60 The two-party system
confined to the local level. Presidential candidates do not depend entirely on
the formal party machinery to conduct their campaigns. They gather round
themselves groups of men and women dedicated to their support who will
organise the fight from the primary stage to the general election. The nature
of the primary system necessitates this strategy. In 2004 initially there were
ten candidates vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. Each of
these had to create a team of helpers and advisers to plan and prosecute their
primary campaigns, often composed to a considerable extent of supporters
from their home states. Inevitably the candidate who secures the nomination
will take some of these supporters on to the general election campaign. The
personnel are different because a candidate wants his own supporters to run
his campaign, and the style of the campaign is different because it reflects
the personality of the candidate and of those who advise him.
American political battles cannot simply be viewed as contests between
two rival organisations representing the views of fairly cohesive sections of
the electorate. The ‘official’ party machinery is often involved in bitter dis-
putes with rival factions in the party, and it is by no means a foregone conclu-
sion that the official party organisation will be successful in promoting its
own candidates for office. More and more, the practice of ‘unofficial’ groups
taking part in elections has grown up. ‘Spontaneous’ citizens’ groups, or
groups of doctors or lawyers, or ethnic interest groups, may set up campaign
headquarters and work, with a greater or lesser degree of coordination with
the official party, in support of the candidate they favour.
Thus much of the real stuff of American politics is not the battle between
party organisations, but the battle over who shall take control of the party.
This is true from the presidency downwards. The early stages of a presiden-
tial election are occupied with the conflict between rival candidates for their
party’s nomination. Every contender for the office of president has first to
build a power base in state politics, either as senator or governor, and then
to make a bid to take over the national party organisation in one way or an-
other. Each candidate will start off with a group of dedicated workers, usually
drawn largely from their home state. If successful in gaining the nomination
as the party’s presidential candidate, these people will probably be among
the leading organisers of the campaign at the national level and, if successful
in getting their candidate elected as president, they may end up as part of
the new administration in the White House.
National politics and state politics are inextricably interwoven, but the
fragmentation of party organisation and power goes much further down the
line. It is difficult to build a cohesive party organisation even at state level.
The diffusion of authority that the Founding Fathers sought in the United
States Constitution is taken to almost ridiculous lengths in the states. Not
only do state constitutions enshrine the separation of powers and checks and
balances, with an elected governor faced with two legislative assemblies. The
electorate may intervene in the policy-making process through the medium
of the initiative, the referendum or the recall. Major state officials, such as