Deprogramming Partisanism, Part 1

Debunking pro-party myths

Despite the best efforts of America’s foremost founder, the role of political parties in American governance has been largely unchallenged since the late-18th century. In 1796, George Washington, our first president and last political foreseer, closed out his second term with a farewell address that warned that party-based systems result in a “frightful despotism.”

His admonition was years too late. Washington’s deputies had turned their backs on his counsel on the issue by his first term.

John Adams and Alexander Hamilton started the first U.S. party, the Federalists, in 1789, and another one of Washington’s deputies, Thomas Jefferson, started the country’s second party, the Democratic-Republicans, in 1791.

The 1796 election was fought between the two parties, with the Federalist Adams defeating the Democratic-Republican Jefferson. The U.S. never looked back, as every presidential election since has also been won by a partisan candidate.

By 1824, Jefferson, our third president, was not only a champion of party systems, but of two-party systems, professing that “men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties.” And, by the reelection of Abraham Lincoln in 1864, the two-party system had become an established U.S. norm.

Ever since parties became entrenched within American politics, establishmentarian politicians, academics, journalists and others have tried to convince us—and themselves—that it’s a good thing. In 1826, two years after Jefferson’s ode to parties, Churchill Cambreleng, a New York congressman who ran under multiple party banners during his time in office, composed one of his own on the floor of the House of Representatives. Parties are “indispensable to every administration” and “essential to the existence of our institutions,” he rhapsodized. His most gag-inducing lyrics were “the conflict of parties is a noble conflict” (if only the gentleman from New York could have peered a couple centuries ahead into the future, would certainly have rewritten that line).

Standard defenses offered by apologists for parties include assertions that parties stabilize nations; maintain checks and balances; encourage civic involvement; act as a candidate screening system; create more effective governance; provide jobs for thousands of people who work for them or their partner organizations and generate millions of dollars for the economy. Let’s examine these claims in turn:  

Argument #1: Stability

Parties give politics a league-like structure. And, while the “league-like” component translates to typical partisan blood sport, the benefit of the “structure” element is genuine. Parties act as stabilizing forces in democracies because they are familiar elements within the political process through which the workaday masses can connect to it, making government seem less distant. 

If people don’t like how things are going in the country, they can act on it by backing the political side that is out of power. Having this recourse makes them less likely to channel their disaffection into violence.

But, while parties help stabilize democracies by thus helping to preserve the continuity of their governments, parties also weaken the stability of democracies by fracturing their electorates. Because when people connect to the political process through a party, they are also segregating themselves from the other party and the people connected to it. And when people channel their disaffection through a party, they are also channeling their disaffection against the other party and the people connected to it.

Argument #2: Checks and balances

Party proponents also argue that parties reinforce checks and balances. When control of government is divided between the parties, they have a shared interest in keeping any branch of government from growing too strong. Simultaneously, parties serve as a check on each other because, advocates maintain, if either party tries to steer the nation in a direction that Americans don’t want to go, voters will recalibrate by backing the opposing party.

However, parties are only concerned about checks and balances during times of split control or if they’re completely out of power. In periods of unified government, the party that has control has no incentive to limit the power of any branches of government.

As for parties aiming to curtail each other’s power, that’s inherent to their existence. But, it’s also inherent for them to seek to attain as much power as they can, so they can take the country in the direction their partisans want it to go instead of trying to find a destination where everyone would want to go.

Argument #3: Civic participation

As said, parties help people connect to their political system. But, party advocates say this translates to more than giving folks a means to participate in the process. They argue that by backing a party and doing the things that go along with it—which could include voting, contributing money, attending rallies, knocking on doors, calling voters and more—people are taking part in a national tradition that is bigger than themselves.

But, there’s something intrinsically wrong when taking part in a special American ritual involves taking up against other Americans. Civic traditions that are meant to unite us shouldn’t involve dividing ourselves into warring political camps.  

Argument #4: Candidate screening  

Before a general election, primary elections are held to determine which candidates will ultimately represent each party in the main election. Theoretically, this system should guarantee that top-caliber candidates emerge from each party, ensuring that whoever takes office will be extremely competent.

Yet, this supposition is refuted by American political history, which has been strewn by incompetent and unqualified elected officials at every level of government. Partisans from either side would definitely be able to name scores of examples—from the other party—whom they would put in that category.

Moreover, what makes office-seekers “qualified” for office doesn’t primarily relate to having the characteristics to excel at the job. It relates to having established a record of service to the party and toadying up to local kingmakers. Thus, those who parties present as “qualified” candidates are typically individuals who only reached that point via party loyalism and ring kissing.

Argument #5: Efficient governance

The flimsiest pro-party argument is that parties’ existence somehow leads to more effective governance. The idea is that a party system provides an established structure, which creates a more orderly lawmaking process.

Similar to other claims that the presence of parties produces one positive outcome or another, this argument assumes that party systems are the only way to achieve that outcome. But, the elimination of parties shouldn’t lead to haphazard governance. Other structures would be established that would keep politics from becoming a free-for-all.   

But, the weakness of this talking point doesn’t just lay in the fact that there are other ways that political systems could be structured to produce effective governance. It lays in the fact that party-based structures don’t produce anything close to effective governance. 

One of the biggest deficiencies in the adversarial model of politics—beyond its toxicity to unity—is that opposing parties, through their elected and appointed officials, must jointly administer a government that the life and well-being of every person in the country depends upon. But, as the parties are theoretically collaborating on this humongous responsibility, they are also, by definition, working against each other.  

It’s impossible for officials with divided loyalties to be completely effective in governing. As they are making policy that is ostensibly for the good of all, they are still influenced by partisan goals. They can’t only factor in the real-world impact of policies in determining whether to support or oppose them; they also have to consider the electoral impact. And where their partisan objectives converge with the common good, they will embrace it, but they are guided by the former not the latter.

Argument #6: Economic activity/ jobs

The most potent argument for keeping parties is that the economic impact from their removal could be cataclysmic. Because our major parties are essentially too big to fail. Millions of people work for parties, which are basically giant corporations, or for party-adjacent entities. Conventions and other party events produce millions of dollars for local economies. Parties also contract with ordinary, non-political companies, bringing critical business to these firms too. 

If not managed carefully, the elimination of parties could conceivably hit both the politics industry and its adjunct fields hard enough to cause a recession. If we also calculate the impact of the elimination of partisan culture, which bleeds into every industry, the recession could be worldwide. 

To avoid this outcome, if and when parties are electorally obliterated, they should be given time to gradually wind down their operations, and transition assistance should be made available to people who are displaced in the process. This would provide those who make their living from partisan politics time to adjust to their looming vocational switches, and it would give the markets time to adjust to the tectonic shifts in the political sector.

* Portions of this post have been adapted from my upcoming book The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down (2024).

Follow me on X at @antipartisanusa or on Facebook