56 The two-party system
and Congress attempt to influence the behaviour of the other; these links be-
tween the two institutional structures are promoted by the two-party system
and help in turn to prevent the submerged multi-party system from becom-
ing an open one.
The explanation of the persistence of the two-party system at state and
local level is rather more difficult. For a large part of American history, in
many parts of the country the two-party system did not really exist at all at
this level. In those states where there was no real two-party competition,
the battle between the parties was replaced by intra-party factionalism. The
labels ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’ were adopted for historical or purely ex-
pedient reasons rather than as a true commitment to a particular political
party. In so far as two-party politics did operate in the states, however, the
prevalence of the Republican–Democratic division would seem to be the re-
sult of a projection downwards of the presidential and congressional battles.
The distribution of patronage – the spoils of office – from the presidency
downward was, in the past at least, a powerful force for maintaining the links
between party organisations at the various levels. Thus the most powerful in-
stitutional mechanism for the purposes of maintaining the coherence of the
American ‘two-party’ system is the way in which politics revolves around the
presidency, permeating the whole structure to provide the integrating forces
that alone prevent the disruption of the parties into many fragments. This
is not to suggest that political power simply flows downwards in the United
States – far from it! Rather, it is to point to the interdependence of the various
levels of political activity. And this is a true interdependence, for the politics
of the presidency are affected by developments in state and local politics just
as much as they are affected by what happens in Washington. Indeed, the in-
terrelationships between federal, state and local politics in the United States
are much more genuine and alive than the connection between national
and local politics in a more highly centralised country like Great Britain. In
Britain national politics has an autonomy of its own, operating seemingly
in a sphere almost unconnected with what happens at the lower levels. It
would be a foolish Senator or Congressman, or indeed a foolish president,
who acted upon such an assumption in America.
Grass roots democracy
It is difficult to generalise about the politics of the states, cities and coun-
ties of America because they vary so much, both in formal structure and in
political practice; but, given their importance for the way in which decisions
are taken at higher levels, it is necessary to explore this diversity. It is often
assumed that ‘democracy’ is more characteristic of small, well-integrated so-
cieties than of large complex ones. As society develops, the argument goes,
the division of labour and the increasing technicality of the decisions to be
made lead inevitably to elitist rule, or at the very least to a modern group
pluralism that may be far removed from the ideals of majority rule and direct
participation associated with the Greek origins of democracy. It may be true,