Abstract

Social scientists are fascinated with the departure of the old and the advent of the new, for we are confident that we learn more from change than from stability. And when the comings and goings, the rises and the falls, appear in sequence or succession, we are led to wonder whether the new pushed the old from the stage. So it is with the troubled, increasingly beleaguered political parties and the much younger, vigorous political action committees [PAC's]. As the curves of their fortunes intersected in the 1970's, we inevitably have speculated about the relationship between the success of one and the problems of the other.

In this case, the juxtaposition of fates could not be more dramatic. Political parties and PAC's are, in the lingo of political science, political organizations. That is, in their various ways they bring together the skills and resources of great numbers of individual citizens into large, more influential political aggregates. Both organizations focus this aggregated influence on our electoral politics. Indeed, it is not a great exaggeration to say that both mobilize the resources necessary for a successful pursuit of public office. Is it too much to conclude, therefore, that the success of PAC's has contributed to-or hastened-the decline of political parties, and that they are to some extent the parties' successors?

These questions are more easily posed than answered. To answer them would require a careful analysis of both the decline of political parties and the rise of PAC's. It would require as well some distinctions among both parties and the PAC's and a special attention to the short term but significant impact of PAC's. For an orderly attack on all of these problems, however, the story must begin with American political parties close to a century ago.

How to Cite