“Why parties”? According to the American political scientist and author John Aldrich, parties are an endogenous institution. Although much recent literature has focused on the decline of parties, and on the resulting loss of a major historical vehicle for aggregating the interests of this diverse republic, parties have always been no more than a tool of the politicians, the ambitious office seekers, and the officeholders. They have maintained or abused the party system when doing so has furthered their goals and ambitions. Politicians do not have partisan goals per se. Rather, they have more fundamental goals, and the party is only the instrument for achieving them. The goals are varied, but the basic goal is to have a long and successful career
…show more content…
Secondly, collective choice: Is the party a useful tool in solving social choice problems (in interactions between electoral, legislative, and executive institutions) that cannot be solved more easily in other …show more content…
Less a theory than a normative doctrine, this is an ideal statement of what makes a good party-a bit outdated today, but typical of political science in its earlier years.
Parties as Electoral Aids. Competition for office is the "singular, defining characteristic of the major American political party" (12). The goal of politicians is office-the party is a team used to get office. It's there for coordination to get the victory. Thus, healthier systems have more competition. People in this school argue against the "decline of parties" thesis--because both parties are still able to compete quite well. This is an economic view of democracy--parties present competing policies in order to get reelection, so an "invisible hand" leads to good government.
In the first part of his book “Why Parties”, Aldrich analyzes political party development between 1790 and 1860. He studies the formation of the Federalist and Republicans parties, the construction of the mass party during Jacksonian years, as well as the characteristics of Democrats, Whigs and Republicans. Aldrich shows how political parties of the first party system were institutional arrangements that helped to solve the social choice problem caused by "the great principle", which refers to the discussion about the extension and scope of the federal government. The mass party that characterized the second party system was an institutional outcome that politicians employed to resolve the collective action
Secondly, collective choice: Is the party a useful tool in solving social choice problems (in interactions between electoral, legislative, and executive institutions) that cannot be solved more easily in other …show more content…
Less a theory than a normative doctrine, this is an ideal statement of what makes a good party-a bit outdated today, but typical of political science in its earlier years.
Parties as Electoral Aids. Competition for office is the "singular, defining characteristic of the major American political party" (12). The goal of politicians is office-the party is a team used to get office. It's there for coordination to get the victory. Thus, healthier systems have more competition. People in this school argue against the "decline of parties" thesis--because both parties are still able to compete quite well. This is an economic view of democracy--parties present competing policies in order to get reelection, so an "invisible hand" leads to good government.
In the first part of his book “Why Parties”, Aldrich analyzes political party development between 1790 and 1860. He studies the formation of the Federalist and Republicans parties, the construction of the mass party during Jacksonian years, as well as the characteristics of Democrats, Whigs and Republicans. Aldrich shows how political parties of the first party system were institutional arrangements that helped to solve the social choice problem caused by "the great principle", which refers to the discussion about the extension and scope of the federal government. The mass party that characterized the second party system was an institutional outcome that politicians employed to resolve the collective action