The American political landscape continues to feel the aftershocks of President Joe Biden’s announcement that he will not seek a second term. Many questions still linger, including about Biden’s health as well as the state of a Trump–Harris electoral contest.  

One lingering, longer-term question concerns the future relationship between presidential candidates and political parties. For some time, candidates who received a major party nomination remade that party into his or her own image. The party took on the presidential candidate’s demeanor, policy stances, and priority problems. While great shifts did not tend to happen on these fronts cycle to cycle, we certainly live in a personality-centric instead of an institution-centric political environment. 

Will that dynamic change with the successful effort to push Biden out of the 2024 race? Will a candidate’s relationship with his or her party look more like the 19th and much of the 20th centuries? During those times, the party often held the upper hand. It made the major decisions and then found a candidate to pitch that image to the electorate. Here, many major Democratic leaders decided a continued Biden run did not serve party interests and had the muscle to force the change even this late in the election season. 

Some would see such a change as good. Parties think longer-term than candidates do since parties exist beyond any particular election. Those officials in the Republican or Democrat systems tend to think more strategically and consider how systems work. A party-dominated politics, they say, could result in a more centrist partisanship that gives higher priority to getting things done over scoring online clicks. 

Others have voiced consternation, even outrage, at what happened to Biden. They see the parties as essentially corrupt institutions filled with a kind of social and economic elite distant in tone, priorities, and experience from the common man. Biden’s removal, they think, is a desperate attempt by elites to undermine the people’s choice as expressed in the process of primary elections. The turn to party power would undermine popular rule and move us toward some form of oligarchy. 

Will these hopes or fears of enhanced party power happen? Don’t count on it. The circumstances that precipitated Biden’s removal seem fairly extraordinary. Will voters constantly select candidates for president in their 80s? Regardless of how old, will voters consistently vote to nominate men or women showing clear mental and physical decline? 

Moreover, most now admit that Biden’s support, while it had been wide, was far from deep. He was the one who beat former President Donald Trump in 2020 and seemed capable of doing so again. When the chances of winning in 2024 seemed bleak, there was little other goodwill on which Biden could draw to maintain support. Even a dedicated minority might have staved off this move if it existed. Find a candidate the primary voters truly love, and Biden’s Sunday announcement will be an unthinkable aberration, not a new norm. 

Beyond the strangeness of the moment, a general trend in American politics counsels against a resurgence of party power. As far back as the 1830s and 1840s, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that Americans’ commitment to equality threatened to overwhelm any and all distinctions among persons. We are tempted to move toward ever-greater sameness of conditions as we harbor increasing skepticism of all inequalities. 

Our candidate selection will likely continue to move in step with these broader, longer-standing trends. With the 17th Amendment, we moved from state legislatures selecting senators to direct choice by voters. Our presidential party selection system has evolved from choice by leadership to selection by primary voters. 

These trends likely will not revert in any systematic manner. Instead, what we are seeing is an aberration born of the particular deficiencies of an 81-year-old Biden and the panic Democrats have stoked in themselves about Trump. 

For good or for ill, the primary selection system likely will continue. As much as Sunday implicated change, on this point, things will stay the same. Whether that leaves our politics healthier or more ill is another matter.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.

2024-07-26 10:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Frestoring-america%2Fpatriotism-unity%2F3099678%2Fbidens-ouster-not-sign-of-renewed-party-or-elite-power%2F?w=600&h=450, The American political landscape continues to feel the aftershocks of President Joe Biden’s announcement that he will not seek a second term. Many questions still linger, including about Biden’s health as well as the state of a Trump–Harris electoral contest.   One lingering, longer-term question concerns the future relationship between presidential candidates and political parties. For,

The American political landscape continues to feel the aftershocks of President Joe Biden’s announcement that he will not seek a second term. Many questions still linger, including about Biden’s health as well as the state of a Trump–Harris electoral contest.  

One lingering, longer-term question concerns the future relationship between presidential candidates and political parties. For some time, candidates who received a major party nomination remade that party into his or her own image. The party took on the presidential candidate’s demeanor, policy stances, and priority problems. While great shifts did not tend to happen on these fronts cycle to cycle, we certainly live in a personality-centric instead of an institution-centric political environment. 

Will that dynamic change with the successful effort to push Biden out of the 2024 race? Will a candidate’s relationship with his or her party look more like the 19th and much of the 20th centuries? During those times, the party often held the upper hand. It made the major decisions and then found a candidate to pitch that image to the electorate. Here, many major Democratic leaders decided a continued Biden run did not serve party interests and had the muscle to force the change even this late in the election season. 

Some would see such a change as good. Parties think longer-term than candidates do since parties exist beyond any particular election. Those officials in the Republican or Democrat systems tend to think more strategically and consider how systems work. A party-dominated politics, they say, could result in a more centrist partisanship that gives higher priority to getting things done over scoring online clicks. 

Others have voiced consternation, even outrage, at what happened to Biden. They see the parties as essentially corrupt institutions filled with a kind of social and economic elite distant in tone, priorities, and experience from the common man. Biden’s removal, they think, is a desperate attempt by elites to undermine the people’s choice as expressed in the process of primary elections. The turn to party power would undermine popular rule and move us toward some form of oligarchy. 

Will these hopes or fears of enhanced party power happen? Don’t count on it. The circumstances that precipitated Biden’s removal seem fairly extraordinary. Will voters constantly select candidates for president in their 80s? Regardless of how old, will voters consistently vote to nominate men or women showing clear mental and physical decline? 

Moreover, most now admit that Biden’s support, while it had been wide, was far from deep. He was the one who beat former President Donald Trump in 2020 and seemed capable of doing so again. When the chances of winning in 2024 seemed bleak, there was little other goodwill on which Biden could draw to maintain support. Even a dedicated minority might have staved off this move if it existed. Find a candidate the primary voters truly love, and Biden’s Sunday announcement will be an unthinkable aberration, not a new norm. 

Beyond the strangeness of the moment, a general trend in American politics counsels against a resurgence of party power. As far back as the 1830s and 1840s, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that Americans’ commitment to equality threatened to overwhelm any and all distinctions among persons. We are tempted to move toward ever-greater sameness of conditions as we harbor increasing skepticism of all inequalities. 

Our candidate selection will likely continue to move in step with these broader, longer-standing trends. With the 17th Amendment, we moved from state legislatures selecting senators to direct choice by voters. Our presidential party selection system has evolved from choice by leadership to selection by primary voters. 

These trends likely will not revert in any systematic manner. Instead, what we are seeing is an aberration born of the particular deficiencies of an 81-year-old Biden and the panic Democrats have stoked in themselves about Trump. 

For good or for ill, the primary selection system likely will continue. As much as Sunday implicated change, on this point, things will stay the same. Whether that leaves our politics healthier or more ill is another matter.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.

, The American political landscape continues to feel the aftershocks of President Joe Biden’s announcement that he will not seek a second term. Many questions still linger, including about Biden’s health as well as the state of a Trump–Harris electoral contest.   One lingering, longer-term question concerns the future relationship between presidential candidates and political parties. For some time, candidates who received a major party nomination remade that party into his or her own image. The party took on the presidential candidate’s demeanor, policy stances, and priority problems. While great shifts did not tend to happen on these fronts cycle to cycle, we certainly live in a personality-centric instead of an institution-centric political environment.  Will that dynamic change with the successful effort to push Biden out of the 2024 race? Will a candidate’s relationship with his or her party look more like the 19th and much of the 20th centuries? During those times, the party often held the upper hand. It made the major decisions and then found a candidate to pitch that image to the electorate. Here, many major Democratic leaders decided a continued Biden run did not serve party interests and had the muscle to force the change even this late in the election season.  Some would see such a change as good. Parties think longer-term than candidates do since parties exist beyond any particular election. Those officials in the Republican or Democrat systems tend to think more strategically and consider how systems work. A party-dominated politics, they say, could result in a more centrist partisanship that gives higher priority to getting things done over scoring online clicks.  Others have voiced consternation, even outrage, at what happened to Biden. They see the parties as essentially corrupt institutions filled with a kind of social and economic elite distant in tone, priorities, and experience from the common man. Biden’s removal, they think, is a desperate attempt by elites to undermine the people’s choice as expressed in the process of primary elections. The turn to party power would undermine popular rule and move us toward some form of oligarchy.  Will these hopes or fears of enhanced party power happen? Don’t count on it. The circumstances that precipitated Biden’s removal seem fairly extraordinary. Will voters constantly select candidates for president in their 80s? Regardless of how old, will voters consistently vote to nominate men or women showing clear mental and physical decline?  Moreover, most now admit that Biden’s support, while it had been wide, was far from deep. He was the one who beat former President Donald Trump in 2020 and seemed capable of doing so again. When the chances of winning in 2024 seemed bleak, there was little other goodwill on which Biden could draw to maintain support. Even a dedicated minority might have staved off this move if it existed. Find a candidate the primary voters truly love, and Biden’s Sunday announcement will be an unthinkable aberration, not a new norm.  Beyond the strangeness of the moment, a general trend in American politics counsels against a resurgence of party power. As far back as the 1830s and 1840s, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that Americans’ commitment to equality threatened to overwhelm any and all distinctions among persons. We are tempted to move toward ever-greater sameness of conditions as we harbor increasing skepticism of all inequalities.  Our candidate selection will likely continue to move in step with these broader, longer-standing trends. With the 17th Amendment, we moved from state legislatures selecting senators to direct choice by voters. Our presidential party selection system has evolved from choice by leadership to selection by primary voters.  These trends likely will not revert in any systematic manner. Instead, what we are seeing is an aberration born of the particular deficiencies of an 81-year-old Biden and the panic Democrats have stoked in themselves about Trump.  For good or for ill, the primary selection system likely will continue. As much as Sunday implicated change, on this point, things will stay the same. Whether that leaves our politics healthier or more ill is another matter. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24207030256981-scaled-1024×684.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Adam Carrington,

Why do we celebrate birthdays? The practice is so ingrained, so ubiquitous that we might not stop to consider the purpose.

We celebrate birthdays because we love the person whose birth we remember. We celebrate because of the resulting goods — the joys, the comforts, the laughs — with which we’ve been blessed since that person entered the world and our lives. Finally, we celebrate them because life itself is a good, and remembering individual lives reminds us of its goodness.

Birthdays mostly concern human beings, but they also can and do pertain to nations. We Americans were born on the Fourth of July in 1776. We are a July Fourth people.

Before our founding, we had our ancestors — forefathers whose words and deeds still make up part of our DNA. The political philosophy of Ancient Greece instilled the importance of reason and the universality of justice for political life. Ancient Rome showed the importance of structure in government and the need for proper administration of law. The biblical witness of Ancient Israel and the early church also displayed the concept of human dignity and equality before God.

We Americans then gestated for centuries within the British empire. As colonies, we practiced the art of self-government, largely left alone by the mother country. We were nourished not only by our ancestral heritage but by new articulations of free government from men such as John Locke and the French thinker Montesquieu.

The battles with the king and parliament in the 1760s and 1770s were our labor. We pushed and fought to be born anew as our own nation with our own principles. That birth finally came on July 4, 1776. It was announced in the Declaration of Independence.

But that declaration did more than simply announce a new birthday. It stated why we should evermore celebrate this birth.

America claimed for itself goods it had inherited and learned from others. It dedicated us to the “self-evident” truth of human equality. It decreed that humans possess natural rights bestowed on them, in their own making, by a benevolent creator. And it dedicated all good governments to protecting those rights by consent of the governed.

America’s history has been far from perfect. But it has been a triumph for liberty and human equality. It has garnered our love because she is our own, but also because she is good. She has our affection, too, for the many goods she has given us across the generations.

This July Fourth, we have much to concern us. The American experiment is never completely safe. Each new generation must take up the mantle of our cause both to perpetuate and to enhance it. Our goal is not just to have our children better off economically than ourselves. It is to leave America a more just and good place, more aligned with its noble purposes, than how we found it.

America is in a struggle over our future. Do we return and maintain or break away from our past? Do we celebrate this birthday in perpetuity or increasingly become embarrassed by it?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

Let us celebrate heartily what our Founders did that first July Fourth. Let us strive to form ourselves more to their wisdom. And let us continue to work to leave our country better for our children than we have it now.

That is a worthy birthday gift to the country and to ourselves. Because, in the end, we all, as Americans, were born on the Fourth of July.

Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.