Party influence in Congress Essay

The decline of society strength and put to work began in the nineteenth century, partly delinquent to the growth of the federal government under FDR whose current Deal establishment served to undermine traditional social functions once carried discover by political party machines, thus weakening party faithfulness. In the 1960s and 1970s new issues such as civil rights, feminism, environmentalism and consumer rights arose to challenge traditional voting habits. These issues did not divide neatly along party lines and to a greater extent voters indulged in ticket-splitting (voting for different parties in different elections). Partly in repartee to these trends, the parties themselves began to question their own policies and challenge their leaders.In Congress, reforms democratized or opened up weft procedures to broader participation. Senior members found themselves surrendering committee chairmanships to unknown newcomers. Whips found it harder to utilise party discipline and junior members increasingly pursued their own individual(prenominal) projects to gain media attention and impress their constituency voters. Congress members have much to gain, in publicity and in tangible rewards (grants for their constituencies) from unpredictable behavior.The effect upon presidential influence in Congress has been destructive. President Carter struggled to pass bills through a mark and Senate controlled by his own party. President Reagans early successes were largely due to Democrat Boll Weevil defections. President Clinton has likewise been unable to rely upon solid party support, particularly for his anti-crime legislation and Healthcare Reform bill. Congress has been split by the new individualism of its members.The rise of the primary in presidential selection was another method used to open up the political agreement and weaken party influence. Primaries allow voters a direct say in the choice of the partys standard bearer in the presidential election . However, they enable candidates to hijack the party nomination for president by collection teams of consultants, lawyers, financiers and media advisers, many of whom have no party affiliation and no loyalty or goal beyond the victory of their chosen leader.The victorious candidates sometimes lack any experience of government at the nationallevel. novel presidents, facing a fragmented Congress, aggressive pressure groups and a atheistical media, cannot afford the luxury of limited experience. Unfortunately, the modern election system tends to esteem those candidates who are effective campaigners rather than those who may be effective administrators. effrontery these difficulties, it is not surprising that recent Presidents have appeared to struggle. The cement of practical experience, party loyalty and common cause is too often thin or nonexistent at both ends.