In defense of political party bosses

Most of you know I hate political parties. But I found this an interesting essay positing that more has been lost than gained by the weakening of the power of political bosses. It did not really change my opinion but it was thought provoking:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

"...What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick...."

Read it quickly but I found it fascinating. Everyone who discusses Politics on MOL should read it.

It even in a way explains and perhaps justifies the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz "scandal".

The conclusion is certainly interesting:

"Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around."

I actually first read the article a few weeks ago but it was the reaction here and elsewhere to the DNC hack that led me to post it. 

I thought that article was total bull***** when it came out and I still do. What's changed is the people have much, much better insight into the way politics works in this country and are disgusted.

It's not as though the establishment has churned out some terrific product over the decades. They political class is stocked with self-serving mediocrities. Nobody really knew because they never got to see how things worked. And when they did see it, what, they told their neighbors? Now you can tell millions, if people think you have an interesting view to share.

The Federalist had a good rebuttal. Boo! Conservative publication. Give it a chance, this is an issue that crosses party lines, and the article is not partisan.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/22/the-persistence-of-washington-delusion/

I'll read the article in The Federalist, but I think the country has been pretty well run until recently.

Jackson_Fusion said:

The Federalist had a good rebuttal. Boo! Conservative publication. Give it a chance, this is an issue that crosses party lines, and the article is not partisan.

A good rebuttal takes care to understand and present the opposing idea on its strongest terms before making points that are just as strong or stronger. A rebuttal that insults the intelligence of others in its opening sentence and reduces the opposing idea to an oversimplification along the lines of ...

Rauch’s solution to the rise of Trumpism comes down to bringing back earmarks. Really.

... is not a good one.

(That's not to say there isn't a good rebuttal to be made. I'm happy to give others a chance, too. But rarely is a "Calm down, Jonathan" guy my choice.)

LOST said:

I'll read the article in The Federalist, but I think the country has been pretty well run until recently.

You might appreciate this line from Ben Domenech: "Let’s be clear: Rauch’s argument requires you to believe elites were doing just fine running the country until about 2010."

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The Federalist had a good rebuttal. Boo! Conservative publication. Give it a chance, this is an issue that crosses party lines, and the article is not partisan.

A good rebuttal takes care to understand and present the opposing idea on its strongest terms before making points that are just as strong or stronger. A rebuttal that insults the intelligence of others in its opening sentence and reduces the opposing idea to an oversimplification along the lines of ...

Rauch’s solution to the rise of Trumpism comes down to bringing back earmarks. Really.


... is not a good one.

(That's not to say there isn't a good rebuttal to be made. I'm happy to give others a chance, too. But rarely is a "Calm down, Jonathan" guy my choice.)

His main rebuttal is that the original argument is unsupported by fact and driven by self assessment of "doing just fine". As such it's not an argument at all, just a feeling.

In any case- the earmarks comment summarizes the main theme of a rather windy article- the thrust of which is politics were better when politicians were beholden to someone other than voters, like party bosses or fellow elected officials. Oh, bull***** to that. The only people hurt seeing that system challenged are mandarins and courtesans. 

Is there some "chaos" involved in that (and I love that he channels Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park to put a sheen of scholarly rigor on it) so be it. I'll use my own buzzwords in a counterpunch- creative destruction clears out the dead wood. 

Institutions that matter to me are congress, the executive, and the judiciary- "parties" can and should come and go. They should derive their relevance from citizens. To the extent they no longer represent citizen's views, they can go.

The link I posted has its rhetorical flourishes. As a polemic, which surely it is and makes no bones about being so, I thought it was mild. You'd really hate the Federalist Papers if you abhor uncharitable commentary!

I coincidentally just started reading this yesterday. It's long and I haven't gotten all the way through it yet, but my initial thoughts are that I agree with his point about the "unwritten constitution" - parties, the norms and informal practices that keep the government running, etc - but disagree with his diagnosis of why that's all broken down. I'll have to finish the article, reflect on it, and organize my thoughts a bit before having anything further to say on it.

Jackson_Fusion said:

The link I posted has its rhetorical flourishes. As a polemic, which surely it is and makes no bones about being so, I thought it was mild. You'd really hate the Federalist Papers if you abhor uncharitable commentary! ">

I don't abhor uncharitable commentary, polemic, philippics or broadsides. Vive rhetorical flourishes! If one of the devices, though, confuses a headline word ("insane") with an argument by the author himself, it's a symptom of slapdash jabbing that I daresay falls shy of the Founders.

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The link I posted has its rhetorical flourishes. As a polemic, which surely it is and makes no bones about being so, I thought it was mild. You'd really hate the Federalist Papers if you abhor uncharitable commentary! ">

I don't abhor uncharitable commentary, polemic, philippics or broadsides. Vive rhetorical flourishes! If one of the devices, though, confuses a headline word ("insane") with an argument by the author himself, it's a symptom of slapdash jabbing that I daresay falls shy of the Founders.

Well, beyond using the word "insane" twice outside quoting the title of the article (which, to be fair, was the featured cover story that month, with the title pimping "insane" right in the cover- hard to disclaim!) which position do you find more persuasive?

Jackson_Fusion said:

In any case- the earmarks comment summarizes the main theme of a rather windy article- the thrust of which is politics were better when politicians were beholden to someone other than voters, like party bosses or fellow elected officials. Oh, bull***** to that. The only people hurt seeing that system challenged are mandarins and courtesans. 







The link I posted has its rhetorical flourishes. As a polemic, which surely it is and makes no bones about being so, I thought it was mild. You'd really hate the Federalist Papers if you abhor uncharitable commentary! ">

I didn't understand the Atlantic article that way. To me the issue of earmarks did not summarize the theme. Furthermore earmarks were not always a case of politicians being beholden to someone other than voters. A neighbor of mine was recruited to go to DC as part of a group of persons suffering a specific disability. She came back as a fan earmarks as a way to get funding for a good cause. The group met with Dem and Republican Congressional staffers together who were willing to work together in private for a cause that would get shunted aside in public by a partisan brawl. 

The article was long because it was a historical analysis. When you linked the counter-argument in the Federalist I thought it would be something similar. Now you tell me it was a polemic. 

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

In any case- the earmarks comment summarizes the main theme of a rather windy article- the thrust of which is politics were better when politicians were beholden to someone other than voters, like party bosses or fellow elected officials. Oh, bull***** to that. The only people hurt seeing that system challenged are mandarins and courtesans. 







The link I posted has its rhetorical flourishes. As a polemic, which surely it is and makes no bones about being so, I thought it was mild. You'd really hate the Federalist Papers if you abhor uncharitable commentary! ">

I didn't understand the Atlantic article that way. To me the issue of earmarks did not summarize the theme. Furthermore earmarks were not always a case of politicians being beholden to someone other than voters. A neighbor of mine was recruited to go to DC as part of a group of persons suffering a specific disability. She came back as a fan earmarks as a way to get funding for a good cause. The group met with Dem and Republican Congressional staffers together who were willing to work together in private for a cause that would get shunted aside in public by a partisan brawl. 

The article was long because it was a historical analysis. When you linked the counter-argument in the Federalist I thought it would be something similar. Now you tell me it was a polemic. 

I called it a rebuttal, which, like a polemic, is a refutation of something else rather than a stand alone.

I found the "historical analysis" to be unpersuasive. Frank Hague delivered all the "benefits" lauded by the Atlantic article too- and then some! The article even seems to laud Tammany Hall.

Jackson_Fusion said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The link I posted has its rhetorical flourishes. As a polemic, which surely it is and makes no bones about being so, I thought it was mild. You'd really hate the Federalist Papers if you abhor uncharitable commentary! ">

I don't abhor uncharitable commentary, polemic, philippics or broadsides. Vive rhetorical flourishes! If one of the devices, though, confuses a headline word ("insane") with an argument by the author himself, it's a symptom of slapdash jabbing that I daresay falls shy of the Founders.

Well, beyond using the word "insane" twice outside quoting the title of the article (which, to be fair, was the featured cover story that month, with the title pimping "insane" right in the cover- hard to disclaim!) which position do you find more persuasive?

To be honest, neither piece got my juices flowing the way the former did LOST or the latter did you, and I've already pretty much exhausted my thoughts about them. While your 5:59 post gave me more to consider, I can't say I'm inclined to take the time go into the depth that I hope PVW and the rest of you do. I'll listen.

To try to answer your question, though: The authors struck me as talking about two different things -- Rauch about the workings of the political system, and Domenech about how those workings come across to voters. I disagree that Rauch's position requires a belief that things used to be so good; a belief only that they used to be better should be sufficient. And his point that Rauch merely has feelings and no data when, as I understand it, the data that Domenech refers to is based on voters' feelings sounded a little pretzely to me.

On the other hand, I think Rauch, in putting the onus on reforms, understates the parties' complicity in the current state (ETA: not to mention the pluses of an injection of chaos). Rewarding them by letting them rebuild, baby, rebuild also sounded a little twisted.

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The link I posted has its rhetorical flourishes. As a polemic, which surely it is and makes no bones about being so, I thought it was mild. You'd really hate the Federalist Papers if you abhor uncharitable commentary! ">

I don't abhor uncharitable commentary, polemic, philippics or broadsides. Vive rhetorical flourishes! If one of the devices, though, confuses a headline word ("insane") with an argument by the author himself, it's a symptom of slapdash jabbing that I daresay falls shy of the Founders.

Well, beyond using the word "insane" twice outside quoting the title of the article (which, to be fair, was the featured cover story that month, with the title pimping "insane" right in the cover- hard to disclaim!) which position do you find more persuasive?

To be honest, neither piece got my juices flowing the way the former did LOST or the latter did you, and I've already pretty much exhausted my thoughts about them. While your 5:59 post gave me more to consider, I can't say I'm inclined to take the time go into the depth that I hope PVW and the rest of you do. I'll listen.

To try to answer your question, though: The authors struck me as talking about two different things -- Rauch about the workings of the political system, and Domenech about how those workings come across to voters. I disagree that Rauch's position requires a belief that things used to be so good; a belief only that they used to be better should be sufficient. And his point that Rauch merely has feelings and no data when, as I understand it, the data that Domenech refers to is based on voters' feelings sounded a little pretzely to me.


On the other hand, I think Rauch, in putting the onus on reforms, understates the parties' complicity in the current state (ETA: not to mention the pluses of an injection of chaos). Rewarding them by letting them rebuild, baby, rebuild also sounded a little twisted.

Any disagreement I have here is ticky tacky. 

Your last paragraph puts a bow on the issue nicely. 

Thank you. Just for fun, another way to answer your question, and shed light on what I think separates an adult polemic from a puerile rebuttal: I found Joe Queenan more persuasive than A.J. Jacobs.

'The Know-It-All': A Little Learning Is a Dangerous Thing

I Am Not a Jackass

DaveSchmidt said:

Thank you. Just for fun, another way to answer your question, and shed light on what I think separates an adult polemic from a puerile rebuttal: I found Joe Queenan more persuasive than A.J. Jacobs.

'The Know-It-All': A Little Learning Is a Dangerous Thing



I Am Not a Jackass

Queenan comes across as a bit of a stuffed shirt and a bit too literal, but Jacob's rebuttal does him no favors. He thinks he's a riot. He's wrong.

First, as a long time subscriber, I thought I recognized this essay. Here it is in an earlier iteration:

The Case For Corruption

I actually disagree with both Rauch and Domenech. From my perspective they’re both wrong, in the same way - the put the blame/credit on elected officials. I think it belongs with the voters.

I agree with DS that “the data that Domenech refers to is based on voters' feelings sounded a little pretzely to me,” while I think Domenech is also correct in noting Rauch’s lack of data. What Rauch has shown is that in the past, before our current political breakdown, the parties were less democratic. To my mind, he hasn’t shown that there’s actually a causal relationship here.

I’m not going off of data either, so this is my own speculation/response, but while I think Rauch is correct to note the importance of the “unwritten constitution,” including the power of parties, to make government actually work, I think he’s probably wrong that it was specifically the old undemocratic, corruption-ridden system that was working. I think it’s as likely that the system worked despite many of those features, not because of it.

I am someone who does believe institutions are necessary. I’m a Clinton voter, after all, not a Sanders one, and still less a tea party Republican - and not just because of my stance on the issues. I don’t really believe in political revolutions, in the power of charismatic outsiders to step in and make everything work by the magic of common sense or business acumen or whatever their superpower is supposed to be. You absolutely need systems to run anything of even moderate complexity, much less a government, and the best case for those who would burn it all down is that they will build something of different, but equal, complexity.

But systems aren’t enough. You need buy-in. A good system works because it supports the goals and intentions of those using it. It lifts much of the psychic and logistical load so people can focus on a larger picture, and can provide discipline and efficiency. But on the flip side, a system at cross purposes with those it is supposed to serve causes frustration, inefficiency, and eventually disillusionment and can discredit the whole enterprise.

Think, for example, of the problem of systematic racism. It’s not enough for people to individually be non-racist if the overall system remains racist. The best trained, most empathetic police force will still disproportionately target and injure people of color, for instance, so long as our overall society is keeps poc disproportionately disadvantaged and in a position where their interactions with the police will be in contexts of suspicion and crime. On the flip side, if we somehow were able to completely eliminate systematic racism, yet most individuals remained racist, some kind of systematic racism would quickly re-establish itself.

Rauch misses this, I think. He seems to be proposing a system-focused change, while ignoring why the system broke down in the first place. If the “establishment” is too far removed from what the voters want or expect, it doesn’t matter how strong the formal and informal system supporting it is, it’s not going to work out. You can’t paper over that chasm by system-focused change (or at least not for long).

But why are people no longer buying in to the system? I have my speculation on that, too, but I’ll save that for some other post  - this one is long enough. As a preview, though, I’d point out that this isn’t a case of “both sides.” Only one group of voters has been eager to shut down the government and credibly threatened to default on the national debt. Politics isn’t about issues, it’s about identity, and we’re in the midst of a long, drawn out fight over what the identity of the country is….

PVW said:

But systems aren’t enough. You need buy-in. A good system works because it supports the goals and intentions of those using it. It lifts much of the psychic and logistical load so people can focus on a larger picture, and can provide discipline and efficiency. But on the flip side, a system at cross purposes with those it is supposed to serve causes frustration, inefficiency, and eventually disillusionment and can discredit the whole enterprise.

...

Rauch misses this, I think. He seems to be proposing a system-focused change, while ignoring why the system broke down in the first place. If the “establishment” is too far removed from what the voters want or expect, it doesn’t matter how strong the formal and informal system supporting it is, it’s not going to work out. You can’t paper over that chasm by system-focused change (or at least not for long).

Thanks for the entire post, PVW. A question based on the excerpts above: How large has redistricting played in distancing the establishment from what voters want, and do you think reform in that area would be a system-focused change that could do more than paper over the cross purposes?

bramzzoinks said:

Most of you know I hate political parties. But I found this an interesting essay positing that more has been lost than gained by the weakening of the power of political bosses. It did not really change my opinion but it was thought provoking:

This thread proves your point that the essay is thought provoking.

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

But systems aren’t enough. You need buy-in. A good system works because it supports the goals and intentions of those using it. It lifts much of the psychic and logistical load so people can focus on a larger picture, and can provide discipline and efficiency. But on the flip side, a system at cross purposes with those it is supposed to serve causes frustration, inefficiency, and eventually disillusionment and can discredit the whole enterprise.

...

Rauch misses this, I think. He seems to be proposing a system-focused change, while ignoring why the system broke down in the first place. If the “establishment” is too far removed from what the voters want or expect, it doesn’t matter how strong the formal and informal system supporting it is, it’s not going to work out. You can’t paper over that chasm by system-focused change (or at least not for long).

Thanks for the entire post, PVW. A question based on the excerpts above: How large has redistricting played in distancing the establishment from what voters want, and do you think reform in that area would be a system-focused change that could do more than paper over the cross purposes?

Thanks DS!

I'm very much in favor of redistricting reform, but I think that's almost a separate issue from the question of "why politics has gone insane." Gerrymandering is older than the republic, so for all its evils, I don't think you can blame it for the current break down in governance we're seeing. I have been very interested in reports from states like CA and AZ that have been trying to remove or reduce partisan influence in redistricting.

I'll note that while it's the Republicans that currently enjoy the greatest advantage via controlling redistricting, they're also the party whose voters seem to be the most angry and frustrated and willing to burn the whole thing down.

PVW said:

Thanks DS!

I'm very much in favor of redistricting reform, but I think that's almost a separate issue from the question of "why politics has gone insane." Gerrymandering is older than the republic, so for all its evils, I don't think you can blame it for the current break down in governance we're seeing. I have been very interested in reports from states like CA and AZ that have been trying to remove or reduce partisan influence in redistricting.

I'll note that while it's the Republicans that currently enjoy the greatest advantage via controlling redistricting, they're also the party whose voters seem to be the most angry and frustrated and willing to burn the whole thing down.

Districts should be computer generated and optimized for geographical compactness.

tjohn said:

Districts should be computer generated and optimized for geographical compactness.

Absolutely, districts should be drawn where only straight lines are used except when a side of the district is the border of the state, four sides to a district, and length does not exceed width by more than a factor of 1.5.  (or some other guidelines that restrict tampering) When you have districts like the one below, you should lose all discretionary federal funds.  

Tjohn linked to this FiveThirtyEight article in another thread, but it touches on issues raised in this one (including a nod to -- or maybe a shrug at -- the matter of redistricting):

The Political Process Isn't Rigged -- It Has Much Bigger Problems

DaveSchmidt said:

Tjohn linked to this FiveThirtyEight article in another thread, but it touches on issues raised in this one (including a nod to -- or maybe a shrug at -- the matter of redistricting):

The Political Process Isn't Rigged -- It Has Much Bigger Problems

I like the Atlantic Monthly piece and the 538 piece.

I agree that people make too big a deal about gerrymandering in explaining our problems.  If anything, gerrymandering moderates the party that benefits from it, since the idea of redistricting is to win a lot of seats by small margins.  If a Congressman has a district which is only slightly Republican or slightly Democratic, all else being equal, the Congressman will attempt to be a moderate.

I liked the discussions of how undemocratic primaries are.  Think about how many elections are de facto decided at the primary stage and then how tiny and extreme the primary electorate is?  

As hard as real reform is, I sense that I see more articles nowadays that look at institutional factors for our dysfunction instead of simply saying that modern-day politicians are evil or they don't get to socialize together enough.

Sigh.  New Jersey's next governor is going to be elected by 3-4% of the electorate.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

I thought that article was total bull***** when it came out and I still do. What's changed is the people have much, much better insight into the way politics works in this country and are disgusted.

It seems our country really built and did well when political bosses held sway. The Eisenhower era, the Roosevelt era, etc.

Things ran pretty well considering as you claim people had less insight.

What's all this new insight gotten us? Paranoia and conspiracy theories?

Runner_Guy said:

 If anything, gerrymandering moderates the party that benefits from it, since the idea of redistricting is to win a lot of seats by small margins.  If a Congressman has a district which is only slightly Republican or slightly Democratic, all else being equal, the Congressman will attempt to be a moderate.

Is that really how redistricting is typically being done? The idea of winning widely but by small margins leaves a risk of losing. If you're a party, isn't it better to win assuredly, even if slightly less widely? (If it isn't, don't tell the North Carolina GOP, because that has been its strategy, ceding a couple of surefire Democratic districts in exchange for a bevy of surefire Republican ones.)

DaveSchmidt said:

Runner_Guy said:

 If anything, gerrymandering moderates the party that benefits from it, since the idea of redistricting is to win a lot of seats by small margins.  If a Congressman has a district which is only slightly Republican or slightly Democratic, all else being equal, the Congressman will attempt to be a moderate.

Is that really how redistricting is typically being done? The idea of winning widely but by small margins leaves a risk of losing. If you're a party, isn't it better to win assuredly, even if slightly less widely? (If it isn't, don't tell the North Carolina GOP, because that has been its strategy, ceding a couple of surefire Democratic districts in exchange for a bevy of surefire Republican ones.)

I think the risk of losing would depend on just how small the majority party wants its margins to be.  

If you want to maximize your party's power, you want to win seats by 51-49% majorities and let the other party win a handful of seats by gigantic margins.   If you tolerate such tiny margins of victory you could still lose a seat if an incumbent Congressperson is irresponsibly too far left or too far right or the other party has a good year.

Maybe this theory of gerrymandering slightly incentivizing moderation is wrong in practice because there are so many other factors at work pushing for extremism, but I don't think that gerrymandering increases extremism in the beneficiary party.  If it does, it's a smaller factor than many others.

And as the 538 article talks out, there's a lot of "natural gerrymandering" that takes place since Republicans and Democrats increasingly want to live with like-minded people.

Pennsylvania, like North Carolina, is another legislatively districted state. Below are the 2014 congressional election results. The three closest races were decided by 12- to 15-point margins. The average margin of Republican victory was 26 points. 

http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/house/pennsylvania/#.V6S2XxSBCn0

At least two of the Democratic blowouts can be attributed to geography (Philadelphia), but when the overall state vote in congressional races is evenly split but one party wins 13 of 18 districts by wide margins, it's hard for me to see how the districts encourage moderation. 

(I posted that just as more fodder for thought; I'm not arguing that redistricting is the blame-all or cure-all. Obviously I'm no expert on such political vagaries: I grew up in a state* that got districting perfect from the start and hasn't had to change it in more than 200 years.) 

*Which, counter to the redistricting-breeds-extremism theory, nominated Christine O'Donnell in 2010 without any help from gerrymandering. 

That State is not big enough to be gerrymandered.