Are national parties too big NOT to fail?

I really enjoyed this piece from the Britannica blog about the fracturing of the Democratic Party in 1860.?? It's a well done history capsule that also poses this very interesting question:

We have been discussing the Democracy as a lens for analyzing the dynamics of American political parties, and I am struck by the many ways that the crises of the Democracy remind us that we pay some very high prices for placing so much importance on the existence of ???national??? political parties in the United States even while leaving the construction, maintenance, and business of those parties entirely outside of our ???formal??? or ???constitutional??? institutions.

The author is Joseph Lane, a historian at Emory & Henry, a small liberal arts college in southwestern Virginia (as close to DC geographically as it is to Birmingham or Memphis).

I wonder, would we be better off with half a dozen regional parties than with two national parties, one of which is increasingly homogeneous and the other so diverse as to be practically ineffective??? Probably not. Case in point is the impotent outcome of the UK election. The three major parties there split the vote so well that a coalition government had to be created.

But wouldn't it be fun to watch the two houses of Congress led by coalition power-sharing agreements? Or wait, isn't that what the Democrats already have — House and Senate majorities built on coalitions of liberal and centrist-to-conservatives??? What a mess…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s