WASHINGTON —
What we are seeing in the continuing march of Donald Trump toward the Republican presidential nomination is the power and significance of political entrepreneurship. If you want to become president (or senator or House member), you don’t need the permission of either party. You just announce, comply with the legal requirements for filing and launch your campaign.
You are the political entrepreneur. To help you, there’s a thriving industry of campaign consultants, pollsters, media buyers, digital experts, fundraising and direct-mailing companies.
“Who sent us the political leaders we have?” asked political writer Alan Ehrenhalt in his 1991 book “The United States of Ambition.” “There is a simple answer. … They sent themselves.” Almost anyone can play. In this campaign, Republicans had at least 17 candidates for president, and the Democrats still have one longshot, Bernie Sanders.
All this seems so normal that we rarely question it. But the rise of political entrepreneurship represents a major upheaval in American politics.
For most of the 19th century until the late 1960s, officeholders depended on political parties. Party leaders — so-called “bosses” and their political “machines” — dominated the process. The parties screened candidates for most offices, reminded supporters to cast a straight party ticket and got out the vote. In return, some party regulars got patronage jobs.
As for presidential nominees, they were selected at party conventions. In the 19th century, presidential primaries didn’t exist; Oregon created the first in 1910, reflecting the Progressive Era’s pervasive criticism of governmental secrecy. Still, primaries spread slowly. Even in the 1960s, state political leaders, who usually controlled their delegations, retained much power in picking a nominee, says political scientist David Karol of the University of Maryland.
To enhance their bargaining power, “many state delegations [arrived at conventions] pledged to favorite sons or uncommitted,” says Karol. Negotiations ensued until one candidate achieved the necessary majority. In 1860, Lincoln was nominated on the third ballot; in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was nominated on the fourth.
In this system, Donald Trump would have played no role. He holds no elective office and is not a war hero (a sometimes qualification for the White House). He has no allegiance to political power brokers. But under the new system, the party power brokers lost power.
Party dominance crumbled under many pressures: radio and television; civil service reform; suburbanization; the rise of campaign polling; and hostility toward “corrupt” bosses.
The Democratic Party delivered the fatal blow after the 1968 election when it adopted rules effectively forcing state parties to hold presidential primaries or open caucuses to allocate their votes for candidates. Republicans enacted similar “reforms.”
Although the new system is more democratic than the old, it hasn’t produced better results. By reducing the influence of party leaders, it favors campaigning skills over governing skills. Trump’s bombastic campaign rhetoric is an extreme example of the tendency. Entrepreneurial politics has not elevated the debate or the quality of candidates.
We have moved from party-based politics to personality-based politics. Image and ideology count more than ever because candidates try to differentiate themselves from their rivals. Our politicians are increasingly freelancers, dependent on their own hard work, political savvy, fundraising ability and PR skills.
There is little public support for reverting to more closed nomination processes, where now-derided party elites would assume a bigger role. They have been overtaken by changes in public opinion and technology. Still, the confusion and dissatisfaction with the present campaign makes you wonder whether the old-time bosses were really so bad after all.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
