The Biological Logic of Political Parties

Every few years, after a relatively impressive electoral victory, the eternally short-sighted American media - abetted by some history-challenged pols and a handful of political scientists - will begin discussing the possibility of a "permanent majority".

Such predictions consistently prove disappointing, and for good reason.  Like most long-standing human institutions, America's two political parties are governed by the logic of evolution.  Each party is highly adaptive, its adaptations being governed by its particular definition of success and by the imperative of survival.

Moreover, each party possesses a kind of organizational DNA, acquired at the time of its founding and virtually impossible to discard.

Whenever either party loses power, and seems likely to remain out of power for an extended period of time, it finds a way to gain new adherents.  When confronted with the risk of extinction, a major party will discard almost anything - including ideological principles - in order remain viable.

To be sure, the laws of organizational evolution are not as unbreakable as those of biological evolution.  But they are nearly so.  A party will change when it needs to change.  Survival is the key.

There is only one exception:  There is almost no possibility of either party acting at variance with its historic, institutional DNA.  When this DNA comes into conflict with the imperatives of the present, extinction becomes possible.

At present, we can see the Republican Party developing an interest in improving the legal status of undocumented immigrants.  Apparently fundamental, long-held principles concerning immigration appear to be evaporating as the GOP adjusts to the rising importance of America's growing Latino population.

This adaptation is perfectly logical, and not at all in conflict with the party's DNA.   Since its appearance in the 1850's, the Republican Party has been, at heart, the party of corporate capitalism - and of the power, wealth and privileges of people who have succeeded under the rules of relatively unrestricted corporate dominion.

To be fair, the original Republican Party had a powerful moral ideology, which was part of its original DNA.  The trouble is that that ideology concerned itself with the specific evil of slavery - which Republicans succeeded in abolishing within twelve years of the party's founding. 

This left the party without significant ideological moorings.  The GOP became the party of unrestrained capitalism, and so it remains.  Whatever other ideologies it espouses are essentially opportunistic - camouflage for a fundamental dedication to the interests of wealth and privilege.

Opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage; support for a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment; hostility to universal health-care; skepticism about global climate change - all of these are fungible.  If you want to predict the long-term Republican position on any issue, look up the position of the United States Chamber of Commerce.  You'll seldom go astray.

The Democratic Party's DNA is similarly non-ideological, but for different reasons.   Whether you trace the party's founding to Jefferson and Madison, or - perhaps more accurately - to Andrew Jackson, you will find three primary ingredients.

First, the Democrats developed as a populist movement led by outsized individuals who found themselves excluded from power by a ruling elite (the Hamiltonian Federalists or the one-party oligarchy of the Era of Good Feelings, as you choose). 

Second, the Democrats began as a coalition of sectional interests:  Virginia's planter elite allied to New York's Clinton organization, or (under the Jacksonian narrative) a three-section alliance of western frontier libertarians, Southern slaveowners, and the New York machine run by men such as Martin Van Buren.

Third, the Democrats - though they once spoke passionately of limited government - have always put more emphasis on charismatic leadership and the possession of the presidency than have their elitist opponents.

Democrats make much of their great presidents, Jefferson, Jackson, FDR - and make exaggerated claims for others, such as Woodrow Wilson, JFK, Bill Clinton, and - today - President Obama.

By way of contrast, the Republicans can be content to govern from Congress, as did their Whig predecessors in the age of Clay and Webster.  Lincoln, the first Republican, emerged from the Civil War as a towering figure, but for most of his presidency, he was at war with the Congressional wing of his own party.  TR, an immense figure, was - by any standard - a maverick.

The only truly charismatic modern Republican president was Ronald Reagan, and he - significantly - presided over the Republicans' successful wooing of unhappy Southern Democrats, who may have needed his outsized personality to draw them into the Republican ranks.

Today's Democratic Party is, thus, the product of two centuries of evolution, but in no appreciable way altered in its fundamental DNA.  Today's Democrats are critical of those who enjoy great wealth, power and privilege - though not ideologically skeptical of the system of corporate, consumer capitalism. 

The party is, more than ever, a coalition.  It is impossible to speak of the Democratic Party in terms of a fundamental ideology, but easy to analyze its policy positions in terms of constituent groups:  unions, blacks, Hispanics, seniors, feminists, and various smaller constituencies of the chronically disadvantaged.

Finally, to this day, the party retains its extraordinary focus on individual, charismatic leaders and on the importance of holding the White House.  In presidential years, Democrats flock to the polls.  In off-years, Republicans tend to make gains.

This brief analysis is entirely my own.  It is the product of many years of studying and teaching US history, but - while hardly exhaustive - it informs much that has appeared - and is to appear - on this blog.

To that extent, I hope it will be useful.

In my next piece, I plan to begin exploring the fragility of the now-triumphant Democratic Party, and suggesting which elements within the Democratic coalition might be more comfortable as part of a third-party with significantly different DNA and a different survival strategy.