The third annual Bulen Symposium on American Politics, held last Monday at IUPUI, was devoted to “epolitics.” The discussion was lively. Depending upon the speaker, we learned that the Internet has lessened (or increased) political participation, is used more by Republicans (or libertarians), circulates devastating (or puerile) political humor, and will replace “butterfly ballots” with reliable electronics (or will enable fraud of hitherto unknown magnitude).
The third annual Bulen Symposium on American Politics, held last Monday at IUPUI, was devoted to “epolitics.” The discussion was lively. Depending upon the speaker, we learned that the Internet has lessened (or increased) political participation, is used more by Republicans (or libertarians), circulates devastating (or puerile) political humor, and will replace “butterfly ballots” with reliable electronics (or will enable fraud of hitherto unknown magnitude).
While the range of opinion was broad, one issue conspicuously missing was the issue that would most have engaged Keith Bulen, for whom the Symposium is named. What will be the effect of this new technology on the political parties? What are its implications for our two-party system?
Historically, voters in America expressed their collective political preferences through political parties. The parties convened conventions, chose candidates, mobilized interest groups, raised money, registered voters, and conducted “get out the vote” drives. They also exercised authority over their members to ensure a degree of accountability to the basics of the party philosophy.
Over the last generations, we have seen a marked decline in the health and vigor of both major parties. Primaries have replaced the much-maligned “smoke filled rooms” in which candidates were chosen and tickets balanced. Interest groups have multiplied and have become more sophisticated and less dependent upon the major parties to achieve their goals. They have registered voters and raised money for specific candidates and causes, sometimes remaining totally independent of the party apparatus. Candidates have become equally independent; whatever the merits of the campaign finance reforms that have been attempted, candidates now assume far more responsibility for raising and spending their own money, airing their own television commercials, and constructing their own positions on the issues. Many interest groups and candidates also conduct their own, independent “get out the vote” programs.
One effect of all this has been to weaken the two-party system. With two strong parties, there was an inexorable pressure toward the center of the political spectrum. As the parties have become less important, so-called “wing-nuts” have emerged at both ends of the political spectrum, third parties have gained importance, and political participation has declined. While cause and effect are never simple, most observers see these phenomena as related.
What happens to the parties—and the only political system we have known—if some of the “epolitics” predictions made so confidently at the Bulen Symposium last Monday come true?
If we can easily register and vote via the Internet, what will we need with precinct committeemen or ward chairs? If the Internet allows individual candidates to target the like-minded, raise funds directly, and communicate without mediation—what will be the function of the political parties?
One historian I know says that the modern concept of privacy came from the invention of window glass. The automobile dramatically changed our cities. Television created McLuhan’s “global village” with a vengeance. Is the elephant in the e-living room—the one that Bulen panelists were all scrupulously ignoring—the coming destruction of the American two-party system?