I think that Steven Taylor has got out over his skis in this post. Said another way, I think he’s exaggerating. Here’s the passage from the post I’m questioning:
Second, because our system (i.e., plurality elections in single-seat districts, the usage of primaries, and a number of other structures) funnels us into two parties, and because primaries open the door wide for anyone who wants to be one of the two collectives (providing that they win enough votes), this means both parties are coalitional in nature. Further, because of the porous nature of the nomination system and because centralized leadership of consequence does not exist in either party, it is nonsensical to say that a person who won a Democratic primary isn’t a Democrat.
The reason I question it is that Steven overstates his case. If he’s saying that American political parties are weak relative to, say, European political parties and parties in parliamentary systems, I agree completely. If he’s saying that American political parties don’t and can’t limit their membership, he’s wrong.
In 2014 the Arlington County Democratic Party in Virginia expelled a member for opposing a Democratic candidate in a general election. In Texas the Republican Party uses a censure mechanism, Rule 44, against state legislators for inadequate fidelity to party principle and priorities. In addition both political parties parties have denounced members with views outside the mainstream, e.g. David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche.
There are many other examples from further back in history. Franklin Roosevelt attempted a purge of members who didn’t support his policies. There was actually a loyalty test during the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Our political parties have other tools that Steven did not mention including:
- They determine debate qualification rules.
- They determine delegate allocation rules.
- They determine convention rules.
- They have, at various times, changed superdelegate rules, primary calendars, ballot access requirements, and candidate qualification standards.
Whether those tools will be exploited remains to be seen.
Rather than being “nonsensical,” what is happening within the Democratic Party is a debate over the boundaries of party identity, prompted by the New York elections. I understand James Carville’s despair, for example. Whether the solution to the problem is resigning from the party, I’m less confident. I do think that Democrats should decide what they believe and don’t believe and not be afraid to declare their beliefs.
