." It is a part of our culture, and whether or not an individual agrees with a certain stance on an issue, that very stance is what makes our country what it is; a participatory democracy of the highest caliber.

Support for stimulus high among GOP governors

As President Obama put his signature on the economic stimulus bill, resent still exists among the GOP in Congress. However, it is a different story among Republican governors. As congressional Republicans continue their fight, their gubernatorial counterparts already have projects lined up, and state budget deficits in the billions ready to retire.

Charlie Crist, the Republican governor of Florida, campaigned in his state alongside President Obama, trumpeting the benefits that will be felt by the economic recovery plan. Other states, such as California, are facing such massive budget deficits that many government functions will close, and possible widespread state employee layoffs may occur. Many of these very states operate with a state constitutional law requiring a balanced budget, so keeping such jobs and functions operational is nearly out of the question. As pointed out in this very article, it may be easier for congressional GOP to shoot down the measure because they do not have to balance a budget and execute state functions. In the House of Representatives, they are merely legislators with a smaller constituency. The pressure surmounts on GOP governors to come through and stop the crisis that is plaguing each state on an individual basis.

Citing the New York Times, Utah's Republican governor, Jon Huntsman Jr. sought up to $14.4 billion for roads, rail and sewer projects and for construction of a prison, courthouses and veterans' nursing homes. Partisanship seems to be put on hold when it comes to the National Governors Association. Current Vermont Governor Douglas even stated the stimulus "might be a little different" if he had written it, but "the essence of a recovery package is essential to get our nation's economy moving."

1. With minimal national leadership, and most Americans viewing congressional GOP as the face of the party, is it time for Republican governors to make their positions more prominent (for the good of the GOP)?
2. What do you feel is the reason for the differential between congressional and gubernatorial GOP leaders? Is it more than just the mere difference in legislative/executive power?
3. Does having GOP governors support the measures make their congressional counterparts look bad in the eyes of the voters, or have no effect at all?

 

Political Decentralization in Heterogeneous America

Decentralization affects political parties and sometimes, poses a problem for party discipline. With the United States being a heterogeneous country, one that includes many races, social and economic classes, regional differences, and values, it is difficult to have "one party" message where all fall under the same party discipline.

The decentralized parties of today are spread across America, and can be seen more so within the Democratic Party. One such example is the difference between a "northern" and "southern" Democrat. A Democratic representative from Georgia will face different needs from their constituents than a representative from Vermont. These needs can be social, or economic. But in the end, it comes down to values. States in the south have a tendency to be more conservative, which would include the need to be fiscally wise and perhaps be openly a person of faith. Meanwhile, in the north, a Democrat would find an electorate that seeks a more liberal candidate. Someone who trumpets civil rights and liberties, and against tax cuts. Of course, theses are relatively general examples, and do not conform to every representative of the north or south, but the example holds true in more cases than none. In addition to regional differences in values, we see regional differences in the local party entities (such as a "state/county party") and the national committee. For instance, we may see a very different agenda between the Democratic National Committee, and that of the Alabama State Democratic Party.

Such division within a party (any party) can lead to difficulty in taking swift partisan action against the rival party. In recent days, we witnessed the more "moderate" Republican Senators back the Democratic stimulus bill. Obviously, the three Senators come from the more left-leaning north east, where the states in the 2008 election voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, and resulted in all of New England being ridded of any Republicans serving in the House of Representatives. Again, this decentralization shows the differences, when we see that although Republican House members were completely rejected in the region, Susan Collins (one of the Republican Senators who crossed the aisle to support the stimulus) was reelected by the state of Maine in 2008. Had the Republican party not been decentralized by the "big tent" that each party serves, they would have been able to stifle the Democrats agenda.

More than ever, we witnessed the effects of decentralized parties in the 2008 presidential election. For Republicans, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, swept most of the southern "bible-belt" states, while John McCain easily was handed most of the eastern states, and Mitt Romney won most of the western states (possibly due to his religious alliance.)

This polarized nature within a political party, with each candidate having their own agenda under the guise of being a Democrat or Republican, greatly affects the outcomes of electoral politics. 

For Democrats, having two very viable candidates split the party in two resulted in a very divisive primary process. State by state, and region by region, the party was divided between the two front runners. In the end, the Barack Obama won the primary battle, and yet, still faced opposition from his own party from faithful Hillary supporters (this resulted in the "PUMA" movement - Party Unity My Ass.)

Currently, the Democratic Party is under the control of Barack Obama. Historically, we see control of the party go to the sitting president of that party (in this case, Obama.) In addition, picking a new chairman traditionally goes to the decision of the president, if the party's nominee wins the election. In this case, Obama hand picked Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to be the new chairman after Howard Dean stepped aside. 

For Republicans, it was up to the party to pick its own future. The committee, after much debate and decision making, chose Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland. How these decisions will unfold has yet to be seen, as the new leaders were only recently chosen. It is up to these leaders of the party (Obama/Kaine and Steele) to determine where to take the party, what the party platform shall be, the campaign strategy for its immediate future, and how to combat the opposition. These choices absolutely have great importance, as they are the leaders of the two major political parties in the United States. Although these parties are rather decentralized, the overall platform can still be seen, and the difference between the two parties seems to grow stronger year after year.

Senate Democrats Emerge Victorious in Stimulus Battle

Today, the United States Senate passed a measure to take the next step in providing economic recovery to Americans, and put a stop to the downturn.

The Senate passed the stimulus bill 61-37, one more vote than needed to move the bill into a conference committee to resolve the differences between the House ($819 billion) and Senate ($838 billion) versions. The House, which passed the bill through its chamber without a single Republican vote, had provided more money for education and funding to go directly to the states. Senate Republicans felt that the stimulus was too large, and called it "littered with pork." President Obama, in his first prime time network press conference last night, insisted that there is not a single earmark in the bill, and such programs as "greening government buildings" was unfairly being branded as "wasteful spending."

With a majority in the Senate, but shy of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster by the opposing party, the Democrats were forced to make concessions on some programs which they deemed mandatory in order to coerce moderate Republicans to join the Democrats in passing the bill. After much deliberation, they reached a solution by trimming billions from the plan. The three Republicans who crossed the aisle were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. With their support, the measure passed with one more vote than needed, and will now go into conference. With only three Republicans voting in favor, can it really be called a "bipartisan effort"? On paper, yes. In reality, no.

It is a unique situation, considering that only four to six years ago, the Republicans had commanding control of both chambers of Congress, and worked to stifle any efforts the Democrats made to have a dissenting opinion that would affect their legislative agenda. Now, with the situation reversed, the Republicans face a tough challenge in stalling any efforts the Democrats make in pushing through their chosen legislation. Speculation reigned for quite some time on how the balance of power would play in Congress, and this particular situation gives quite a good answer: the Republicans in Congress do not have the power they once had, and their ability to stop Democrats is minimal, if not closer to none.

What makes a "political party" exactly that?

In order to fully define a "political party," we can look at the actions of the two dominant "political parties" in America, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and see what activities they engage, and use their functionality as a model. Each group has a core platform (a set of beliefs and values to which they abide), a hierarchal structure in both the party itself and the body in which it serves, an ability to raise funds and campaign, and activity in governance.

However, it does not require a massive, country-wide organization in order to be considered a "political party." Take for instance, Hamas in the Middle East. In the past, they were nothing more than a terrorist organization. Regardless of their activity, they supplied their own people and neighborhoods with food, water, shelter and jobs. After some time, there were democratic elections in the region of Gaza, and Hamas ran for the open seats. The people elected Hamas into the government, and suddenly, Hamas went from being a terrorist organization to a valid and recognized political party.

There are many interest groups in America, each with their own agenda. Historically, they have never been considered "political parties," mainly because they do not hold public office. As an example, what if the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union sought public office? At the same time, he announced that he was a member of the "ACLU Party." The organization is in place, and the leadership is already structured. Now, if that individual wins the seat he/she seeks, there would be one seat in Congress that belongs to the "ACLU Party" (pending proper registration with the FEC.) There are dozens of political parties (Green Party, Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, etc.) in America, some stronger and more recognized than others. Regardless of not currently holding any seats in Congress, some have held positions in local government. Closer to home, Milwaukee has been host to Socialist Party mayors in the past.

Overall, it seems to be any organization which seeks some position in government, regardless of what level (local, state, federal.) Once assembled, these organizations not only seek money to raise issue awareness, but also specifically raise money with the purpose of spending it on political campaigns to get their own members elected.