The Speaker (and the United States) has a party problem

In an era of political party weakness, this chaos was foretold

And here we are again. 

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a set of foreign aid bills that included aid for Ukraine over the objections of the right wing of the Republican Party. Now, because of that bipartisan victory, members of his own party are threatening to remove Mike Johnson from the speakership. The infighting is only getting worse.

Although it is tempting to think of parties as the villain in this current saga, the truth might be just the opposite: that responsible political parties (and more of them) could help us break out of this polarized infighting. Healthy political parties would better coordinate governance, help voters hold elected officials accountable for their actions in office and prevent the rise of candidates with authoritarian tendencies. 

Disarray & discontent open the door to authoritarianism

Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson came to the Speaker’s chair under very different circumstances. McCarthy had spent years laying the groundwork for his speakership. Johnson was the most junior member to be elected Speaker in decades. Yet both have faced similar challenges — a fractious House GOP caucus, bombastic members vying for attention and a political party that seems to be actively coming apart at the seams.  

Importantly, the GOP’s weakness as an organized political party doesn’t just make it harder for Congress or the Speaker to govern — it’s also a key factor in the ascendance of a faction with growing authoritarian views. 

This may sound contradictory — that more disciplined and better organized parties are less vulnerable to autocratic takeover — but history is quite clear: healthy parties constrain authoritarian tendencies.

Political scientists argue this happens because healthy parties have the ability and the will to box out would-be authoritarians, denying them endorsements, resources and legitimacy. For example, in the 1920s Henry Ford was a potential political force with decidedly authoritarian politics. Ford wielded a massive fortune, his own newspaper and widespread popularity. What he did not have was support from the leadership of either major political party, which was vital at the time to secure a party nomination. As a result, his political prospects faded.

Modern democracy is unthinkable without parties

Americans have almost always disliked political parties. And while only 11% of Americans express high confidence in political parties when compared to other institutions, political scientists will tell you that “modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.” 

What exactly does that mean? Why do we even have political parties?

People often only think of or interact with political parties in the context of elections, but this is only part of the story. Political parties perform many functions in a healthy democracy. Certainly, they run campaigns for elected office. But healthy political parties also connect voters to the political process and uphold basic standards of democratic behavior. And parties coordinate the basic process of governing, getting dozens (sometimes hundreds) of elected officials to work together to implement policy and enact legislation. 

Just think about what Congress would look like if we had no parties at all. Imagine a political system in which there were no stable coalitions: governors or presidents would have to work with legislatures that had little meaningful leadership, and every piece of proposed legislation would require securing support one member at a time. Our government would be stymied without the reliable “teams” healthy political parties provide for elected officials to cooperate productively.

The doom loop doesn’t end without better — and more — parties

American political parties have weakened over time and several past and contemporary efforts to weaken them (often for good reason) have had unintended consequences. With our current primary system, parties don’t formally select or even vet their candidates for office, leading to fewer candidates with experience and more “posturing over legislating.” Changes in the media environment and campaign finance regulations have also “weakened the ability of the parties themselves to decide their nominees and direct [their] agenda.” Many of these changes, though well-intentioned attempts to increase “voters’ confidence and shor[e] up democratic responsiveness,” have chipped away at some of the key characteristics of healthy parties, including actually governing. 

Only time will tell if Mike Johnson will retain the Speakership, but whether he holds onto the gavel or not, replacing him will not solve the party problem at the heart of the current political moment. 

If we want to break this cycle of intraparty factions bringing parties to their knees and partisan gridlock stalling broadly supported policies, we should instead look to fix parties and the electoral landscape around them. Lowering barriers to participation and rebuilding local parties that connect with their communities would make it harder for any one faction to dominate national politics. Electoral reforms like fusion voting and proportional representation would open up the playing field and introduce a little more healthy competition with more party options for voters to voice their views. 

With reforms like these, party leaders might finally keep their own houses in order. Then, maybe the House could follow suit.

---

For more on the role of healthy political parties in a vibrant democracy, read: Why do we need political parties?