Political Parties and Group Pressures

• Published date: 01 May 1935
• Author: Peter H. Odegard
• Date: 01 May 1935
• DOI: 10.1177/000271623517900110
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Parties and Group Pressures
By PETER H. ODEGARD
POLITICAL parties are devices for the surface. Generally their bond of
JL doing indirectly in democratic unity is the desire for oflice and the im-
societies what is done directly in non-
mediate spoils of public power. It is
democratic societies. That is to say,
consequently necessary in any realistic
they control the approaches to public
approach to the problem to distinguish
power and are the instrumentalities by
between the party as an electoral de-
which powerful groups within the com-
vice and as a device for representing
munity achieve control of government
positive interests.
and maintain themselves in power.
The struggle for power has shifted
The advent of democracy not only
from a conflict between interest groups
shattered the old framework of political
directly impinging upon the state, to a
society, it destroyed the &dquo;hierarchy of
conflict of interests within the party
classes and their internal cohesion, and
structure to control these new devices
the time-honored social ties which
for mobilizing the popular will. The
bound the individual to the com-
major interests are content to leave
munity....&dquo; Moreover, it opened
minor spoils, such as jobs in the public
the path to power to large masses of
service, to the party agents as long as
men who were united by no common
these agents direct the affairs of state
ideal or interest as had been the case
in a manner to promote the interests of
with the landed aristocracy. The in-
the powerful oligarchies which control
crease in the number of those whose
the economic and social destinies of the
consent was to be required made im-
community. The study of government
possible the old system of direct
becomes henceforth not the study of
government.
formal structure-which under the old
Under these circumstances, if gov-
unity coincided with the real distribu-
ernment was not to degenerate into
tion of power-but the more or less in-
chaos, it became necessary to mold this
formal processes by which out of the
inchoate mass into some semblance of
confusion of many voices a semblance of
unity. Individuals had become liter-
popular will is created. For, as H. G.
ally stranded in the mass. The old ties
Wells puts it:
had dissolved or been destroyed. New
The modern politician .. , is a dealer, a
bonds of union had to be forged.
merchant, or broker in assent. He lives by
Moreover, the obstacle of mass consent
assent. He gathers it in, or makes believe
had been interposed between the desire
to gather it in, from the vague and fluc-
and the realization of power. The
tuating masses of the great modern com-
democratic statesman or politician
munity, he consolidates it, or seems to
must
consolidate it,
secure assent from tens of thou-
always with a view to the
sands of individuals with
approval of the assenting mass and a con-
a myriad of
tinuation of its
diverse
favors, and so he transmits
interests. Out of such circum-
it to official, police, teachers, tax-gatherers,
stances arose modern political parties.
judiciary and so on. He interprets to the
officials what the
PARTY POWER
community approves and
what they may do, and the officials inform
Whatever special interests may exist
him upon what issues the community needs
s
in the party do not as a rule appear on
to be instructed and directed.
68

---

69
A glance at contemporary political
played a conspicuous role in American
parties will reveal their composite na-
politics, even a cursory reading of our
ture. With minor exceptions they rep-
history will reveal. Indeed, Freder-
resent aggregations of numerous in-
ick Turner and others, like Professor
terest groups. The party machine or
Holcombe, find in sectional conflicts
&dquo;organization&dquo; is itself an interest
the chief rationale of our political
group. It is concerned not with mat-
history.’
ters of public policy but almost ex-
The sectional cleavage between East
clusively with matters of personnel.
and West is discernible in the Jeffer-
Where the farmers are interested in ad-
sonian and Jacksonian upheavals, in
justment legislation and processing
the agrarian rebellions of the post-civil-
taxes, the manufacturers and indus-
war period, in the Bryan crusades, in
trialists in tariffs and other subsidies,
the Lea Follette movement of 1924, and
organized labor in wage policies and
in the present conflict between the
collective bargaining-the &dquo;organiza-
&dquo;conservative&dquo; and &dquo;radical&dquo; wings of
tion&dquo; is interested in jobs. To secure
both parties. The force of the slogan
control of jobs is almost its sole raison
&dquo;Wall street versus the ~’Vest&dquo; is not
d’etre. But to consummate this end,
yet spent.
the machine must garner votes; and in
But the difference between East and
the process, it encounters the conflict-
West are no greater than those between
ing claims of rival functional interest
North and South. Indeed, the sec-
groups.
tional pressure of the South has been
Compromise being the sovereign
the most powerful single influence in
specific for resolving social conflict,
determining the form and direction of
the life of the party becomes one of
Democratic Party politics. The long
perpetual compromise. Out of this
allegiance of the South and West was
process are generated the so-called
conditioned by the fact that the West
&dquo;principles&dquo; of the party. For the sub-
looked down the Mississippi to the
stance of the symbols or &dquo;principles,&dquo;
Gulf as its outlet to the markets of the
the organization cares little or nothing
world. Moreover, the common in-
so long as they succeed in achieving the
terest of agriculture was a source of
final goal of all party machines-vic-
union. With the coming of the rail-
tory at the polls. For upon such vic-
roads, this old union was weakened
tory, in final
when the West began to look to the
t
analysis, depends its
sustenance.
This is the process to
East for its markets. Yet seeds of
which Ambrose Bierce referred when he
sectional conflict between West and
defined politics as &dquo;the strife of inter-
East, and North and South remain.
ests masquerading as principles.&dquo;
Sectional conflict between North and
South has been perpetuated in the new
SECTIONAL PRESSURES
1

See Frederick Jackson Turner, Frontier in
Let us look then at some of the
American History (1921), Significance of Sections
in American History (1932); A. N. Holcombe,
group pressures to which the party
Political Parties of Today (1924), The New Party
must yield and the interests to which
Politics (1933); Ellen Churchill Semple, American
its &dquo;principles&dquo; must appeal. Sec-
History and Its Geographic Conditions (1933),
tional interests are compounds of eco-
Historical Geographical Atlas of the United
nomic, historical, traditional, and even
States; C. O. Sauer, "The Economic Problem of
ethnic influences
the
which
Ozark
give substance
Highland"; Viva Boothe, The Political
Party as a Social Process (1923); H. G. Roach,
to the symbols used to represent them.
"Sectionalism in Congress 1870-1890," Ameri-
That these sectional interests have
can Political Science Review, Aug. 1925.

---

70
states of the West, and their allegiance
tional conflicts are giving way to class
determined, in part at least, according
conflicts.3
to whether they were settled by North-
ECONOMIC PRESSURES
erners
or
Southerners. As Miss
Boothe says: &dquo;The more recently de-
The history of American party poli-
veloped sections of the United States
tics from Hamilton’s day down to very
have tended to become allied with one
recent times is dominated by the con-
party or the other in proportion to the
flict between agrarianism and capital-
extent to which they have drawn their
ism. It is the rationale which gives
inhabitants from the two divergent
meaning to the sectional struggles be-
sections of the country....&dquo; 2
tween North and South, between East
But however important a common
and West, and between the conflict of
social heritage may be in explaining
political principles represented vaguely
sectional cleavage, economic factors
by the terms &dquo;Hamiltonian&dquo; and
are even more important. The rapid
&dquo;Jeflersonian.&dquo;
The Hamiltonian sys-
growth of population and industry in
tem, firmly intrenched by the end of
the North as compared with the South
Washington’s second administration,
laid the basis for the political tactics of
has been assaulted upon numerous oc-
the two sections.
The South made its
casions and with varying success. The
bid for power through control of the
Jeffersonian upheaval of 1800, the
Senate, whereas the North, with a
Jacksonian revolution of 1828, the
rapidly growing population, took con-
violent assault by the Southern slave
trol of the House. The admission of
oligarchy resulting in the Civil War,
states in the ratio of one free to one
the Greenback and Populist rebellions
slave became a prominent feature of
of the late nineteenth century, and to
American politics. But in this game
a somewhat lesser degree the Progres-
the South played a losing hand. The
sive protests of 1912 and 1924, repre-
fact, too, that the great lines of com-
sent major and minor battles in the war
munication ran from East to West
between agrarianism and capitalism.
rather than from North to South con-
The Federalists, the Whigs, and the
stituted an important factor in deep-
Republican parties were the avowed
ening sectional differences and bring-
...