Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, May 30, 1994 TAG: 9405310143
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: HOLIDAY
SOURCE: By PATRICK M. McSWEENEY
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Your editorial contends that political parties aren't voluntary associations. This is a novel view, and one that ignores history and the Supreme Court's consistent interpretation of the First Amendment.
The freedom to associate voluntarily and without government interference is guaranteed not only to individuals, but to political parties. Without this freedom, Americans would have a far different, and clearly less desirable, relationship with their government. There'd be no effective buffer between the individual and the all-powerful state.
The First Amendment was adopted to protect all forms of voluntary association, especially association for political purposes. The Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that individuals enjoy the constitutional protection to associate in political parties without interference from government. For example, in a 1981 case involving a Wisconsin statute that directed state delegates to a Democratic National Convention as to how they must vote, the court said: ``This First Amendment freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the 14th Amendment from infringement by any state.''
Imagine what the situation would be like if the freedom to associate for political purposes weren't guaranteed by the Constitution. Those in power would be in a position to regulate and control their political opponents, stifle dissent, and frustrate efforts to build an effective opposition. Government would tend to become even more oppressive and authoritarian than it already is. Ruling interests would become self-perpetuating, and healthy political competition would likely disappear. Because citizens' ability to develop peaceful opposition groups would be weakened, there'd be a heightened likelihood that they'd resort to force to bring about political change.
Far-fetched? Not if we look to other countries that don't guarantee their citizens the right to associate without government interference.
What your editorial appears to favor is a primary system for selecting governmental leaders that's run by government and financed entirely by taxpayers. This would ultimately make political parties the functional equivalent of government agencies. How responsive would elected officials be under such a system? My bet is they'd be even less responsive than they are under the current one.
Americans have enjoyed a generally stable system of government and orderly transfers of power for two centuries. For that, we owe much to the two-party system. Sadly, parties have been weakened by several developments, including the rise of powerful interest groups and candidates' ability to use the mass media to appeal to voters directly.
Political parties can be fairly faulted for contributing to their own decline. But they still provide something that's essential to our democratic form of governance, and no one has yet come forward with a better institution to replace them.
The Supreme Court has recognized the danger ``that splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do significant damage to the fabric of government.'' Even so, the court noted that it may not interfere in the organization or affairs of political parties to protect them against themselves.
In 1976, the eminent political scientist, James McGregor Burns, noted the demise of political parties and offered the following observations about the irreplaceable contribution parties make to our political stability and freedom:
``Without parties, there could be no organized and coherent politics. When politics lacks coherence, there can be no accountable democracy. Parties are indispensable to the realization of democracy. What would take the place of parties? A politics of celebrities, of excessive media influence, of political fad-of-the-month clubs, of massive private financing by various ``fat cats'' of state and congressional campaigns, of gun-for-hire campaign managers, of heightened interest in personalities and lowered concern for policy, of manipulation and management by self-chosen political elites.''
To strengthen parties, Burns recommended a reversal of the trend toward more primaries, which he considered ``expensive, exhausting, confusing and unrepresentative.'' Most political scientists share that view.
Had the law students who recently filed suit against the Republican Party succeeded in prohibiting the imposition of fees on delegates to its conventions, the Republican Party probably wouldn't have called a future convention. The court, however, rejected the students' claims, recognizing that nomination of a candidate by a political party's convention isn't an election for purposes of the Voting Rights Act.
This is a serious issue with far-reaching implications. It warrants a thorough and objective analysis, not the diatribe that appeared in your editorial. And would it be presumptuous to suggest that an editorial on such an important issue not begin with name-calling (``horses' hindquarters'')? That kind of negative attack does nothing to enlighten your readers.
Patrick M. McSweeney is chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia.
by CNB