The Possibilities for Responsive Party Government

Abstract

Professor Kang raises two fundamental worries about the associational path to party reform in The Problem of Irresponsible Party Government, his response to my essay, Networking the Party: First Amendment Rights and the Pursuit of Responsive Party Government. First, he doubts the feasibility of reestablishing thick relational parties given social, techno­logical, and cultural changes since the 1970s. Second, he questions the choice to focus on refashioning First Amendment doctrine, cautioning that the judiciary, as an institution, is fundamentally incompetent to spearhead successful party reform. Thus, despite finding my diagnosis of the ills of contemporary American parties and my indictment of responsible party government and its hold over First Amendment doctrine "almost undeniable," Professor Kang expresses significant uncertainty about both the realism of the target and the proposed means for achieving it.

Indeed, the future of American democracy is uncertain. Its revitalization will require a broad reform agenda, an appreciation for incremental progress, and perseverance in the face of partial failures. The claim in Networking the Party was never that associational-party reform would be either easy or a panacea. Instead, the essay's primary claim is that such a reform agenda will need to address the state of our political parties and that an associational-party path to reform is significantly more promising than the current menu of policy prescrip­tions, which remain grounded in responsible party government. As I wrote: "By comparison [to responsible party government], the associational-party path is theoretically optimal as a guide to structuring First Amendment doctrine and as a measure for regulatory reforms­--even as it does not guarantee a cure to all our democratic ills."

In his response, Professor Kang has essentially challenged me to explain why the associational path is not only theoretically optimal but also practically possible, and I take up that challenge in the friendly spirit in which it has been offered.

Parts I-III of this Reply make a prima facie case for the possibility of twenty-first-century associational parties. Indeed, the 2018 midterm elections suggest that associational-party building is not only feasible but already underway. In part, this is because recent advances in technology afford party leaders and grassroots activists significant new opportunities to rebuild political parties in an associational vein. Part IV of the Reply explicates the decision to focus on First Amendment law and the judiciary, rather than legislation and Congress, as starting points for reform. Part V clarifies how the doctrinal proposal offered in Networking the Party meaningfully differs from proposals that the Supreme Court has rejected in the past.