I had the pleasure of picking up a class for Elizabeth McLane and went over the power point slides for the political parties chapter in the Lowi, Ginsburg, Shepsle textbook.
A discussion picked up when we covered the responsible party model and applied it to the current efforts of the Democrats to impose a timetable on our involvement in Iraq. The Responsible Party Model, which was an effort by the American Political Science Association to ensure that parties are meaningful instruments of democratic choice, holds that "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."
Regardless of one's opinion on what the Democrats are up to, and the wisdom of imposing a time limit, would the Democrats be negligent in their duty as a responsible party if they not seek to impose a time limit? It is generally conceded that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, so the Democrats are the majority party for a reason. If they do not go forward with opposition to the war they could be undermining democracy at home. Voters opposed to the war wont really know whether they can trust the Democrats to do what they say they will do if they continue to voice opposition to the war.
One could also argue that it is important that one of the presidential candidates, John McCain, seems to be basing his campaign on support for the existing policy. Voters may have a choice, and this is what makes political parties vital instruments of democratic politics.
At least that's what the model holds. Is it wrong?
