Empowering Engagement: The Role of Political Parties

Political parties are not the devil in our political system.

Since some of our earliest American elections, party mechanisms have facilitated the joining of aligned interests in a way that allowed individuals to participate more effectively in the political system. When you control for the obvious variables of political corruption – times like Tammany Hall and Watergate – the more common individual experience of political parties in America is one that sees average Americans gaining additional opportunities to engage directly with those they elect.

That’s not a flaw in the system. It’s a feature. One that empowers and enfranchises people who decide to show up and participate.

My own experience is what becomes available to anyone else willing to put in the work. No one in my immediate family had deep-rooted experience in politics. None were exceptionally well-connected. We were about as far removed from the so-called political elite as you can be. Middle to lower-middle class, blue collar until my own generation. My grandparents were farmers. My parents worked in a distribution center. And I grew up with no direct connections to give me a leg up in Ohio politics.

Then I got a chance to volunteer knocking doors and putting up yard signs in college. After my time in uniform, my then still very limited political network led to an opportunity to work directly for a member of the United States House of Representatives. All because one person in my political party saw an opening for me.

That’s not just luck, it’s a part of the political party structure. That may be why the erosion of party-building in American politics is a major concern for me. An ongoing drought of party-builders harms our representation and our individual access.

So far, this election cycle seems to be contributing to a trend (at least from my point of view – challenge me in the comments if you disagree). Since the 2016 election the dominating influence on our national politics is undeniably President Trump. Whether you agree with him on anything or nothing at all, it’s about as clear a fact as you can state that he has been the center of our national attention. His on camera persona has not lost a single step in the decade since. Love him or hate him, that’s a reality.

Another reality is that countless others have tried to capture similar lightning in a bottle. They’ve tried to create their own “Trump-effect” by adopting his tactics. We see more of our politicians in social media feeds, and less of them in town halls. We see them hosting pep rallies instead of debates. Yet there’s also seemingly less and less room available for others on the stage. The politics of parties is gradually ceding ground to the politics of personalities.

And that’s a problem on BOTH sides of the aisle.

If you’ve been following national politics in recent weeks, you’ve undoubtedly seen coverage of a public spat between a sitting United States Senator and a fellow democrat campaigning in a different state. From the same party, seeking to flip the same chamber, and yet one attacking the other as if they were opponents in a primary. Bizarre.

In this environment where politicians can leverage new media to take their message directly to the voter, we’re losing agency as individuals who could previously leverage party structures as a check on personality. The Republican party is certainly no stranger to this dynamic either. Look beyond President Trump and you’ll see a contemporary history of infighting where party leaders have sought to rein in show horses to allow work horses to govern. How many times has that desire to govern led to the political demise of a Speaker of the House?

Instead of building party bases, new media is empowering individual candidates to go their own way. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead there’s no need for them to balance personal ambition against perpetuating meaningful agendas.

New media seems great because it makes us believe we’re getting more, unfiltered access to the thoughts of our elected representatives. But I would challenge you to think about the quality of that “access” moving forward. Is it really more access, or are we just enduring more monologues? Not too long ago, political parties were trending toward more input from the general public, not less.

After the 1968 Democratic primary, both parties have been subjected to rule changes that stemmed from a commission to balance the power of party elites and the rank-and-file membership. The Democrats’ McGovern-Fraser commission led to more primaries and stricter rules about how the results of those primaries would allocate representation within the party. Further, because those primaries are run by states, there was a spill-over effect in the Republican primary process as well.

McGovern-Fraser was a step toward eliminating the smoke-filled rooms of party bosses selecting Presidential candidates. Further reforms in the 1980s were the result of the Democrat party trying to strike a balance between popular enfranchisement and delivering candidates who were more competitive in general elections. That push and pull between representation and political viability continues to evolve the structures we see in place to nominate Presidents. Modern Democrats are wrestling with the influence of superdelegates and party bosses still, a la 2024’s anointment of Kamala Harris.

Striking just the right balance causes conflict within both parties. My contention is this: that intra-party conflict isn’t a bad thing. Legacy party structures that facilitate that friction serve us as individuals and issue advocates.

Party structures become recruiting grounds for volunteers, staff, and candidates alike. They empower people like me to be a part of the system, not just a hapless bystander. And when leveraged properly, they allow current political leaders to mentor and build up the winners of the future. But those would-be party-builders have to willingly pursue the work, AND we have to willingly deliver on our own responsibility as members of those parties.

It’s not good enough to save your political participation for election day. It’s not good enough to grab a slate card on the way in to the polling place. If you’re serious about engaging in American politics, the work starts further out. It starts with accepting the faults and foibles of your own party’s team and working toward the public good even though we are going to fall well short of perfect.

Quit hating the players and the game. Realize the ways in which participation acts as a force multiplier for the issues you care about most. Because complaining about parties and partisanship isn’t serving you. But building a better party just might.

When we look beyond this year’s general election, both parties will start the process all over again. They’ll digest the results, lay blame, and then start fundraising – almost immediately. That’s their job. It’s our job as advocates to leverage every advantage we can to position ourselves as credible experts on our issues. Party structures still serve that goal. When they start gearing up for the next cycle is a prime time for you to step up as a party-builder. And you’re needed more now than ever.