There exist, among people of any new political ideology, who support the existence of their "Ideology" Party, two quite different views as to its
purpose. According to one, the party exists to gain political power by winning elections; it differs from other parties
only in wishing to use that power to implement its particular ideology about the role of government. This seems to be the dominant view at
party conventions, at least the ones I have attended. While I have not yet heard a presidential nominee
predict victory, several have given the impression that it is only a few elections away.
One difficulty with this strategy is that it may be inconsistent with the internal dynamic of political parties. Before
asking whether a new party can win elections, one should first ask why the "Ideology" Party represents the ideology and
under what circumstances it will continue to represents the ideology.
A party is not a person. It does not have beliefs; it cannot be persuaded by philosophical arguments. To say that a party
holds certain views is an abbreviated way of describing the outcome of the internal political processes of that party
the processes that determine what positions are published as the party's platform and, often more important, what
positions are pushed by the party's candidates and acted upon if they gain office.
An ideological person should reject the idea that a party that happens to be named after their ideology will automatically continue to
advance the same ideological positions. To understand what either a government or a political party will do we ought to start by
assuming that the individuals within the organization rationally pursue their own ends (selfish or otherwise) and then
try to predict from that assumption how the organization will act.
A political party, in order to campaign or even to exist, requires resources. It gets them in two different ways. It
receives donations of money and labour from people who want it to succeed because they support its ideology; when a
party first starts, that may be all it has. But once it becomes large enough to win, or at least affect, elections, a party
also acquires political assets with a substantial market value. The political game is played for control over the
collection and expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Even a relatively weak player in that gamea
party, let us say, that gets five or ten percent of the votes in a national election and holds a few seats in Congresshas
favours to dispense worth quite a lot of money.
A political party is driven by two objectives. It wishes to proclaim positions and take actions that appeal to its
ideological supporters. But it also wishes to attract as many votes as possible, in order to maximize its political assets,
and having attracted these votes it wishes to act in such a way as to maximise its (long-run) income. On some issues
these objectives may prove to be consistent. On others they will not.
When I say that a party "wishes" something, I am again employing a convenient abbreviation. Consider a small
ideological party. Initially, all it has to offer to potential workers, officers, or candidates
is the opportunity to achieve their ideological objectives. As long as that is true, its members, officers, and candidates
continue to be people whose main objective is ideological, and the party continues to 'believe in' this ideology.
Suppose the party begins to win elections. It occurs to some people that positions of power within the party may, in the
long run, be worth quite a lot of money. Some of the people to whom this occurs may be nonideologicaland willing
to proclaim any ideology they find convenient. Others may be vaguely of the same ideology, but with a greater commitment to
their short-run private objectives than to their long-run public ones. What these people have in common is their
willingness to make a profession of gaining power within the party. In the long run, in the struggle for power,
professionals will beat amateurs. It is as certain as anything can be in politics that once a party achieves substantial
political power it will eventually swing towards a policy in which ideology is a meansperhaps an important means
but not an end. It will become a vote- and income-maximising party, taking positions dictated by its ideology when
that seems the best way of getting votesor the volunteer labour and money it requires in order to get votesand
taking actions inconsistent with its ideology when such actions yield the party a net profit, in votes or dollars.
NB: This is essentially David Friedman's "Anarchist Politics: Concerning the Libertarian Party" but tweaked slightly to make it generic.
purpose. According to one, the party exists to gain political power by winning elections; it differs from other parties
only in wishing to use that power to implement its particular ideology about the role of government. This seems to be the dominant view at
party conventions, at least the ones I have attended. While I have not yet heard a presidential nominee
predict victory, several have given the impression that it is only a few elections away.
One difficulty with this strategy is that it may be inconsistent with the internal dynamic of political parties. Before
asking whether a new party can win elections, one should first ask why the "Ideology" Party represents the ideology and
under what circumstances it will continue to represents the ideology.
A party is not a person. It does not have beliefs; it cannot be persuaded by philosophical arguments. To say that a party
holds certain views is an abbreviated way of describing the outcome of the internal political processes of that party
the processes that determine what positions are published as the party's platform and, often more important, what
positions are pushed by the party's candidates and acted upon if they gain office.
An ideological person should reject the idea that a party that happens to be named after their ideology will automatically continue to
advance the same ideological positions. To understand what either a government or a political party will do we ought to start by
assuming that the individuals within the organization rationally pursue their own ends (selfish or otherwise) and then
try to predict from that assumption how the organization will act.
A political party, in order to campaign or even to exist, requires resources. It gets them in two different ways. It
receives donations of money and labour from people who want it to succeed because they support its ideology; when a
party first starts, that may be all it has. But once it becomes large enough to win, or at least affect, elections, a party
also acquires political assets with a substantial market value. The political game is played for control over the
collection and expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Even a relatively weak player in that gamea
party, let us say, that gets five or ten percent of the votes in a national election and holds a few seats in Congresshas
favours to dispense worth quite a lot of money.
A political party is driven by two objectives. It wishes to proclaim positions and take actions that appeal to its
ideological supporters. But it also wishes to attract as many votes as possible, in order to maximize its political assets,
and having attracted these votes it wishes to act in such a way as to maximise its (long-run) income. On some issues
these objectives may prove to be consistent. On others they will not.
When I say that a party "wishes" something, I am again employing a convenient abbreviation. Consider a small
ideological party. Initially, all it has to offer to potential workers, officers, or candidates
is the opportunity to achieve their ideological objectives. As long as that is true, its members, officers, and candidates
continue to be people whose main objective is ideological, and the party continues to 'believe in' this ideology.
Suppose the party begins to win elections. It occurs to some people that positions of power within the party may, in the
long run, be worth quite a lot of money. Some of the people to whom this occurs may be nonideologicaland willing
to proclaim any ideology they find convenient. Others may be vaguely of the same ideology, but with a greater commitment to
their short-run private objectives than to their long-run public ones. What these people have in common is their
willingness to make a profession of gaining power within the party. In the long run, in the struggle for power,
professionals will beat amateurs. It is as certain as anything can be in politics that once a party achieves substantial
political power it will eventually swing towards a policy in which ideology is a meansperhaps an important means
but not an end. It will become a vote- and income-maximising party, taking positions dictated by its ideology when
that seems the best way of getting votesor the volunteer labour and money it requires in order to get votesand
taking actions inconsistent with its ideology when such actions yield the party a net profit, in votes or dollars.
NB: This is essentially David Friedman's "Anarchist Politics: Concerning the Libertarian Party" but tweaked slightly to make it generic.
