Maybe US would be better off electing some third party guy like Perot or Bloomberg, just to weaken parties.

I agree, and I disagree. American parties are actually relatively weak, compared to parties in parliamentary systems. While they have some power over issues such as primary scheduling, the overall power of the party is very curtailed, because the parties ultimately are only one factor influencing who wins in party primaries (as compared to parliamentary parties, which have absolute control over who runs on their lists). This is even more true when it comes to Senators and members of the House who have already won their seat - since sitting Congresspersons overwhelmingly win reelection, they have much more freedom to buck the will of the party than they would in a parliamentary system (since they don't really require party support to be reelected). If it was up to the "Republican party" (i.e. party elites and insiders) neither McCain nor Huckabee would even be in the primaries right now. On the Democratic side, Clinton would be even more the prohibitive favorite than she is now. Major candidates do most of their fundraising on their own - the party supports their efforts, but due to our arcane campaign finance laws their must be a firewall between the party's general campaigning and the candidate's specific campaigns.

So, I don't know that it's a matter of party "weakness" or "strength", at least not in absolute terms. Indeed, some might argue that part of the problem is that the parties aren't strong enough. If they had more control over the nomination process, they might be more willing to have a rational primary system. As it is, manipulating the primaries is the only (albeit imperfect) way that the party elites can try to directly manipulate who wins the nomination. If they had better and more direct ways to do this, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's not to say that I think parties should actually have those powers, mind you, but I do think that their relative weakness is what's causing the problems, more than their strength (as you imply). So, it's true that the power of the parties is what is thwarting meaningful reform, as you state. But they're holding onto their "power" over the primaries with a death grip, because it's one of the few actual powers that they have left. If they lose that too, then they really do become nearly meaningless booster clubs for whatever candidate bootstraps him/herself to the nomination.

US political parties don't have ideological coherence of European or Asian parties not because of their weakness but because they represent coalitions of interests in different states. Republicans in New England don't have much in common with Republicans in Georgia or Texas, but since they stand to right of Democrats in New England, they affiliate with national Republican Party even though national party often hurts them by taking positions that mainly appeal to people in southern and farm states. Democrats in Alabama or Mississippi don't have much in common with Democrats in New York or California, but since Dixiecrats were part of FDR coalition 70 years ago, they still call themselves Democrats even though national party often hurts them by taking positions that mainly appeal to people in northern and industrial states.

If national parties were ideological more coherent and if national political leaders had more power to enforce ideological conformity within their ranks, they would drive portions of their coalitions out, thereby assuring themselves of less influence over national politics. By now, "Republicans" in northeast would already have formed national separate party, Democrats in south would already have formed separate national party, and both major parties would be much weaker. If national parties could determine who could run and who couldn't based on ideological preferences, "if they had more control over the nomination process", it would also weaken their ability to hold coalitions together. Lack of coherence really doesn't relate to lack of power but to fundamental nature of US parties and US political process. So when you admit that "they're holding onto their power over the primaries with a death grip", it's not because they have so few powers but because they can and because they see no reason to let go of any of their prerogatives.  

US political parties don't have ideological coherence of European or Asian parties not because of their weakness but because they represent coalitions of interests in different states.

Dude, I respectfully disagree. The interests of the different states has something to do with it, but the structure of the American electoral system (and hence, the weakness of the parties) is what allows those differences to shine through in the first place. There is 25+ years of academic study of the American Congressional system which has thoroughly dissected the strengths and weakness of American political parties. If you're seriously interested, I suggest starting with these books. If you still disagree with me after reading them, then we can talk.

As you probably assumed, I will not be reading four books so that I can talk with you. However, I noticed with amusement what was said about second book you referenced:

"Scholars of the U.S. House disagree over the importance of political parties in organizing the legislative process. On the one hand, non-partisan theories stress how congressional organization serves members' non-partisan goals. On the other hand, partisan theories argue that the House is organized to serve the collective interests of the majority party. This book advances a partisan theory and presents a series of empirical tests of that theory's predictions (pitted against others). The evidence demonstrates that the majority party seizes agenda control at nearly every stage of the legislative process in order to prevent bills that the party dislikes from reaching the floor."

It is a partisan theory, but it doesn't argue for the strength of the parties in the same sense that you do. Cox and McCubbins are more interested in parties than many political scientists, but they still accept that the reelection process is essentially individualistic. Their discussion of parties is in the context of the legislature, and it focuses on how Congressional voting rules give power to Congressional party organizations. It must be understood, however, that Congressional parties are somewhat different than the national parties. The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee have only limited control over the way Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans vote (and vice-versa, for that matter). I guess that's my disagreement with you - you see "The Republican Party" or "The Democratic Party" as unified things. I see them as weak coalitions of different things. Those different things can each be quite strong in their own ways, but the overall parties themselves are weak. I would postulate that there are basically three or four "parts" of each party - the national committees and the "party elite" (big money donors, lobbyists), the party in Congress (i.e. legislators that identify with one party or the other), and the party in the Executive (assuming the party holds the presidency). Each of those can (and does) act independently of the others, but all (at times) claim to be representative of "the party". By contrast, in a parliamentary system the party directly controls all three of those areas - Gordon Brown is the executive, he controls the votes of all the members of the Labour Party, and he controls the nomination process and can directly pick who will run on Labour's lists. That is, by definition, a strong party. There is simply nothing like that in the US.

In other words, your definition of "strong party" revolves around ideologically-cohesive parties on European model, and so you win argument by definition. Liberal-Democratic Party in Japan has run that country almost non-stop since US allowed elections after World War II, but they don't have "strong party" structure you insist on. Does that make them "weak"? Yes, by your definition. No, by any appeal to reality.

Maybe we could find agreement this way - I think what you are describing as powerful is the overall two party system (which, I agree, everyone has a vested interest in maintaining, and I feel it is certainly very "strong" and resistant to change). That I can certainly agree with - the US has a very strong party system, but (perhaps paradoxically) it also has weak parties. Is that a statement which could make sense to you?

Does that make them "weak"? Yes, by your definition. No, by any appeal to reality.

It's not just my definition, it's pretty much accepted among academic political scientists. It's important because it tells you how power is arranged in the party. In the US system a strong legislator who is not well liked by the party can still win elections and still advance his political career (see, McCain). In a strong party system that's simply not possible. I agree with you that we're having definitional issues, but I don't see why you are so hostile to my definition. I'm not saying that US parties are unimportant, simply that they are weak. Your idea of parties as regional coalitions essentially admits the same thing, just in a backwards manner. You see the parties as having some sort of grand plan to allow a great deal of ideological flexibility to help maintain their power. I say that the parties allow this flexibility because they are structurally weak and unable to monopolize the power in the way that they would otherwise wish to. Either way we get more or less the same result, but your way requires us giving party leaders a great deal of credit and foresight. My way requires us viewing party leaders as semi-competents trying to maintain their patches of control in a system they didn't design. I find my view to be more in line with my everyday experiences about how the world works, but your mileage may vary.

My objection to your definition has been based on its incompleteness. In Europe, "strong parties" mean that multiple new parties form and many of those new parties gain traction because that becomes only way to effect change. In many of those countries with "strong parties", proportional representation has meant that new parties have reasonable chance to get people elected to national parliaments. In East Asia, as in US, "weak parties" have meant that new parties can almost never gain traction, and that getting elected to office requires choosing one or another of major parties as vehicle. So "weak parties" cannot be gotten around but "strong parties" can? "Weak parties" have easier time monopolising all political activity while "strong parties" cannot enforce their monopoly outside of their meeting rooms? In governments where "strong parties" predominate, governments can and do independently force rules on all parties, but in governments where "weak parties" predominate, governments almost never do so.

You suggest compromise that American parties should be considered weak while party system should be considered strong. Why bother? Why not just agree to disagree, as we did several posts back? You mean something different by "strong" than I do. Axioms in Euclidean geometry differ from axioms in non-Euclidean geometry, yet each set of axioms has its uses in particular mathematical circumstances. We have different axioms in approaching this matter, and maybe each approach has its utility in different circumstances.  

So Clinton wouldn't be as bad as Giuliani. Talk about damning with faint praise. Meanwhile, during Clinton Administration, Bill Clinton kept enemies list just as Richard Nixon did and tried to use IRS against them just as Nixon did.

Do you have any non-Scaife funded sources on that?

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Would you count Wall Street Journal when it was owned by Dow Jones as "Scaife funded source"?

Alternately, if large number of conservative organisations reported IRS investigations during Clinton years but no one could conclusively prove that Clinton actually had "enemies list", does that mean that claims of conservative groups can be discounted? If large number of liberal organisations got investigated during Bush years but no one could conclusively prove that Bush actually had "enemies list", wouldn't leftists assume that someone in Bush chain of command had intended to screw them anyway? Mainstream media can barely bring themselves to admit they were lied to about weapons of mass destruction in lead-up to Iraq War, so demanding "proof" from them of every "partisan" allegation seems unfair.

I hope you realise that I don't empathise with right-wingers. They screw left-wingers more than left-wingers screw them by substantial margin, and I find their war policies particularly repulsive. But let's be fair.    

but let's be fair

Why try at fair play?  The conservatives will just take you for a ride if you trust them.  Play fair with the right?  на хуя?  

If it's the Wall Street Journal's opinion section, it has no credibility.  

Coincidence does not equal causality.  I would give Bush the benefit of that doubt as well.

If I were the IRS, I would certainly pay special attention to certain 'conservative' groups, because many of them are so vehemently opposed to taxation of any kind, and so the fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion may be blurred.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

I admit right-wingers persistently play fast and loose with facts, and have been well rewarded for their lies, so I see your point. News from 1990s mostly doesn't show up on internet, so I couldn't find corroboration for Clinton story other than in WSJ and other conservative media, so I will give you benefit of doubt.

IRS almost always pays special attention to enemies of sitting government. When churches that supported Democrats got audited for violating conditions of tax exempt status while churches that supported Bush administration didn't, I assumed continuation of old pattern. I admit I don't feel much inclination to give Bush benefit of doubt on that matter.