Big tent

For the big top tent, see Big Top.

In politics, a big tent party or catch-all party is a political party seeking to attract people with diverse viewpoints. The party does not require adherence to some ideology as a criterion for membership. Such new joining groups may not influence policy or major party decisions measurably at first.

Definition

The big tent approach argues against any sort of single-issue litmus tests or ideological rigidity, and advocates multiple ideologies and views within a party.

This is in contrast to political parties that promote only a more narrowly defined but no less ambitious set of goals within one country's governmental and economic system. Advocates of a big tent believe that people with a broad variety of political approaches and viewpoints can unite within a single party to advance shared core issues, even if they disagree in other areas. This way the party can attract a large base of support at the polls. Big tent parties are far more common in first past the post systems with only a few large parties.

Examples

In the United States, during the latter half of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, the Republican Party boasted membership of big business interests, laborers (both of whom supported the GOP's tariff strategy) as well as many African-Americans, due to Republican Abraham Lincoln's abolition of slavery and the party's stance on civil rights.

Also, in the United States, a very good example of this approach was the New Deal coalition which formed in support of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies. This coalition brought together labor unions, southern Dixiecrats, progressives, and others in support of FDR's economic program, even though these groups strongly disagreed on other issues.

In Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada is not strongly ideological or regional, but is instead open to members with a wide range of views. While some criticize the party for lacking in conviction, supporters argue that compromise is an essential feature of democracy.

In the United States, the Democratic Party has some big-tent features according to the dominant understanding of the US political spectrum. It has liberal and progressive, moderate, social democratic, and conservative wings.

Other famous examples of catch all parties include the Republic of Ireland's Fianna Fáil, which has variously been categorised as socialist (according to former deputy leader Brian Lenihan) and neo-Thatcherite/neo-Reaganite, a description applied to the economic policies and politics of former Minister for Finance (1997–2004) Charles McCreevy. Fianna Fáil served in the coalition from 1989 to 1992 with the fiscally monetarist yet socially liberal Progressive Democrats, then with the social-democratic Labour Party and yet again with the Progressive Democrats, with Fianna Fáil tailoring its policies accordingly. After the 2007 Irish General Election campaign, Fianna Fáil formed a coalition with the Progressive Democrats, the centre-left Green Party and initially three independent TDs (MPs). The party suffered spectacular losses at the 2011 General election in part due to the current Irish financial crisis, where it lost 57 of its outgoing 77 TD's being relegated into third place (Behind Fine Gael and Labour).

The Indian National Congress and Italy's now defunct Christian Democracy both attracted such a broad range of support as to make them catch all parties.

When Gordon Brown became British Prime Minister in 2007, he invited several members from outside the Labour Party in to his government. These included former CBI Director-General Digby Jones who became a Minister of State, and former Liberal Democrats leader Paddy Ashdown who was offered the position of Northern Ireland Secretary (Ashdown turned down the offer). The media often refer to Brown's Ministry as "a government of all the talents" or simply "Brown's big tent".

Examples of parties in the 'big tent' category

In most western democracies, two or three major political parties profess some sort of ideological leaning (for example, social democracy, Christian democracy, liberal democracy, conservative, labour) but in practice follow a big tent approach. Political parties which allow only a narrow ideology, in general do not perform well at the polls and so remain minor parties. Canada provides two examples of how the adoption of a big tent approach has helped propel a formerly marginal party into broader electoral success, in the Green Party of Ontario and the (now-defunct) Social Credit Party of Canada.

In the United States, the big tent concept is practiced today within the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, and in the recent past within the Reform Party. In more recent times (the early 1990s) the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party had its only electoral success to date by allowing a popular figure who did not support the party's secessionist agenda to run for Governor of Alaska on their ballot line. This is in contrast to such political parties as the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party, and various small Communist parties, which seek to advance a single ideology.

However even the Republican, Democratic and Reform parties have vocal factions which advocate that those parties take on a more ideologically rigid character. There are factions in the Democratic Party which would like to make the party purely liberal, excluding the former party establishment centered around the Democratic Leadership Council, Blue Dog Democrats, and social conservatives. The Republicans are also a big tent party, as demonstrated by those elected Republicans who disagree with party leaders George W. Bush and John McCain on one or more social, political, or economic issue. They may be socially liberal like Washington, DC city councilmember Carol Schwartz, support non-interventionist foreign policy like Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, or support a reduced role of the federal government, like Texas Representative Ron Paul. Others, like Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts, disagree with George W. Bush and John McCain in multiple areas, including taxation and government-provided healthcare. In 2001, John McCain was one of two Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts, though he started supporting them during Bush's second term. Former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, the other Republican who voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001, was the only Republican Senator to vote against the Iraq War resolution.

There are also those within each party who would like to make certain issues litmus tests for party membership even though there is substantial disagreement on those issues within the parties themselves. Tax cuts, Abortion, and gun policy are three examples. For example, Grover Norquist chaired the Republican National Committee session presenting the candidates for Chairman. Norquist gave the candidates a catechism on these issues before they spoke.

The Libertarian Party of the United States, following the 1974 Dallas Accord, embraced the big tent idea to the extent it ensured that the anarchist-capitalist views would not be excluded from the majority minarchist party. The Republican Liberty Caucus and similar groups aim to shift the US Republican Party's "center of the tent" towards Goldwater-Reagan ideals and those of libertarian Ron Paul.

Historically in the United States, political parties adopting a big tent approach have performed well at the polls. Parties promoting only one narrow ideology have attracted marginal support at best, or have seen their issues adopted by one or both of the major parties in a big tent effort, effectively co-opting the issues and putting an end to the minor party; this happened to the Prohibition Party and the Populist Party.

The effects of a move towards 'big tent' politics

When a party that is motivated by ideology begins a shift to a "catch-all" or "big tent" party, it's usually marked by a move to the center of the political spectrum and a very flexible and pragmatic platform. Many believe this is a powerful way to make a party more popular, as it no longer limits itself to a specific ideological sector of the population. Opponents of this tactic argue that this alienates the ideological bases of a party. In the United States, for example, during the late 1980s, the DLC argued that the Democratic Party should become a more centrist party, which it did during the 1990s. In the mid- to late 2000s, more modern liberal Democrats moved the party leftward as the country grew weary of Republican policies under the George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, when a country's major parties become catch-all parties, this usually leads to the rise in popularity and support for more ideologically extreme parties. For example, in the UK, as the Labour party has moved to the center and turned less ideologically pure, the Liberal Democrat Party has risen in popularity, often being to the left of Labour on social issues. In the United States, many Democrats fear that moving to the center could cause a rise in popularity for far-left leaders from other parties, such as Ralph Nader. So in a two party system, a party must be careful when selecting how ideologically driven to be. Too ideological could mean that the party appeals to only a small portion of the population. Too pragmatic (or big-tent style) can cause a major faction to split off from the main party.

Criticism

Critics of catch-all parties accuse them of populism, adopting whatever policies they need to win without any ideological conviction or clear policy goal. Also, the rise of catch-all parties can lead to lower voter-participation, as people don't see a consistent idea of what each party stands for.