Political Puppets: If not Members of Congress, Political Parties, or Voters, Then Who?

 Many theorists assert that political parties are vehicles for politicians to achieve their own goals: election and reelection for sometimes a specific policy cause. Some theorists even suggest the opposite, that politicians are a means to an end for political parties to advance their ideology. However, theorists like Seth E. Masket believe that there is an exogenous factor: ideological activists and interest groups. These outside factors influence the political behavior of politicians and push members of congress to be partisan when they otherwise would not be. Interest groups influence policy more than parties and members of congress themselves.

                For a while, the general consensus was that politicians were inherently non-ideological, and tried to pursue the voting patterns of the median voters in their district. This theory makes sense. In the 20^th century, it was hard to distinguish one party from the other. Cooperation was the norm and most differences were theatrical. In the end, politicians just wanted to compromise and please the median voter. However, now most people agree that the two main parties in the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats, have become visibly different as the trend moves toward members of congress representing the ideologically extreme of their party rather than the middle. Masket argues that this is because interest groups are controlling the type of candidates running for Congress, and even the Presidency. They seek candidates that agree with them on specific issues, and openly and financially support their campaign. This creates a sense of loyalty between the candidate and the interest group, who both mutually benefit from being in office: the interest group gets their view of certain policies pushed, and not only does this candidate believe in those policies as well, they receive funding for their campaign and if it works, they win their spot in Congress. It seems like a win-win situation for politicians and interest groups, but is it a win-win for the rest of America?

                Masket’s theory could explain the increasingly difficult deadlock between the two parties in Congress when there is not a favorable majority for either side. Republicans want all or nothing, and so do the Democrats: all with putting on a fake face that claims they want to compromise, and pointing their fingers at each other and crying wolf, the other party is to blame for being uncooperative. The ultimate seat in Congress is the Speaker of the House: they control what legislation sees the floor, and make the rest disappear. This is an interest group’s ultimate dream: win the Speaker of the House, and key legislation that both the interest group and the loyal politician want gets to see the floor. 

                Recently, Speaker John Boehner ( R ) drew up a plan to sue Obama, again, for abusing his executive powers to dismiss Congress’ attempt to resolve the immigration issue and pursue his own goal for immigration. Republicans have been infuriated. This is not the first time the President has opted to use his executive powers, of which he claims are in perfect authority given to him by the Constitution, to solve issues his own way instead of working with Congress to resolve the issue. John Boehner asserts, “"This isn't about immigration…this is the President violating the Constitution, violating his oath of office, and frankly, not upholding the rule of law." But, if it really is about immigration and not about the Constitution, or maybe it is about both, this immovable stance by both the President and the Republicans suggest party extremism centric to certain issues, issues made important by interest groups. Political parties do not take sides until they are forced to because an issue has been brought to attention. This position taking polarizes the parties even more, making compromise harder to achieve.

                An infamous example of polarized parties as a result of extreme views is the 2013 government shutdown. Republicans in the House passed a bill that would defund Obamacare, and vowed to lead the government into a shutdown if the Democratic majority Senate did not compromise. As expected, the Democrats in the Senate refused to pass the bill. The Republican party countered with another offer, also to which the Senate refused to pass. This ultimately repeated itself until the government had to shut down on October 1^st, 2013. The two parties ultimately agreed on a way to extend government operation, but did not agree on a plan for Obamacare.

                Masket’s argument for interest groups explains these occurrences in Congress. As interest groups help candidates get elected into office, the extreme views of these politicians make it harder for Congress to work together. The parties have been so fundamentally divided that neither side will make concessions to the other, and the requests for concessions nonetheless seem outright ridiculous to the other side. As a result, a single party majority in both chambers is the only efficient way to get things done. Even now, it seems as though that is not enough-and a President of the same party may also increasingly be required. 

Kirell, Andrew. 2013. A Brief History of the 2013 Government Shutdown. Mediaite. 17 October.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-brief-history-of-the-2013-government-shutdown/

Hartmann, Margaret. 2015. Boehner Says He’ll Certainly Allow A Homeland Security Shutdown. New York News and Politics. 16 February.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/100-candidates-selected-for-one-way-mars-mission.html

Rhodan, Maya. 2015. Boehner: Senate Democrats Are To Blame If Homeland Security Shuts Down. 15 February.

http://time.com/3710522/boehner-homeland-security-shut-down/

Editorial Board. 2015. A Homeland Security Shutdown? It’s On You, Speaker Boehner. 16 February. Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-homeland-security-edit-0217-20150216-story.html

Jaffe, Alexandra. 2015. Boehner Defends House GOP Lawsuit. 29 January. CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/28/politics/boehner-obama-immigration-lawsuit/

Masket, Seth. It Takes an Outsider: Extralegislative Organization and Partisanship in the California Assembly, 1849–2006.