Tales of Weak Parties
Examples from TX and KY.
To return to the discussion on Sunday, what do I mean by “weak parties”?
Let’s consider what the ideal type (i.e., theoretically perfect model) of a political party would be (I don’t mean this in a normative, i.e., value-laden sense, but just in terms of a basic model).
Parties exist as a means of organizing like-minded office-seekers under a label that functions as a shorthand to communicate to voters who are looking to align their goals by electing office-holders to represent them. Parties are useful for a number of reasons in a representative democracy, not the least of which being it is easier for voters to know. roughly, what Party A stands for versus Party B, as opposed to having to parse a list of names without any labels.
While there is a romantic notion that a list of names without labels would force voters to research all the candidates and vote “the person, not the party,” the practical reality is that voters do not behave that way, and the signal that party labels provide is valuable. Further, if one is looking for the rare political science law of behavior, one can get pretty close to the notion that parties naturally form in systems of electoral democracy. I could expound on that, but this post has already gotten longer and more technical than I had intended.
At any rate, in an ideal circumstance, there would be a number of collectives with labels that voters could choose from. One of the pathologies of our rigid bipartism is that two large parties contain multitudes (i.e., are coalitions), and this makes the signals the labels send a bit noisy. Worse, with only two choices, it is easier for party label/allegiance to become part of a person’s identity in ways that transcend the alleged policy positions the party proclaims.
Back to the ideal type description: such a model would suggest that parties have a) a clear self-definition, b) their candidates for office adhere to that self-definition, and c) the party has the ability to force its members ot adhere at the risk of being ejected from that party if they do not conform.
I would note that there is a) no central authority in either party to create a clear self-definition, b) there is no formal mechanism for the party as an organization to force candidates to adhere to any specific views, and c) the parties, as organizations, have essentially no control over their labels.
The only controlling mechanism for any of this is the primary process, which is rather obviously not controlled by the parties-as-organizations. The closest thing to “control” is the notion that the parties’ primary voters “control” the outcome, but I would note that that is a pretty amorphous set of persons who are hardly engaged in an iterated process of platform-building and strategic candidate vetting.
Indeed, the persons running in primaries are self-selecting themselves onto the ballots (via relatively minor bureaucratic processes), and the voters in the primary electorates are likewise self-selecting, if anything, because they have to choose to go vote. Moreover, in open primary states, they literally can decide in any given primary which party they “belong” to.
What makes a citizen of Texas a “Republican”? Is it because they voted in the last Republican primary? Because they voted for Republicans (how many? all? just some?) Republicans in the last general election? Because they feel Republican in their hearts? There is no formal membership process, let alone a test to make sure those voters adhere to whatever it is that makes a Republican a Republican.*
If anyone thinks any of the above is a hallmark of a strong party, feel free to make the case.
But speaking of Texas, an institutionally strong party would not have to spend millions on an intra-party fight to choose a solitary Senate nominee. Politico, perhaps a bit over-dramatically, reports: Republicans worry the Cornyn-Paxton fight is tearing their party apart.
National Republicans are growing increasingly worried that having Paxton as the nominee will force them to spend massively to hold onto the seat, sucking away resources from other top battlegrounds. Many national GOP donors — who already shelled out big money to back Cornyn in the primary — and establishment Republicans fear Paxton would also be a drag down-ballot for the party.
[…]
Some among the GOP donor class say that if Paxton prevails the general election will be Trump’s problem to deal with, and think he will need to deploy MAGA Inc.’s $300 million war chest.
[…]
A Cornyn loss would be the latest defeat for the conservative brand of U.S. Senator that predated Trump but may not outlive him. Cornyn was well-respected in the GOP Senate conference, finishing second in his bid to be Senate majority leader in 2024.
But his fatal flaw was insufficient loyalty to the president.
None of that sounds like a scenario that would exist in a system wherein there was an actual Republican Party organization that could exercise control over its label.
The Texas Senate primary was already the most expensive in US history before the run-off, with the bulk of the money being spent by the GOP. Having to burn tens of millions of dollars on a nomination contest in a year that is unfavorable to your party nationally is irrational, but it is the direct result of a weak party.
Side note: While I do think a Paxton win increases the odds of a Talarico upset in November, let’s not pretend that Paxton is destined to lose the seat if nominated.
Back to the overall topic, the following story from Kentucky further illustrates the weakness of our parties. Via Politico: Massie files to run in 2028 after losing House primary.
GOP Rep. Thomas Massie filed on Monday to run for his Kentucky House seat in 2028, less than a week after losing a primary fight against a challenger backed by President Donald Trump.
So, the ostensible leader of the party, Donald Trump, wants him gone, and he lost the confidence of primary voters in his district. But is he out of the party? Is his political career as a Republican necessarily over? Nope. This illustrates that there is no centralized, formal control over the label “Republican” nor any authoritative supervision of what it means to be “Republican.”
For that matter, I have heard Massie claim to be “libertarian.” Yet, he does not appear to have any designs on running under the label of the Libertarian Party. But why should he? The road to Congress is far easier as a Republican than as a Libertarian, and since the Republican Party can’t stop him from running in the 2028 primary, that is the more rational pathway.
This illustrates the anemia of the formal Republican Party because it clearly does not control the label.
This also illustrates how primaries disincentivize the cultivation and development of competitive third parties. Why should Massie undertake the heavy lift in a quixotic quest to win as a Libertarian (or some other new label) when his odds of re-winning the GOP nomination (and the seat) are far higher?
I am not suggesting I know what his odds are for a 2028 re-nomination fight, nor am I necessarily convinced he will actually run in 2028, as this has the feel of a publicity stunt, to a degree. Still, it is the most logical route back to office for him, and it clearly shows that the formal Republican Party can’t kick him out.
*I live in an open primary state and frequently vote in Republican primaries because, strategically, I have a higher chance of my vote mattering there than in the general election. Indeed, if Alabama went to a closed primary, I might register as a Republican for that reason. Yte, I have also voted exclusively Democratic on the general election ballot for some years now (almost 20 years, I would reckon). What am I? A Republican or a Democrat? I know the texts I get every election cycle think I am a Republican.
