In 2010, Democratic majorities became minorities in eleven state legislatures. While states like Alabama to North Carolina had long voted Republican for president and Congress, Democrats had historically maintained control over the statehouses. In 2010, all that changed.
The result parallels a larger trend. State-level Republicans’ campaigns against President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress demonstrates the growing influence of national parties in state politics. This influence, the product of internet messaging, increased investment in state parties by the national parties, and political polarization, has weakened the ability of state politicians to carve out their own distinct political identities. As a result, the ideological diversity common in state legislatures has declined, potentially degrading the efficacy with which politicians represent their constituents.
Ideological Homogenization
Even though national parties have always affected state politics, the influence has most recently hurt moderate politicians at the state level. Indiana proves a case in point. In 2008 and 2009, Senators Evan Bayh (D) and Richard Lugar (R) had the most similar voting record of any two senators of opposing parties from the same state. As the political ideologies of the national parties diverge, however, voters may suffer less tolerance for differing viewpoints within parties. Under pressure from Republicans and Democrats for either supporting the President or not supporting him enough, Bayh retired in 2010, and was replaced by Tea Party member Dan Coates. Dan Parker, Chair of the Indiana Democratic Party, told the HPR, “In 2010, the Democratic Party forgot that elections in the United States are determined by moderates.”
National party ideology nonetheless seems to play a less significant role in local governance. Edward Glaeser, Director of Harvard’s Taubman Center for State and Local Government, asked, “Would you know that Michael Bloomberg was elected as a Republican or that Richard Daley was elected as a Democrat? There’s no Republican or Democratic way to take out the trash – it’s much less ideological.” Citing a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by Joseph Gyourko and Fernando Ferreira, Glaeser indicated party affiliation bore almost no effect on the policies enacted by mayors or other city officials, but mattered significantly for state legislators.
The 50 Federal States?
The growing influence of the national parties has likewise made it more difficult for state parties to create distinct identities. Ray Buckley, Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party asserts, “With the internet, the national message and the national narrative reach every nook and cranny of the country. As more people watch CNN and Fox News rather than read their local newspapers, voters in California receive the same message as voters in Maine.” Similarly, Rick Farmer, of the University of Akron, found that state party websites in the 2000 election often simply linked to national party websites. Although state party websites have advanced since, people are still more likely to receive party information from the national website, while new technologies have standardized each party’s message at the state level.
National parties have also begun to play a more direct role in legislative campaigns and elections at the state level. Programs like the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee constitute a national clearinghouse in which state staffers learn the latest techniques in organizing, messaging, and fundraising. Buckley termed this “the professionalization of legislative campaigns and state politics,” and noted that these tools were not available to states in the 1990s, when legislative campaigns were mostly locally run.
Partnerships with the national party provide state parties with financial and strategic benefits in their own elections. In 2005, DNC chairman Howard Dean proposed the “fifty-state initiative,” which committed national party resources to districts previously perceived as unviable. While initially controversial, the plan proved useful to many states. Parker noted that he “needed to rebuild Democratic support in Southern Indiana, and the grant from the fifty-state program allowed [him] to create a more stable, robust infrastructure.” Similarly, when asked about his strategy for the 2012 election, Buckley indicated that first and foremost, his goal would be to “collectively encourage folks to be involved in the President’s reelection—the stronger President Obama is in 2012, the more likely Democrats will pick up seats.”
One Nation, Under Parties
The current political polarization in Washington has broadened the divide between parties at the state level as well. Americans now have a more clear choice at the polling booth as the parties grow apart. Gerald Wright, Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, maintains that state parties have become more ideologically driven, like their national counterparts. Yet Wright told the HPR that while moderates may feel that politicians neglect their views, the drive towards ideology may benefit most citizens on the whole. “For a long time, voters were saying it’s sad that parties aren’t more dissimilar.” But now that polarization provides a consistent choice of parties, Wright argues, “the electorate has a clearer directive.” Even when considering the decried stalemate and rancor of our current congressional scene, Wright views these difficulties as simply results of the peculiarities of American democracy, like split-party government and the filibuster.
Nevertheless, growing ideological homogeneity could prove detrimental to public debate and the growth of new ideas. Farmer noted that state politics are characterized by the struggle of the state party leaders and grassroots movements. “Campaign finance regimes and ideological alignment make the state party leaders and national party officials interdependent,” claims Farmer.
Democracy Disintegrates?
The growth of national parties has caused tension with certain local movements, particularly grassroots campaigns. Such efforts, like the Tea Party movement, have grown powerful. State parties face the conflict of balancing the benefits of national organization with homegrown initiatives. Farmer offers some comfort, stating, “We need a government that is powerful enough to rule, but responsive enough to be held in check. The tension between grassroots and party leadership is where it’s at. This is a healthy thing for our democracy.” Unfortunately, current conditions seem to indicate that American politics is losing this very dynamic: the balance between local, state, and national movements. As national parties play a larger role in dictating how state parties legislate and conduct campaigns, the political views unique to different localities begin to disappear.
Our first system of governance granted individual states considerable autonomy from the national government, yet now state parties have become mere puppets of their national counterparts. With Congress in shambles, almost incapable of performing its most basic duties such as passing a budget, national parties have never been seen in such a poor light. If America is to tackle its most pressing national and local issues then, a necessary first step may be revitalization of the local state party.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.