Party or candidate, which matters more?
In America, candidates run their parties—not the other way around.
George Washington hated parties. Not the tea-drinking sort (although after what happened in Boston, maybe those too). But the political sort of party. Factions. While president, he attempted to remain about the political fray—striving to represent all Americans. Not just one group or another.
Washington warned against partisanship in his famed Farewell Address, noting that parties were:
“Often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community.… however… associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
Partisanship has become rampant in the United States, so much that two parties dominate every electoral vote. And parties aren’t necessarily representative of the people at large: recent US election cycles have featured historically unpopular presidential candidates from both leading parties. (Frustrating, right? In a country of over 335 million people, you’d think we could get better-liked candidates.)
Each election season, it seems like both Democrat and Republican parties essentially deliver the same line: Even if you have qualms about this candidate, buck up and support the party.
Washington wouldn’t have liked it. But is toeing the party line good advice today?
Type of government abroad…
Now, simply supporting the party with closer-to-your-preferred policy positions makes a lot of sense under some parliametarian systems.
In certain countries, say the United Kingdom or Sweden, voters essentially elect a party platform. Then that group votes in turn votes for their party leader. In parliamentary systems, people don’t choose the president directly (to be fair… because of the Electoral College, neither do we).
There’s an important difference from the US: in parliamentary systems, the party can typically vote down a leader without holding a full election. Exhibit A: the recent votes of “no confidence” that ousted Prime Ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
Parliamentary systems tend to keep their leaders accountable. Essentially, the party can keep leaders in check. And they’re incentivized to do so, since the party wants to stay in power in the next election. (It didn’t work for the Tories, though).
… and at home
In contrast, the U.S. has a rather “strong” executive branch. Our system gives the president—personally—a lot of leeway. And a lot of power.
An executive with power and privilege is hard to check. After a recent Supreme Court decision, it’s even harder now to prosecute presidential wrong-doing.
When looking for who to back for president, remember that the person matters—a lot. In the United States, the character, temperament, and integrity of the president makes far more of a difference than their party affiliation.
So if you have qualms about the candidate from your preferred party, then it’s worth evaluating if you should cast your vote for the candidate from another party (or, of course, no party at all).
A new party
Why? Parties are ever-evolving. Party platforms change—and switch positions too.
The once-conservative Democratic Party, formed in 1828, and the once-liberal Republican Party, formed in 1854, essentially switched many of their preferred policies sometime in the early 20th century. This shift solidified under FDR, so much so that the current party’s policies would be unrecognizable to its founders. In more recent times, the Republican Party is often characterized as “conservative”; the Democratic Party, more liberal.
But this switch is ongoing.
What we’ve learned, both from history and again during the past decade, is actually quite important: one candidate can change the party, its platforms and positions drastically.
More, it seems, than the the party influences its leader. A popular, populist candidate seldom shapes themselves to the once-strong values or positions of the party. Instead, they may leave the lasting legacy of a totally reshaped party, and a new political alignment.
The great realignment
We see this in real time. From at least Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney, the GOP has favored fiscal conservatism. The Republican Party also, at least since the end of the Second World War, supported American foreign policy that works with democratic allies worldwide. Personally, I support both principles—fiscal conservatism and working with democracies worldwide for mutual aid and safety.
The 2024 Republican platform moves away from both positions (among others).
It’s worth contrasting with the 2012 Republican platform, which focuses primarily on balancing the budget and paying down American debt. Not so long ago, fiscal conservatism was the issue of Republicans. Compare that to the estimated $5.8 trillion Mr. Trump’s current economic proposals would add to the national deficit. Eight years later, the opposite focus.
This year’s GOP platform is focused on entirely different issues, most notably immigration. But it’s not the compassionate comprehensive reform favored by Republican president George W. Bush and ensuing GOP candidates. Instead, it details plans to:
“deport the millions of illegal Migrants who Joe Biden has deliberately encouraged to invade our Country.”
The two documents read very differently. The 2012 platform contains detailed policy proposals with accompanying rhetoric. The 2024 GOP platform, as a whole, reads more like a series of campaign slogans (and sometimes a list of grievances).
I miss the specificity of the previous plans. Frankly, it’s hard to know what:
“Republicans will immediately stabilize the Economy by slashing wasteful Government spending and promoting Economic Growth”
would look like. What government departments will be downsized? What policies actually promote such growth? (For instance, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted during Mr. Trump’s first term did little to stimulate long-term economic growth, but did increase the national debt significantly).
What if want my old party back?
Sigh. This sentiment is pervasive around the United States, I hear it from family, friends, and strangers on the internet. I feel it too.
If you don’t like the direction your party is headed, the best way to get them to change course is for them to lose the election. The other way is to get more involved in party leadership and to help get your friends involved, too. (In Utah, that means participating in the caucus-convention system).
Seriously.
Parliamentary systems have ways to “oust” an unpopular leader, particularly because they want to win elections. Don’t we all?
We don’t always get to pick our candidates. So the best way we, mere voters, can make a difference is by showing up—not backing out.
We can say “I won’t vote for this party until it changes.”
At the end of the day, parties are most responsive to election results. Parties who win elections don’t change. If change is what you want, that’s the signal you have to send.
The upcoming election
It’s a presidential election year in the United States. A big election, as it always seems to be. With the enormous power and latitude we give to our president, it’s essential to look for the candidate best fit to run the country—regardless of party.
As someone who strives to be a principled voter, I believe it worthwhile to eschew our personal policy preferences to pick leaders who demonstrate a strong commitment to American principles and the American people. A commitment to all Americans, not just supporters of one party.
On a personal note, I grew up quite a fan of the Republican Party. I’d like to feel that way again. While I’ve always identified as a moderate, there are plenty of conservative principles that I—still—really value. That hasn’t changed.
But my party has.
I want it back.
Until that happens, or a new middle-of-the-road party emerges, I will keep voting for character over policy. I’ll continue looking closely at the personal traits of the candidates I get to choose to lead my country, by their actions and rhetoric.
May we find great leaders for our beautiful nation—and the world over!
