I am not sure but I think I may see this slightly differently. Yes, party loyalty is huge. But it has always been huge. What changed is the weakness of the party structure itself, so one is loyal to an organization that itself has little authority. The parties are merely the consiglieres who carry out the orders of the interests that really control them. A strong party system would have kicked Trump out, certainly in 2024 or maybe even in 2016. He would have been a footnote to history not unlike a Ross Perot or a George Wallace. But because of the weakness of the parties, a populist like Trump can prevail and become President. And he can run his party like a mob boss from thereon, because there is nobody strong enough to push back when the boss has gone too far.
Dave, thank you for the thoughtful reply, it's a genuinely interesting angle, but I want to push back on it just a bit.
You described parties as "merely the consiglieres who carry out the orders of the interests that really control them." I think that's accurate. So let me ask the question your framing raises: do we want a system of government that depends on private organizations — ones that answer to concentrated interests rather than voters — to be the ones deciding who is qualified to govern? Isn't that just replacing checks and balances with "trust the party to pick the right people"?
Or do we want a system where, regardless of who the person is or where they came from, members of Congress are given the space to actually do the job voters sent them to do — represent their constituents, deliberate, and yes, check executive power when necessary?
That's what the essay is getting at. Not "the wrong people ran the party." But "why do members have to choose between their constituents, institution, our country and Constitution versus their party at all?"
Why do we want the parties dictating the agenda? Just as the paragraph I added after publishing:
If the parties dictate the agenda, and punish any member who deviates, what is the difference between candidate A and candidate B, if at the end of the day they are just going to do what party leadership tells them to?
It seems backward doesn't it. But I was 14 years old, watching the 72 Democratic Convention and remember how excited I was witnessing George McGovern take down the Daley Machine. But then I learned something from how that went for the election and eventually for the country. Defeating the party apparatus contributed to the election of, until now, the most corrupt president in post-war history.
I encounter a similar quandary when considering whether open primaries are better than closed primaries.
I guess my point is that a strong two-party system is a positive contributor to our demcratic system when it is at its best. By contrast, a multi-party system could lead to chaos. And when at their best, a strong party system does some appropriate amount of vetting that helps the country avoid electing populist leaders who lack the integrity or competence to hold office.
When Obama was interviewed by Colbert this week, he commented half-jokingly how the bar has been lowered for running for President. Truth is the party system can help solve that problem.
But how to restore some integrity to the party system? Sorry, I'm not smart enough to know how.
The McGovern example is exactly right and worth sitting with. The destruction of the party apparatus had real consequences — and you're not wrong that strong parties have historically done valuable vetting work.
Here's where I'd push back gently: the problem isn't strong parties versus weak parties. It's what the parties are strong for. Right now they're exceptionally strong at punishing members who deviate — but that strength flows downward to legislators, not upward to candidates. Trump didn't happen because parties were too weak to stop him. He happened because the accountability mechanism runs to whoever controls donor money and base turnout, not to institutional standards or governing competence.
A party that's strong at enforcing loyalty to whoever wins the donor primary isn't vetting for integrity. It's vetting for compliance.
Your civil service instinct is exactly the right direction. If the incentive structure rewards wealth accumulation and punishes conscience, you get the behavior we're seeing. Change the incentives — limit self-enrichment, make service genuinely a service — and you change the behavior. Not because you got better people. Because the system stopped rewarding the wrong things.
That's the design problem I'm working on. Glad you're here thinking about it.
Agreed! I would add that somewhere along the way the incentive system stopped rewarding compromise in order to get things done and move the country forward. The parties used to trust the deal makers and reward them with leadership positions. Now it rewards performance artists.
That is precisely what this essay is about. The 1970's reforms are what 'stopped rewarding compromise.'
Right now, if a member compromises, i.e. doesn't vote with the party, then they will be punished. They can lose committee positions, lose access to important people, lose the support of the party.
So, if you as a Senator/Representative are presented with a bill to vote on, your calculus isn't "Should I vote for or against this? Does it help or hurt my constituents?" Your calculus is "am I willing to vote against my own party and face the consequences?"
Given that is the choice, is it any wonder why we don't see any compromise?
I wrote an (unpublished) essay about my Senator, Mike Lee, who has been sponsoring the SAVE America Act, and how it is actively harmful to the State of Utah and its citizens. Trump (who, for all intents and purposes, speaks for the Republican party) has stated that he won't sign any legislation until SAVE is passed by Congress.
Where does that leave Lee? Does he side with the interests he is supposed to represent? Or does he side with the party? I think you and I can easily imagine what would happen to Lee if he refused: he would lose position, access, resources, and support. And then someone else who is willing to toe the line would take his place.
This is why we are where we are.
No mystery.
No corruption.
No bribery.
No conspiracy theory.
Just regular, rational human behavior.
TSB is attempting to build a system that works *with* rational behavior, to make doing "the right thing" (i.e. serving constituents) also be the easy thing to do.
I am not sure but I think I may see this slightly differently. Yes, party loyalty is huge. But it has always been huge. What changed is the weakness of the party structure itself, so one is loyal to an organization that itself has little authority. The parties are merely the consiglieres who carry out the orders of the interests that really control them. A strong party system would have kicked Trump out, certainly in 2024 or maybe even in 2016. He would have been a footnote to history not unlike a Ross Perot or a George Wallace. But because of the weakness of the parties, a populist like Trump can prevail and become President. And he can run his party like a mob boss from thereon, because there is nobody strong enough to push back when the boss has gone too far.
Dave, thank you for the thoughtful reply, it's a genuinely interesting angle, but I want to push back on it just a bit.
You described parties as "merely the consiglieres who carry out the orders of the interests that really control them." I think that's accurate. So let me ask the question your framing raises: do we want a system of government that depends on private organizations — ones that answer to concentrated interests rather than voters — to be the ones deciding who is qualified to govern? Isn't that just replacing checks and balances with "trust the party to pick the right people"?
Or do we want a system where, regardless of who the person is or where they came from, members of Congress are given the space to actually do the job voters sent them to do — represent their constituents, deliberate, and yes, check executive power when necessary?
That's what the essay is getting at. Not "the wrong people ran the party." But "why do members have to choose between their constituents, institution, our country and Constitution versus their party at all?"
Why do we want the parties dictating the agenda? Just as the paragraph I added after publishing:
If the parties dictate the agenda, and punish any member who deviates, what is the difference between candidate A and candidate B, if at the end of the day they are just going to do what party leadership tells them to?
It seems backward doesn't it. But I was 14 years old, watching the 72 Democratic Convention and remember how excited I was witnessing George McGovern take down the Daley Machine. But then I learned something from how that went for the election and eventually for the country. Defeating the party apparatus contributed to the election of, until now, the most corrupt president in post-war history.
I encounter a similar quandary when considering whether open primaries are better than closed primaries.
I guess my point is that a strong two-party system is a positive contributor to our demcratic system when it is at its best. By contrast, a multi-party system could lead to chaos. And when at their best, a strong party system does some appropriate amount of vetting that helps the country avoid electing populist leaders who lack the integrity or competence to hold office.
When Obama was interviewed by Colbert this week, he commented half-jokingly how the bar has been lowered for running for President. Truth is the party system can help solve that problem.
But how to restore some integrity to the party system? Sorry, I'm not smart enough to know how.
The McGovern example is exactly right and worth sitting with. The destruction of the party apparatus had real consequences — and you're not wrong that strong parties have historically done valuable vetting work.
Here's where I'd push back gently: the problem isn't strong parties versus weak parties. It's what the parties are strong for. Right now they're exceptionally strong at punishing members who deviate — but that strength flows downward to legislators, not upward to candidates. Trump didn't happen because parties were too weak to stop him. He happened because the accountability mechanism runs to whoever controls donor money and base turnout, not to institutional standards or governing competence.
A party that's strong at enforcing loyalty to whoever wins the donor primary isn't vetting for integrity. It's vetting for compliance.
Your civil service instinct is exactly the right direction. If the incentive structure rewards wealth accumulation and punishes conscience, you get the behavior we're seeing. Change the incentives — limit self-enrichment, make service genuinely a service — and you change the behavior. Not because you got better people. Because the system stopped rewarding the wrong things.
That's the design problem I'm working on. Glad you're here thinking about it.
Agreed! I would add that somewhere along the way the incentive system stopped rewarding compromise in order to get things done and move the country forward. The parties used to trust the deal makers and reward them with leadership positions. Now it rewards performance artists.
Keep working on it!
That is precisely what this essay is about. The 1970's reforms are what 'stopped rewarding compromise.'
Right now, if a member compromises, i.e. doesn't vote with the party, then they will be punished. They can lose committee positions, lose access to important people, lose the support of the party.
So, if you as a Senator/Representative are presented with a bill to vote on, your calculus isn't "Should I vote for or against this? Does it help or hurt my constituents?" Your calculus is "am I willing to vote against my own party and face the consequences?"
Given that is the choice, is it any wonder why we don't see any compromise?
I wrote an (unpublished) essay about my Senator, Mike Lee, who has been sponsoring the SAVE America Act, and how it is actively harmful to the State of Utah and its citizens. Trump (who, for all intents and purposes, speaks for the Republican party) has stated that he won't sign any legislation until SAVE is passed by Congress.
Where does that leave Lee? Does he side with the interests he is supposed to represent? Or does he side with the party? I think you and I can easily imagine what would happen to Lee if he refused: he would lose position, access, resources, and support. And then someone else who is willing to toe the line would take his place.
This is why we are where we are.
No mystery.
No corruption.
No bribery.
No conspiracy theory.
Just regular, rational human behavior.
TSB is attempting to build a system that works *with* rational behavior, to make doing "the right thing" (i.e. serving constituents) also be the easy thing to do.