A Washington Post writer comments on an editorial by recently departed US Senator Jim Demint, who left the Senate to head the Heritage Foundation - a conservative think tank /' interest group.
He wonders if Demint's departure indicates a decline in the power of parties, and an increased tendency on the part of conservatives to look outside parties to push their agendas. This will be a useful addition to our discussion of dysfunction in Congress.
In an op-ed on the Post website now, DeMint seeks to explain himself and, in so doing, exposes a critically important point about the shifting power centers in politics.
DeMint writes:
“One lesson I learned in marketing is that, for consumers and voters, perception is reality…November’s election results and exit polls suggest that a majority of Americans agree that government does too much yet still voted for more of it. The election taught conservatives that we can no longer entrust political parties to carry our message.”
As we wrote at the time, DeMint’s decision to walk away from the Senate — long considered the pinnacle of power and influence in American politics — was, in and of itself, a potent symbol of the broader shift away from traditional political parties and toward outside interest groups.
And, DeMint’s opinion piece represents a broader sentiment within the conservative movement, that its establishment leaders simply lack the ability to point a way out of the political wilderness.
The rise of taxman (or, more accurately, anti-taxman) Grover Norquist and the ongoing power of radio talker Rush Limbaugh affirm that the power center of the GOP increasingly rests outside of its elected leaders. (That shrinking of establishment power was never more evident than when Speaker John Boehner was unable to find enough votes for his “Plan B” that would have exempted all but those making $1 million or more from a tax increase.)
He mentions Grover Norquist - who heads the Club for Growth, but he could also refer to the NRA and AIPAC among many other groups that seemingly define what is and is not possible in Congress beyond what the parties can do.
This raises an interesting research question. Are interest groups now more powerful than parties? Are we no longer in the age of party government and now in the age of interest group government. They've always been powerful of course, but generally because of their influence on parties. Have they dropped the pretext and now worked directly on individual members without regard to party?
