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.