PC\|MAC



8

Political Parties

π Chapter Overview

In his farewell address, President George Washington warned against the growing influence of political parties. From his perspective, parties represented a threat to democracy in the United States. But in spite of his caution, political parties today play a central role in American democracy. In this chapter, we analyze the role of political parties in American politics. We begin by outlining the functions that parties perform in American democracy. Then we explore the significance of party identification. We describe how parties are organized in the United States, and evaluate how well parties generally implement their platforms. Next, we examine the historical evolution of political parties in the United States. We conclude by evaluating the role of third parties in the American political system, and determine why the two-party system has persisted. By the end of the chapter, students should have a good understanding of the role of political parties in American politics.

π Lecture Suggestions

Identify the functions that political parties perform in American democracy.

LECTURE 1: Traditionally, political scientists have praised parties as indispensable to democratic government. Political parties in the United States have lost their preeminent position as instruments of democracy.

▪ In theory, political parties function in a democracy to organize majorities around broad principles of government in order to win public office and enact these principles into law. This is often referred to as the “responsible parties” model.

▪ However, the responsible party model never accurately described the American party system.

▪ Despite incentives for the parties to move to the center of the political spectrum, the Republican and Democratic parties are perceived by the public as ideologically separate.

▪ Over time, the traditional role of political parties has gradually eroded. Particularly in presidential elections, where the candidates are often able to out-fundraise the party, the role of parties has declined. Today, parties play only a limited role in campaign organization and finance.

▪ Americans seem to prefer divided party government. Divided government refers to a situation in which one party controls the executive branch while the other party controls one or both houses of the legislative branch.

LECTURE 2: Why don’t we have a party system based on principles, with a liberal party and a conservative party, each offering the voters a real ideological choice? An engaging lecture can be developed around this question using the Median Voter Theorem.

▪ Let’s assume that voters generally choose the party closest to their own ideological position. If the liberal party took a strong ideological position to the left of most voters, the conservative party would move toward the center, winning more moderate votes, even while retaining its conservative supporters, who would still prefer it to the more liberal opposition party. Likewise, if the conservative party took a strong ideological position to the right of most voters, the liberal party would move to the center and win.

▪ The consequence of this is that both parties must abandon strong ideological positions and move to the center, becoming moderate in the fight for support of moderate voters.

▪ In practice, however, the question is more complicated. George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, led by Karl Rove, tended to focus more on the mobilization of the party’s existing voters rather than capturing the median voter. In this case, Rove’s strategy diverged from the median voter theorem.

LECTURE 3: Despite the erosion of many of their functions, America’s political parties survive as the principal institutions for organizing elections.

▪ Party nominations organize electoral choice by narrowing the field of aspiring office seekers to the Democratic and Republican candidates.

▪ In some elections, there are no party nominations and all candidates run without an official party label. These are generally referred to as nonpartisan elections, and are common only in local elections, for city council, county commission, school board, judgeships, and so on.

LECTURE 4: Differentiate between competing types of party nominating processes.

▪ The caucus was the earliest nominating process; party leaders (party chairs, elected officials, and “bosses”) would simply meet several months before the election and decide on the party’s nominee.

▪ Since the Progressive Era reforms, however, primary elections have largely replaced conventions as the means of selecting the Democratic and Republican nominees for public office. There are different types of primaries.

□ Closed primaries allow only voters who have previously registered as Democrats or Republicans (or in some states, voters who choose to register as Democrats or Republicans on primary election day) to cast a ballot in their chosen party’s primary.

□ Open primaries allow voters to choose on election day which party primary they wish to participate in.

□ Some states hold a runoff primary when no candidate receives a majority or a designated percentage of the vote in the party’s first primary election.

▪ Some states continue to hold party caucuses. A caucus is a meeting of party members, usually to select delegates to state or national party conventions.

▪ Following the parties’ selections of their nominees, the general election (held in November, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday for presidential and most state elections) determines who will occupy elective office.

LECTURE 5: American political parties are nothing like parties around the world.

▪ Instead of having hierarchical organizations run from the top down, American parties are a loose organization of smaller parties, campaign committees, candidates and officeholders moving in the same general direction. Many times the goals are similar, but the way to get there is different; other times the journey is the same, but the ultimate goals are different.

▪ How do you become a member of an American political party? You do not pay dues and get a membership card normally, but you can do that. Most people just vote for that party more often than not. In some cases all you do is vote in that party’s primary. For most people, it is identifying with one party over another.

▪ Since American parties are candidate oriented, the national parties have very little power. They do NOT control candidate nomination or the flow of money to candidates. (Both are crucial for control.)

Determine the significance of party identification in America today.

LECTURE 1: Party identification is determined by response to the question, “Generally speaking, how would you identify yourself: as a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or something else?”

▪ For many years, the Democratic Party enjoyed a substantial lead in party identification among voters.

▪ This Democratic lead eroded in the late 1960s as more people began to identify themselves as Independents. Independent identification suggests that many voters have become disillusioned with both parties.

LECTURE 2: Differentiate between the profile of the strongest Democratic and Republican Party supporters.

▪ Strongest Republican supporters are white, conservative Christians, businesspeople, people in rural areas and those with high incomes.

▪ Strongest Democrat supporters are African-American, Jews, non-Cuban Hispanics, secular persons, those with graduate education, union households and those with lower incomes.

LECTURE 3: Contrast the political ideologies of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

▪ Political ideology is a coherently organized set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of a good society and the role government ought to play in achieving it. On the one hand, they need to have a pure ideology for their political faithful; on the other hand they need to moderate their ideology to appeal to as many moderates as possible.

▪ Republicans oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, extensive regulations on business, higher taxes and generous social programs. Democrats are for all these things.

▪ The basic philosophies of each party are becoming much clearer to most Americans. Republicans oppose active government and prefer a more reactive government. Democrats would like a proactive government.

▪ We find that party platforms and party activists are very much married to the core beliefs and ideologies of their parties. There is significant division within both parties.

□ Liberal: The political position, combining both economic and social dimensions, that holds that the federal government has a substantial role to play in economic regulation, social welfare, and overcoming racial inequality; that abortion and stem-cell research should be legal; and the civil rights of gays and racial minorities protected.

□ Conservative: The political position, combing both economic and social dimensions, that holds that the federal government ought to play a very small role in economic regulation, social welfare, and overcoming racial inequality; that abortion should be illegal; and that family values and law and order should guide public policies.

LECTURE 4: The Making of a New Party. Begin by noting that while many of the old political patterns seem to be wearing a bit thin, the country is faced with unprecedented problems. After a recitation of the difficult problems facing the nation, you can suggest that a new political party is needed.

▪ For illustrative purposes, the instructor can choose either a party of the right or the left, or one of his/her own design. For example, he/she can follow the thinking of William A. Rusher, who believes that there must be a realignment of conservatives that make up a significant percentage of the American electorate. The Gallup Survey, for example, has found over the past two decades that at least half of those surveyed identify themselves as conservative. Hence, according to Rusher, there is need for a new majority party.

▪ Such a party would consist of a coalition of both economic and social conservatives agreeing upon a range of issues from the virtues of hard work and traditional family values to the need for a strong defense and a suspicion of the United Nations. (Keep in mind Ronald Reagan’s attempt to apply this formula, Newt Gingrich’s successful strategy in the 1994 congressional elections, and George Bush’s successful reelection campaign in 2004.)

▪ At the other end of the political spectrum, there are numerous voices calling for a more radical party, especially one with strong socialist underpinnings. These individuals bemoan the oligarchical character of corporate capitalism, the inability of capitalism to solve pressing economic problems, and the press of the military-industrial complex for greater and greater expenditures for defense and a stronger military stance.

▪ You can then outline the difficulties new parties typically face, including getting on the ballot in fifty states, qualifying for federal matching funds, having to set up a party infrastructure state-by-state, and not having a national convention as a launching pad.

LECTURE 5: An increasing number of writers assert that the two-party system has seen its best days and may be quickly moving toward its demise. Use David Broder’s classic text The Party’s Over, to outline this argument.

▪ Broder argues that our present party system does not initiate and sustain needed programs or mobilize broad support for important issues. He also notes that because our political parties are “flabby,” the American people have been looking more and more to the president for programs and leadership. Finally, Broder, like others, noted that the disintegration of the two parties can be seen in, among other things, split-ticket voting, the rise of the number of independents, and the growing trend toward the utilization of third parties.

▪ One could argue that the Ross Perot phenomenon of 1992 (and to a lesser extent in 1996), along with the Ralph Nader candidacy of 2000, brought out some of these points. The public wanted a strong leader, a savior, independent of existing political parties, offering strong, forceful, take-charge leadership. However, the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2004 and 2008 attracted little interest. Other politicians were seen as craven pawns of partisanship and special interests.

▪ After making a strong case for the complete decomposition of political parties, you could turn the argument around and assert that parties may stage a comeback. In The Dynamics of Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States, James L. Sundquist suggests that the erosion of parties will be checked in the short run, and that a re-identification of party loyalties may likely occur. Sundquist asserts that a party system is always thrown into disarray during periods of massive social change. When these periods pass, however, parties become more relevant and attachments to them become stronger.

▪ The success of the Republican Party in the 1994 elections, followed by the comeback election of Democrats to majorities in Congress in 2008, may be a signal of this happening.

▪ Moreover, the enduring value of the parties organizationally can be seen by the rise and fall, and then rise of the Perot candidacy. When the candidate folded, the movement folded; when he reentered the fray, the movement reemerged. Perot’s failure to establish a stable organization that recruited candidates for other offices caused the movement to flounder. A party, on the other hand, is not subject to the whims of a single individual, even if that person is the president.

Describe how political parties are organized in the United States.

LECTURE 1: Political parties in the United States tend to be decentralized and fragmented. While the national party office may attempt to influence party operations at state and local levels, regional party organizations have considerable autonomy.

▪ In some ways, it is more accurate to think of national parties as a loose conglomeration of state parties, which are themselves comprised of individuals, groups, and local organizations that operate with a high degree of autonomy.

▪ Some states, like Pennsylvania, have a centralized state organization with considerable staff and stable financing. Others, like California, are far less organized and are more underfunded. There, individual political leaders often play a more important role than the party.

LECTURE 2: Political scientists generally differentiate three political arenas in which political parties operate. Outline these for your students.

▪ There is, first of all, the party-in-the-electorate—the voters who identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans and who tend to vote for the candidates of their party.

▪ The second locus of party activity is the party-in-the-government—officials who received their party’s nomination and won the general election.

▪ There is the party organization—national and state party officials and workers, committee members, convention delegates, and others active in the party.

LECTURE 3: Political scientists in the 1950s developed a theory to help define political parties to a greater extent. This theory is known as the tripartite view of parties. This view states that parties have three interrelated elements: party-in-government (PIG), party-in-the-electorate (PIE), and party organization (PO).

▪ Politicians elected under the same political banner fall under the group of party-in-government. Politicians are further divided by the branch of government in which they serve. Most elected officials will vote with their parties. This has created an increasingly polarized Congress, which some fear will make moderate policies harder to achieve, while others believe this simply gives voters an easier choice on Election Day.

▪ Average citizens become part of the party-in-the-electorate when they claim an affiliation with a political party. Straight ticket voters are those who always vote for the same party. Split ticket or swing voters change their allegiances from election to election. Still others claim no allegiance and are considered independents. Some people measure PIE by those who are officially registered in a specific party and take part in primaries or party activities.

LECTURE 4: Functions of political parties are split into two types: Overt (visible and measurable) and latent (functions we hope that they will provide).

▪ Parties organize the election process by selecting nominees and helping the public to make informed decisions.

▪ Parties will also often recruit, screen, and help potential candidates.

▪ Political parties seek to raise public engagement and educate the public about their candidates.

▪ Finally, they help to bring organization to a complex government, ensure the accountability of its members, and hold social functions.

LECTURE 5: The Democratic and Republican parties are showcased every 4 years at the national party convention. The official purpose of these 4-day fun-filled events is the nomination of the presidential candidates and their vice-presidential running mates. Explain the purpose and functions of the national party conventions.

▪ The presidential choices have usually already been made in the parties’ presidential primaries and caucuses earlier in the year.

▪ Convention Delegates: Convention delegates are generally party activists, ideologically motivated and strongly committed to their presidential candidates.

▪ Making Party Rules: National party conventions make rules for the party, including rules governing the selection of delegates at the next party convention.

▪ Party Platforms: National conventions also write party platforms, setting out the party’s goals and policy positions.

▪ Selecting a Running Mate: Perhaps the only suspense remaining in national party conventions centers on the presidential nominee’s choice of a vice-presidential running mate.

▪ Campaign Kickoff: The presidential nominee’s acceptance speech tries to set the tone for the fall campaign.

Evaluate how well political parties generally do in carrying out their promises.

LECTURE 1: Voters are usually attracted to a particularly party because of the promises and issues it advances in its platform.

▪ An engaging lecture can begin by contrasting the two parties’ platforms, which are available on their respective websites.

▪ Then discuss the reasons why parties outline particular promises and how they are or are not effective in achieving those goals. Some historical examples of each include:

□ In the 1964 campaign, President Lyndon Johnson promised he would not “send American boys to do an Asian boy’s job.” Despite these promises, he significantly expanded the U.S. military presence in Vietnam.

□ In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to balance the U.S. budget in his first term. Despite this promise, he quickly ran up huge deficits.

□ However, President Reagan also kept his promise to increase defense spending and cut social spending.

□ Similarly, President Bill Clinton promised to support a number of measures during his first term, including expanding family leave, making voter registration processes easier, and tightening gun control laws.

LECTURE 2: Examine some of the formal structures of parties as political institutions.

▪ National Party Structure—The Democratic and Republican national party conventions possess formal authority over the parties.

▪ State Party Organizations—State party organizations consist of a state committee, a state chair who heads the committee, and a staff working at the state capital.

▪ Legislative Party Structures—The parties organize the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and they organize most state legislatures as well.

▪ County Committees—The nation’s 3,000 Republican and 3,000 Democratic county chairs probably constitute the most important building blocks of party organization in the nation.

LECTURE 3: Traditionally, one of the benefits of being the winning candidate in an election was that you could exercise your patronage privileges; that is, you could “clean house,” firing certain people and replacing them with your political buddies. But in two modern decisions, the Supreme Court has sharply curtailed governmental power to dismiss non-civil service employees on party allegiance grounds under traditional patronage systems.

▪ The process began with Elrod v. Burns (1976). In that case, the Court held that a newly elected Democratic sheriff could not discharge several Republican employees, three process servers, and a juvenile court bailiff. The plurality opinion relied on First Amendment principles to conclude that patronage dismissals must be limited to “policy-making positions.” Justice Stewart’s concurrence pursued a narrower analysis, concluding that a non-policy-making, non-confidential government employee cannot be discharged from a job that he is satisfactorily performing “upon the sole ground of his political beliefs.”

▪ Four years later, in Branti v. Finkel (1980), the Supreme Court reconsidered patronage systems and expanded the immunity of non-civil service employees from patronage dismissals. At issue in the case was the firing of two Republican county public defenders by a new Democratic head of the public defender’s office. The Court held that the proper test is whether the government can demonstrate that party affiliation “is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.”

□ Applying that test, the Court said that when it comes to public defenders at least, employment cannot hinge on allegiance to the dominant political party. Justice Stephens said that party affiliation may be a valid issue for some “policy-making or confidential positions,” but he did not elaborate.

□ The most interesting opinion is Justice Powell’s dissent, which emphasized that patronage appointments “helped build stable political parties” and that the importance of political parties is self-evident. Powell concluded that “the effect of the Court’s decision will be to decrease the accountability and denigrate the role of our national political parties.”

▪ Consider these questions in light of the controversy over the firings of U.S. district attorneys during the administration of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general prior to the 2006 midterm elections. The subsequent investigation found evidence of political factors such as pushing for investigation of Democratic candidates for office in several states by top officials in the Justice Department. While federal district attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, should the president be able to use such appointees to pursue political agendas? Should there be limits on the power of the president in this area?

Differentiate the various party eras in American history.

LECTURE 1: Trace the evolution of the political parties in the United States over the course of American history.

▪ The Emergence of Parties: Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.

□ Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and their supporters called themselves Federalists after their leaders’ outspoken defense of the Constitution during the ratification process.

□ By the 1790s, Jefferson and Madison, as well as many Anti-Federalists who had initially opposed the ratification of the Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans or Democratic-Republicans, terms that had become popular after the French Revolution in 1789.

□ Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party first saw the importance of organizing voters, circulating literature, and rallying the masses to their causes.

▪ Andrew Jackson led his supporters to found a new party, the Democratic Party, to organize popular support for his 1828 presidential bid. At the same time, Jackson’s opponents formed the Whig Party, named after the British party of that name.

□ The new party system that emerged from the Civil War featured a victorious Republican Party that generally represented the northern industrial economy.

□ It also included a struggling Democratic Party that generally represented a southern agricultural economy.

▪ At the GOP (“Grand Old Party,” as the Republicans began labeling themselves) convention, party regulars rejected the unpredictable Roosevelt in favor of Taft, even though Roosevelt had won the few primary elections that had recently been initiated.

□ The New Deal Democratic Party. By 1932, a majority New Deal Democratic coalition had been formed in American politics consisting of the following groups:

o Working classes and union members, especially in large cities.

o White ethnic groups who had previously aligned themselves with Republican machines.

o Catholics and Jews.

o African Americans, who ended their historic affiliation with the party of Lincoln to pursue new economic and social goals.

o Poor people, who associated the New Deal with expanded welfare and Social Security programs.

o Southern whites, who had provided the most loyal block of Democratic voters since the Civil War.

▪ The American political system underwent massive convulsions in the late 1960s as a result of both the civil rights revolution at home and an unpopular war in Vietnam.

▪ Since the 1980s, the American political party system has seen a number of important changes.

□ Under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party was able to assemble a majority coalition that dominated presidential elections in the 1980s, giving Reagan landslide victories in 1980 and 1984 and George H. W. Bush a convincing win in 1988.

□ During the 1980s, Democratic leaders among governors and senators came together in the Democratic Leadership Council to create a “new” Democratic Party closer to the center of the political spectrum. The election of Bill Clinton as President represented the new Democratic Party.

□ A political earthquake shook Washington in the 1994 congressional elections, when the Republicans for the first time in 40 years captured the House of Representatives, regained control of the Senate, and captured a majority of the nation’s governorships.

▪ More recently, the party system has continued to be in flux.

□ In the 2000 presidential election, the nation was closely divided. After a month-long battle for Florida’s electoral vote, Republican George W. Bush, former Texas governor and son of the former President Bush, emerged as the winner of the Electoral College vote, 271 to 267.

□ During this election, the GOP further consolidated its control over the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.

□ By 2006, the Democrats started to recover. The war in Iraq undermined the Republican Party’s hold on congressional voters in 2006.

□ Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 marked a historic and decisive sweep. Obama led his party to control of the House, Senate, and White House, creating unified Democratic Party control of the federal government for the first time since 1994.

□ This control, however, was short lived. In the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans regained control of the House, and the Democratic majority in the Senate fell below the critical 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.

LECTURE 2: Early leaders feared the emergence of political parties.

▪ Early parties included the Federalists, who wanted a strong national government, and the Jeffersonians (known as Democratic-Republicans), who feared a strong national government.

▪ The War of 1812 temporarily ended party politics and brought about the Era of Good Feelings, which lasted from 1815–1824. The electoral deadlock of 1824, which many believed ended with a corrupt bargain, ended this era.

▪ The corrupt bargain sparked the emergence of a new political party known as the Whigs. The Democratic Party formed out of the National Republican Party. These parties asked the average citizen to take an active role in political life. Political parties avoided the issue of slavery until the formation of the Republican Party in 1854. At the close of the Civil War, the Republican Party was identified with industrial interests in the Northeast, and the Democrats were aligned with white southerners.

▪ Politics at the turn of the century were corrupt. Muckrakers exposed this corruption and helped to push for reforms. The Great Depression of the 1930s and the growth of suburbs following World War II helped to end individual dependence on political machines. Turbulence during the 1960s was often blamed on failures of political parties. Political candidates began to distance themselves from parties. The candidate-centered era began, with candidates pushing themselves as individuals.

LECTURE 3: There have been seven major eras of party alignment, where one party became dominant. Examine three of the more recent eras with your students.

▪ The New Deal Party Era began during the Great Depression after Franklin D. Roosevelt took office. This Democratic dominance ran from 1934 to 1964. This alliance was built on the coalition of workers, Catholics, Jews, unionists, small and medium farmers, urban dwellers, white ethnics, southerners and blacks. The idea was to expand government and create safety nets.

▪ The Dealignment Era began with the disintegration of the New Deal Party in the 1968 election. Three things brought this about: 1) the Civil Rights movement, which caused many southern white and blue collar workers to switch sides, 2) the acceptance of feminists, gays and lesbians caused many religiously conservative whites to move to the Republican party, and 3) Democratic opposition to the war in Vietnam turned away many who supported the military. This dealignment subsided by the mid-1990s.

▪ The Parties at War Era began in the mid-1990s because of two developments: 1) sweeping Republican victories in the 1994 midterm elections got them control of Congress, and 2) the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. By the 2000 election 1/3 of voting electorate was Republican, 1/3 Democrat and 1/3 independent. The war continues as Democrats won big in 2006 and 2008, lost big in 2010, and saw mixed results in 2012.

LECTURE 4: Explain why a two-party system has dominated American politics, whereas most modern democracies have a multi-party system. Describe in some detail the difference between proportional representation and single-member, simple plurality voting. There are other reasons that could be discussed for why the United States, unlike most other democracies, has developed and retained a two-party system.

▪ Historical Factors: American history has basically been one of duality. Two groups, for whatever reasons, have dominated most of U.S. history.

□ Early on in the history of the republic, a major division was whether or not to declare independence (Whigs and Tories).

□ The next significant issue was the writing of the Constitution. Here, two groups developed at the Constitutional Convention: confederationists (states rightists) and nationalists.

□ Once the Constitution was written, the nation divided over ratification: Federalists (for ratification) and Anti-Federalists (against ratification).

□ When the first parties developed, it was into two: Democratic-Republicans versus Federalists. Probably the most significant issue dividing the nation was slavery: North versus South.

□ After the Civil War, the division was primarily between farm (rural) interests and industrial (urban) interests.

□ Finally, in recent decades a major division written about a great deal is that between the Frostbelt (industrial Midwest and Northeast) and the Sunbelt (South and West). Thus, most of the great issues that divide the United States have resulted in two groups.

▪ Consensus: A marked difference between the United States and most other democracies is the strong agreement as to what “issues” are debatable and which are considered settled.

□ For example, no serious candidate for national office in the U.S. seeks to debate the need to write a new Constitution. The same could basically be said for the place of public education, separation of church and state, and capitalism. These issues are considered “settled.” Although some people, and even candidates, may raise questions over such issues, they are generally not taken seriously.

□ Such is not the case in many other democracies around the world. In many of these democracies, there is serious discussion over whether or not a new constitution is needed or just what type of economic system is desired. Some have Christian parties and blend religion with politics. These issues are alive and being seriously discussed in some countries.

□ One result of this difference is that parties in America are not “cross-cut” with a variety of significant issues. The parties agree about many significant issues. Their differences are more about the means rather than the ends. In other democracies, there exist not only differences over means but the ends themselves. Thus, there are significantly more issues “cross-cutting” each significant issue, with the resulting proliferation of groups and parties.

▪ The Media: Some see a bias in the U.S. media toward the major parties. Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, for example, are covered routinely by the evening news. Third-party and independent candidates are given little, if any, coverage. Only a billionaire like Ross Perot, so the criticism goes, can make any headway into challenging the major party candidates because he is capable of purchasing expensive media time, primarily television. In their defense, the media argue that it does not cover third parties because they are not serious challengers and thus not newsworthy. Third-party candidates claim that this places them in a catch-22. They don’t get covered by the media because they are not newsworthy, but they are not newsworthy because they are not covered by the media. In any event, it is a fact that most of the news coverage goes to the Democratic and Republican candidates.

▪ Rules of the Game: As mentioned earlier, the authors highlight the bias for the two-party system in the single-member, simple plurality rule.

□ One might want to introduce Maurice Duverger and his theory connecting the number of parties with the electoral system. Duverger theorizes that countries that have the “single member, simple plurality” system encourage a two-party system while proportional representation encourages multiparty systems.

□ Beyond this important explanation there are others. In every state, the Democratic or Republican nominee for office automatically gets printed on the ballot. Third-party and independent candidates must earn a place on the ballot. This usually means collecting thousands of signatures, sometimes with strict standards as to how and where they are collected. Each state can also develop other rules that discourage third parties. They might, for example, stipulate that for a vote for a third-party candidate to count, the voter must list the name of the candidate’s electors on the ballot.

□ In 1968, George Wallace ran for president as an American Independent Party candidate. He claimed he spent more money on lawyer’s fees challenging state laws to get on the ballot than he did campaigning. The same held true for John Anderson in 1980. Though he was more successful than Wallace at overturning state ballot access laws, the time he spent in the courthouse severely distracted him from his grassroots effort.

□ In contrast, the Ross Perot effort in 1992 overcame the various state ballot access requirements. As the most successful third-party or independent presidential candidate since Teddy Roosevelt’s unsuccessful Bull Moose pursuit, Perot possessed the resources to establish state directors and volunteers to garner the needed signatures to get on the ballot.

□ In 2000 and 2004, Ralph Nader had the same problem with fulfilling access requirements.

□ Election rules are written mostly by state legislatures (with some federal laws). State legislatures and Congress are dominated by Democrats and Republicans. It is not surprising that the rules they write into law tend to discourage third-party and independent candidates. A good example of this at the national level is the 1974 Campaign Finance Reform Act. This law was the first to provide public financing for presidential candidates. It allowed for each presidential candidate to get $10 million (increased every four years to take inflation into account) in tax money in the pre-nomination phase of the campaign. Once a candidate was nominated, it provided for $20 million (again, subject to inflation increase) to be given to a nominee. In both instances, however, the law stipulated the money for the major parties only. Third parties and independents could get public money under the law but only after the election, and only if they got at least five percent of the popular vote, after which their funds would be prorated based on the major party vote.

▪ Inertia: A body in motion tends to stay in motion—so states the law of inertia. The same could be said of a two-party system. Once in place, it tends to stay in place. Why? For all of the reasons listed above and one more. Political socialization may also play a role. The fact is that parents who are Democrats tend to raise children who identify with the Democratic Party; likewise for Republicans. Since those two parties have dominated most of American history since the Civil War, they tend to perpetuate themselves.

LECTURE 5: Explain dealignment and realignment in the United States.

▪ Dealignment describes the decline in attractiveness of the political parties to the voters, the growing reluctance of people to identify themselves with either party, and a decrease in reliance on a candidate’s party affiliation in voter choice.

▪ Despite the decline in partisan identification in the electorate, it is important to note that party identification is a strong influence in voter choice in elections.

▪ Realignment: Although Democratic Party loyalty has eroded over the last 30 years, it is not clear whether or not this erosion is a classic party realignment.

▪ Red States, Blue States. Sectionalism is evident in the strength of the Republican Party in the mountain, plains, and southern states. The Democratic Party is increasingly bicoastal.

LECTURE 6: Students often say that there is no real difference between the two major parties. Are they correct? The answer is yes and no. An engaging lecture can be developed around this question.

▪ Frank Sorauf, in Party Politics in America, divided the two major national parties into three groups: party in electorate, party in organization, and party in government.

□ The party in electorate for the two major parties does not differ that much.

□ The party in organization and party in government for each major party do differ. This can be clearly seen from studies of the views of delegates attending the national conventions (party in organization) and the views of those holding public office (party in government).

□ Perhaps the most recognized document that distinguishes the parties from each other is the party platform, drafted every four years.

▪ Finally, for those who believe that party platforms were made to be broken, Gerald Pomper’s study of platforms showed that what a party says it believes in matters. He examined the major party platforms from 1944 to 1976 and concluded that about two-thirds of platform pledges are carried out.

Assess both the impact of third parties on American politics and their limitations.

LECTURE 1: Despite the cultural and electoral barriers to victory, third parties—more accurately called minor parties—are a common feature of American politics. Differentiate between the various types of minor parties.

▪ Ideological parties exist to promote an ideology rather than to win elections.

▪ Protest parties arise around popular issues or concerns that the major parties have failed to address.

▪ Single-issue parties have frequently formed around a particular cause.

▪ Many third parties in American politics are really splinter parties, parties formed by a dissatisfied faction of a major party. Many Americans feel disgusted with “politics as usual,” viewing both the Democratic and Republican parties as ineffective, unprincipled, and even corrupt. Such voters may support an “anti-party party.”

▪ In the United States, support for the general idea of a third party has never been matched by voter support for specific third-party or Independent presidential candidates. Consequently third parties have tended to play only a minor role in American politics.

LECTURE 2: Though many political scientists claim they are needed to serve as a check and balance on the two-party system, there have been many reasons for their failure at the ballot box. Besides the historical dualism and political culture, which advances the two-party system, institutional barriers play a significant role in hindering the success of these political vehicles at the local, state, and federal levels. They are as follows:

▪ Ballot access requirements

▪ Federal financing of campaigns

▪ Single-member, winner-take-all electoral districts

▪ Biased media coverage

▪ Issue cooptation

▪ The electoral college

▪ Here is a good opportunity to discuss Perot’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns, as well as Ralph Nader’s 2000/2004 Green Party/Independent presidential pursuits. Maybe George Wallace was right when he called the Republican and Democratic parties “Tweedledee and Tweedledum.” Regardless, third parties raise issues and offer voters an additional selection at the ballot box—if they are fortunate enough to get on the ballot!

LECTURE 3: Unlike other nations, the U.S. has one of the best two-party systems, but why does it stay that way?

▪ The electoral rules of the U.S. make it easier for the two parties to stay in control. Unlike other nations, the U.S. does not have proportional representation.

▪ The U.S. does not delegate power to everyone based on the popular vote. In the United States, all the power goes to the majority, or plural, winner. Whoever gets the most votes gets all the power. This is sometimes referred to as the “first past the post” system. Basically, this type of system restricts minor parties from participating as much.

▪ Ballot access rules also vary across states, with some states limiting ballot access to smaller parties.

▪ The federal government provides financial support for political parties that receive at least five percent of the national vote. However, because smaller parties often struggle to meet the 5% threshold for public funding, they are often ineligible for receiving federal funding.

▪ The media also reinforces the two-party system by focusing attention on the two parties and excluding smaller parties from coverage. In presidential election years, for example, presidential debates usually only involve the candidates from the two largest parties, and those debates which include third party candidates usually receive little media coverage.

LECTURE 4: In the United States, third parties often have difficulty gaining traction with the electorate. Only one minor party has become a major party: The Republicans in 1856. Six have been able to win over 10% of the popular vote, and seven have actually won single states, or more, in our presidential elections. Differentiate with your students the four types of minor parties:

▪ Protest Parties usually grow out of a social movement to put up candidates of their own to contest current policies.

▪ Ideological Parties organize around those with a strong philosophical foundation, like Socialists or the Greens.

▪ Single-Issue Parties have one particular issue that they are concerned about, and they are willing to run candidates for office based on this issue. This is usually the most common form of most minor parties, but also the easiest to disperse. All you have to do is address their issue.

▪ Splinter Parties come about when a major party creates an offshoot based on an argument about policy.

LECTURE 5: Explain why, even though they may not secure political power or elected office, minor parties have an impact on American politics.

▪ Minor parties do serve a purpose. Many times they articulate new ideas for everyone to consider. Ross Perot’s campaign brought up the problem of deficits and debt, so his candidacy helped bring about the surpluses of 1999 and 2000.

▪ Minor parties can also change the outcome of presidential elections by drawing votes away from the candidate who could have won without the minor party challenger. Perot did it in 1992 and 1996. Nader did it in 2000.

Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of responsible party government.

LECTURE 1: The responsible party system argues that parties and candidates should clearly outline their positions and, if elected, seek to carry them out. In order to function, the following conditions must be met:

▪ Parties must offer distinctive and comprehensive programs for governing.

▪ Candidates must be committed to their party’s program.

▪ The majority party must implement its programs, and the minority party must provide an alternative vision to implement if it were in power.

▪ The majority party must accept responsibility for the performance of the government.

▪ Yet the American political system falls short of these conditions.

□ Parties are too decentralized to offer a unified position and implement it.

□ Candidates have incentives to operate relatively independently of the party.

LECTURE 2: There are several ways to define what a political party is.

▪ The pragmatic party model states that parties form to support a candidate under that party’s name in hopes of gaining control of the government.

▪ The responsible party model runs candidates in hopes of influencing public policy during the election.

▪ Political parties differ from interest groups in that they run candidates under their own party name, advocate a variety of positions known as a platform, and are restricted by laws and regulations.

π Class Activities

CLASS ACTIVITY 1: Ask students to discuss the short-term and long-term consequences of the polarization of the two main parties.

▪ Consider using the election maps from to illustrate the geographic distribution of party support in the United States. Contrast recent red-blue patterns with historical patterns.

▪ Then ask your students to develop predictions and explain their reasoning for what the electoral map will look like fifty years from now.

▪ Finally, ask your students to consider the implications of polarization for the U.S. political system, particularly given the multiple veto point structure of the American political system and Madison’s emphasis on compromise in Federalist No. 51.

This activity helps students explore the nature of polarization in U.S. politics and illustrates the challenges posed by polarization in the legislative and policy process.

CLASS ACTIVITY 2: It is generally believed that Americans favor divided party government over a single-party government. An engaging classroom discussion can be built around this tendency.

▪ Why do Americans favor a divided party government? What are the advantages to this type of government? What are the disadvantages?

▪ Is a divided party government more effective than a government with one party in charge of both the executive and legislative branches?

▪ How does the preference for divided government reconcile with increasing polarization in Congress?

▪ Consider using a segment from President Barack Obama’s address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention (watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0), which challenges the idea of polarization.

This activity highlights the challenges of divided government and its relationship to political polarization in the United States.

CLASS ACTIVITY 3: Students often express frustration with the two-party system in the United States. Discussing third parties can therefore provide an engaging point of entry into a wide variety of topics, including electoral systems, political efficacy, and legitimacy. Consider the following questions:

▪ How does the electoral system in the United States favor the development of a two-party system? What is the role of minor parties?

▪ What would need to occur for a viable third party to develop in the United States?

▪ Would American politics be improved by inclusion of a third party? Why or why not?

▪ Alternatively, note how the structural “rules of the game” in American politics include single, plurality, winner-take-all district elections; encourage a two-party system; and make it almost impossible for a minor or third party to win. Have the class discuss whether proportional representation electoral rules (at least in the House of Representatives and state legislatures), which would create a multiparty system, would improve politics and democracy in the United States.

This discussion item explores the challenges faced by small parties in the United States and illustrates how the rules and structure of the American political system make it difficult for small parties to emerge.

CLASS ACTIVITY 4: Ask students whether there is any difference between Republicans and Democrats. Then repeat the question, focusing on specific political issues (e.g., abortion, immigration, gun control, environment, tax policy, etc.) and which social groups identify with each party.

This discussion item gives students an opportunity to explore the political platforms and demographic characteristics of the major political parties in the United States.

CLASS ACTIVITY 5: Collect two political cartoons that make fun of the Republican and Democratic parties. Explain the historical context of the cartoons and indicate whether or not the image in the cartoon is still accurate about the parties today.

▪ Alternatively, ask your students to find political cartoons dealing with parties in the United States. Then ask them to analyze and discuss the cartoons.

This activity explores the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties and examines the evolution of the parties over time.

CLASS ACTIVITY 6: Run a mock party caucus. Assign students to represent various wings of each party and have them debate which issues should be covered in the presidential platform and how they should be covered.

▪ Be sure that the more ideologically extreme wings of the party are represented, to show how the ideological composition of the primary election affects party platforms.

This activity gives students an opportunity to reflect on the dynamics of party caucuses and the role of political parties in national elections.

CLASS ACTIVITY 7: Have students debate the reasons why parties have declined in popularity. In particular, have them draw comparisons between the benefits of membership in an interest group versus the benefits of membership in a political party.

This activity gives students an opportunity to reflect on the role of political parties in American democracy and to explore how that role has changed over time.

CLASS ACTIVITY 8: Ask the students to prepare an impromptu debate over whether at least one house in Congress should be based upon proportional representation. You will need to provide an introductory lecture explaining how PR systems work.

▪ Choose two teams of four students to serve as opposing sides in the debate.

▪ Give them ten minutes to prepare arguments.

▪ Allot total debate time according to the demands of your class schedule.

▪ Ask the remaining students to act as debate judges.

This activity explores the nature of alternative electoral systems (in this case, PR) and their impact on political parties.

CLASS ACTIVITY 9: Divide the class into party groups. Tell each group that they have the funds to run four ads as independent expenditures during the upcoming congressional campaign. Have them craft the four commercials and explain why they further the interests of their party.

This activity gives students an opportunity to reflect on the most pressing electoral issues and to think about how parties select priorities and address issues during the campaign season.

CLASS ACTIVITY 10: Screen the “In the Real World” video for your class. The video asks why Americans only have two party choices—Democrats and Republicans. It provides opinions from an array of real people evaluating the effectiveness of the “winner takes all” electoral system in the United States, and weighing in on whether third parties—such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party—should have more representation in national elections.

▪ After screening the video, have your students debate the proposition that the United States should adopt a proportional representation system electoral system for Congressional elections. One side should argue in favor of a multiparty, PR-based electoral system, and the other should argue against it.

▪ Each side could draw inspiration from the video. However, you may also want them to do additional research outside class, focusing in particular on how proportional systems work and how parties behave differently under a PR-based electoral system.

▪ As an alternative, the video can be used as a lecture starter or as a prompt for a short writing assignment using the questions outlined above.

This activity explores the structural dynamics that facilitate a two-party system in the United States.

π Research Activities

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 1: Ask your students to research the electoral systems of proportional representation and instant runoff voting systems. Then, have them write a short paper contrasting the “first past the post” electoral system used in most of the United States with PR and IRV systems.

▪ For PR-based systems, students may look at Israel or any number of European countries. For IRV, students could explore local elections in San Francisco or Burlington, Vermont, or the Australian electoral system.

▪ Ask students to differentiate between the three systems.

▪ Then ask them to reflect on how the electoral system shapes the relative structure and strength of political parties.

This activity illustrates the connection between the electoral system and party structure and strength.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 2: Investigate the party system of Canada. Try to identify the major features of the political parties in the system in terms of the party-in-the-electorate, the party as organization, and the party-in-government. Briefly describe what you found in comparison to the two-party system in the United States.

This activity helps students differentiate between the various roles and functions of political parties.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 3: Find copies of the most recent national platforms for the two major parties. Compare them on a variety of issues. Next, look at public opinion polls to see how the party positions correspond to those of average Americans. What do you find? Why do you think that is the case?

▪ Consider asking students to develop a crosstab on voter status between the parties, especially on whether or not voters participated in the primary election.

This activity helps students understand how party platforms are shaped, the relative influence of more ideologically driven elements of the party in constructing the party platform, and the difficulties “selling” a strong ideological platform in the general election environment.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 4: Create a family tree of political parties, starting with the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, and concluding with the modern day parties.

▪ Be sure to differentiate between the various elements of this tree, including organizational continuity, ideological position, and political coalitions.

This activity helps students explore how American political parties have evolved historically.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 5: For a reading and writing connection, give students a research assignment where they compare and contrast the role of the parties and their platforms in the 2000 and 2004 elections and in the 1948 election of Harry S. Truman. In particular, ask students to pay special attention to how media, especially television, were used to promote party goals. Because television was still very new in 1948 and was used strategically in 1996 and 1998, the comparisons should result in starkly different images of parties. In addition, students should see the difference between party-centered and candidate-centered campaigns.

This activity highlights the role of the media and the changing nature of “personality” in party politics.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 6: As a library project, ask students to read editorials for a period of several days following Ronald Reagan’s 1980 and 1984 elections. They should have no difficulty in finding a number of articles that speculated on whether or not each was a realigning election. Ask them to write “follow-up” essays reflecting on Bill Clinton’s victories in 1992 and 1996 and on George W. Bush’s wins in 2000 and 2004. Were the journalists correct in describing the early 1980s as a realigning period? Why or why not?

This activity explores the idea of electoral realignment and requires students to analyze several historical elections to apply the concept.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 7: Have students use the Internet to look up state party organizations in three states that have the potential to be different from one another (for example, a Southern state, a New England state, and a Western state). Have them compare the Democratic and Republican parties from these states on a variety of indicators, including issue positions, platforms, and organizations. Are they different? How and why?

This activity illustrates the important regional differences between party organizations and platforms in the United States.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 8: Following the 2012 election, many observers have raised questions about whether or not the Republican Party needs to change as a result of the changing demographics of the American electorate. Specially, they argued that the poor performance of Republicans with single female, Latino, and urban voters makes future electoral success for the party increasingly difficult.

▪ Have students identify the most important demographic changes occurring in the United States, and speculate how these demographics will likely affect electoral politics in the future.

This activity encourages students to reflect on the changing demographics of the United States and to critically assess how those demographics affect party politics.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 9: Which party governs better? Use the infographic from the textbook as the basis for a discussion around the following questions:

▪ How does party affiliation help to explain trust in government? How do Democratic and Republican respondents differ in their view of whether or not government is trustworthy?

▪ What does the survey data presented in the infographic suggest about support for a potential third party in the United States? Why is it so difficult for a third party to emerge if so many respondents suggest a third party is needed?

This discussion item helps to develop data literacy and encourages students to think about the nature of party politics and the structural limitations of third parties in the United States.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 10: Simulation: “You Are a Voter.” Political parties play a major role in American government. They solicit candidates to run for elections, develop party platforms, and reach out to citizens both to inform and to involve them in the democratic process. In the “You Are a Voter” simulation in MyPoliSciLab, you will play the role of a college student involved in a voter awareness campaign to learn about party platforms and how they can help voters make choices.

▪ Have your students complete the simulation and explore the role of political parties in U.S. politics.

▪ Then have them complete the associated quiz in MyPoliSciLab.

▪ As an alternative short writing assessment assignment, ask your students to complete a short response paper in which they discuss the themes raised in the simulation as they relate to the material covered in lecture and the chapter.

This activity helps students distinguish the philosophical and policy differences between the major political parties in the United States.

π Participation Activities

PARTICIPATION ACTIVITY 1: Coordinate with state and/or local political party committees to have students interview party officials. If it is more convenient, you may choose to have party officials visit your classroom. Precinct-level leaders might be especially helpful because they bridge the electorate and the organization.

▪ Have students ask party leaders about their activities on the state and local levels. Students should also ask party officials about their direct and indirect involvement with the national party organization. Potential questions include the following:

□ How often do you communicate with the national party committee?

□ What types of coordinated activities are most important for local party success? For national party success?

□ Has the nature of the relationship between your local organization and the national party committee changed over time? If it has, how have those changes affected the local party?

This activity exposes students to the role of party officials and the relationship between local/state party organizations and the national party offices.

PARTICIPATION ACTIVITY 2: Ask your students to volunteer with a political party of their choice.

▪ Have students keep a journal or write a short paper reflecting on their experience as a campaign volunteer and how that experience illustrated (or perhaps did not illustrate) the theoretical material discussed in this chapter.

This activity provides students with the opportunity to apply their studies to the real world activities of political parties.

PARTICIPATION ACTIVITY 3: Have students examine the platforms of the Republican and Democratic Parties. These can be found at the respective party websites. The Republican Party platform can be found at . The Democratic Party platform can be found at . Then ask your students to consider the following questions:

▪ What are the key priorities of each party? What policy positions do they espouse to reach those goals?

▪ You might consider permitting them to include a minor party as well. Examples here might include the Green Party (), Libertarian Party (), the America First Party (), and the Socialist Party (sp-).

▪ Write a letter to the editor about which party’s policies or platform are best for the United States and why.

This activity contrasts the policy platforms of the major parties and helps students develop writing skills through a short, focused writing assignment.

π Suggested Readings

READING 1: Several recent texts examine the growing frustration expressed by Americans about the role of political parties in U.S. politics. See, for example:

▪ Mike Lofgren (2012). The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. New York: Viking.

▪ Donald L. Bartlett (2012). The Betrayal of the American Dream. New York: Public Affairs.

▪ Mickey Edwards (2012). The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans. New Haven: Yale University Press.

READING 2: John H. Aldrich (2011). Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Aldrich traces the roots of the U.S. political party system and outlines the key functions of parties today.

READING 3: Marjorie R. Hershey (2012). Party Politics in America, 15th edition. New York: Longman. Arguably one of the most influential texts on political parties and partisanship in the United States.

READING 4: Matthew Levendusky (2009). The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. An insightful analysis of the growing ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans.

READING 5: Daniel DiSalvo (2012). Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868–2010. New York: Oxford University Press. Argues that party factions play a key and overlooked role in nominations, governance, and policy direction.

READING 6: Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope (2010). What Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Longman. The most prominent statement of the view that opinion polarization in the United States is more modest than conventional wisdom suggests, and that voters have become more consistently partisan due more to the candidates they have to choose between rather than any increase in voters’ ideological extremism.

READING 7: Several interesting texts explore the historical evolution of parties in the United States through the various eras of political realignment. See, for example:

▪ Jessica Trounstine (2008). Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

▪ Martin P. Wattenberg (1998). The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

▪ Earl Black and Merle Black (2002). The Rise of Southern Republicanism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

▪ David R. Mayhew (2002). Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

READING 8: The journal Party Politics is the primary academic journal on the topic of parties and elections. Its focus covers both the United States and other democracies in a comparative perspective.

READING 9: Elin H. Allern and Tim Bale (2012). “Political Parties and Interest Groups: Disentangling Complex Relationships,” Party Politics 18 (1): 7–25. Examines the evolving relationship between political parties and interest groups and provides an overview of the special issue of Party Politics dealing with the topic.

READING 10: Howard L. Reiter (2006). “The Study of Political Parties, 1905–2005: The View from the Journals,” American Political Science Review. 100(4): 613–618. A comprehensive review and analysis of the major themes of political party research throughout the twentieth century.

READING 11: Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections () offers a collection of data, graphs, tables, and maps relating to American elections.

READING 12: Politics 1 () offers links to political parties, campaign information, candidate information, and more. They also offer a free e-mail newsletter. The party information provided is excellent, including descriptions of who belongs to which wing of the major parties, and all the minor parties in existence. The blogs are also of interest.

READING 13: The two major parties both have extensive websites, which include membership information, platforms, and other information.

▪ The Democratic National Committee is at .

▪ The Republican National Committee is at .

READING 14: Many minor political parties also maintain websites with information about the party and its platform. Examples include:

▪ The America First Party:

▪ The Green Party:

▪ The Libertarian Party:

▪ The Socialist Party:

READING 15: Political Resources on the Net () provides information on political parties in democratic countries from around the world.

READING 16: Five-thirty- () offers Nate Silver’s outstanding polling data and predictions for upcoming elections.

READING 17: The Candidate (1972). This film is about packaging a political candidate. In an expose style, this movie provides a dramatic portrayal of high-tech political campaigning and public manipulation. In particular, it shows how a party-centered campaign can easily turn into a candidate-centered campaign with the help of professional campaign consultants.

READING 18: Election (1999). An insidiously funny black comedy starring Matthew Broderick, far superior to the book from which it was adapted. The battle lines are thus drawn, teacher against student, and it’s anybody’s guess who will emerge victorious. Director Alexander Payne, who co-wrote the script based on Tom Perotta’s novel, recreates with amazing fidelity the countless little cruelties, minor disappointments, and petty grievances that often make high school such an interminable ordeal.

READING 19: Primary Colors (1998). A comedy/drama loosely based on the political career of Bill Clinton, as seen through the prism of the 1992 primaries.

READING 20: A Third Choice (1996). Films for the Humanities and Sciences. This program examines third parties in the U.S., including interviews with academic experts, campaign memorabilia, and rare archival footage.

READING 21: Third Parties in American Politics (1996). Films for the Humanities and Sciences. This film examines the impact of third parties on presidential elections.

-----------------------

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download