Ambition in America: Political Power and the Collapse of Citizenship

6. Keeping Ambition Accountable

6 Keeping Ambition Accountable A Place for Political Parties Americans have always preferred to avoid the consequences of their commitment to individual choice by assuming that, somehow, the sum total of such choices will be compatible with larger historic goals. They have preferred to pay the price of mismanagement rather than suffer the restrictions that effective management places on the individual’s right to choose. Our fundamental populism, our faith in our own intuitions and in the forms of government in which we believe them to be embodied, is essential to our sense of security in ourselves as citizens. —Barry Karl, The Uneasy State The perception that electoral campaigns are predominantly candidatecentered assumes that parties no longer offer incentives for ambitious candidates . Alan Ehrenhalt’s claim that Americans have dismantled structures of peer review is only half right; rather than simply disappearing, the place of peer review within the selection system for office seekers takes new forms. Politicalpartiescontinuetoexistasinstitutionsthatregulaterivalriesbetween candidates competing for power through democratic elections. To avoid the chaos of electoral decisions and reduce uncertainty, candidates and activists affiliate with political parties, which provides an information shortcut for voters to assess the standing of particular candidates’ policy positions. This party identification provides a measure of electoral stability for ambitious citizens seeking office as well as voters. From this standpoint, as John Aldrich argues,“theadvantageliesinthelong-termcareerprospectsofrelativelyhigh likelihood of continued access to office over the course of a political career and of the heightened ability to use that office for whatever goals are desired. It is the reduction of uncertainty in repeated electoral contests, just as in 123 124 Ambition in America repeated policymaking contests, that yields the great advantage of affiliation with, and even the creation of, a major party.”1 Political parties provide an organizational structure for expressing the partiality of political preferences and coordinating those differences in the political life of American politics. Nancy Rosenblum points out, “Deliberation, discussion, persuasion about public matters are invitations to parties; they assume partial and interested perspectives, even if these are perspectives on the common good.”2 Candidates cannot perform a complete end run around party constituencies and still expect to win office. At the presidential level, according to Clement Fatovic, “even though presidents build up their own constituencies and run quasi-independent electoral campaigns, they still coordinate their electoral strategies and policy programs with their parties.” Despite the entrepreneurial independence of their campaign organizations, ambitious candidates still depend on party networks to secure party nominations; thus, ambitiousofficeseekersstillhaveincentivestobuildlastingcoalitionscapable of advancing their careers. Amid the increased openness of the American electoral system to entrepreneurial candidates, political parties and the connections they foster still play a pivotal role in American politics: “The American political system does provide more opportunities for success to entrepreneurial candidates who are relatively independent from their parties than does a parliamentary system, but it is still quite difficult for any politician who has not worked his or her way through the party structure to get the financial backing, organizational support, and name recognition necessary to run a national campaign.”3 As important as party politics remain to getting elected, presidential candidates must now campaign directly for themselves. The days when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson could pretend that they were not seeking higher office and rely almost entirely on supporters to make their cases are long gone. No candidate can conceal his or her ambition or avoid the unseemliness of asking wealthy donors for money or pandering to narrow interest groups. No matter how much time a candidate spends shaking hands on rope lines; listening to the concerns of voters at town hall meetings; or answering questions at campaign stops in factories, shopping malls, or industrial parks, it is difficult to maintain meaningful interactions with individuals who are not well-connected insiders.4 Political parties continue to provide ambitious people with incentives to be allegiant to party institutions because those institutions promote their careers . Parties exist to win elections; that is their focus. Winning elections has Keeping Ambition Accountable 125 always come first, not preserving the political associations or the institutions of governing. Mancur Olson recognized that “organizations perish if they do not forward the interests of their members.”5 Without such incentives, ambitious people focus on placating the narrow “single issues” of pressure groups, giving little heed to civic habits, traditions, or customs that may indirectly benefit their careers. As established party organizations fragment or become irrelevant to...