Big tent party politics

Big tent party structure is all about buliding coalitions prior to an election, rather than after. As a result, those political parties that can articulate the most appealing slogans tend to win, however glib or misleading those slogans may be in reality. Parties in such a system do their best to exalt their own slogans while vilifying those of their opposition. Actual principles of life or governance are, in such a system, either minimized or denied in practice, if not in official declarations.

In light of this reality, it is instructive to note that many of the leading lights of the losing party of the 2012 U.S. elections have endeavored to claim that conservatism is not about articulate principles. Rather, conservatism is, according to these scholars of history, about attitudes. Given the place of Edmund Burke in the conservative pantheon, the extraordinary challenges faced by any democracy (no matter how structured or conceived) and the inability of virtually all political theorists to articulate a generally applicable set of operating principles, a credible case can be made, by default, for political fuzz. Naturally, this circumstance tends to accentuate, rather than to limit, the power of those at the top of the party structure, both official and unofficial. This is particularly true when leaders achieve their position on the basis of the natural force of their personality or their past successes, rather than through the integrety of their character or their ideas.

Big tent party structure is the preferred style for all parties in a system that recognizes two or more officially sanctioned parties and in which elective public offices are awarded to the top vote getter, even when that candidate wins only a plurality of those who voted. This is because coalition building after an election tends to be almost always fruitless in a given election/governance cycle, and, in any case, has no residual effect on who governs. By contrast, in a system in which governance is only turned over to an actual majority coalition, political compromise tends to be more visible and accountable, albeit only marginally so, and new parties quickly form, grow, decline and die according to the circumstances of need and success.

In order to be most effective, candidates for office must possess the following qualities. Optimally the candidate must never subscribe to a core set of principles, themselves, no matter what their party may espouse in its platform, and its best even not to appear to do so lest a major segment of the electorate be alienated from his or her candidacy. As a substitute the candidate may cultivate an image of caring for the common man and or woman and support this image through a carefully controlled system of platitudes known as slogans and talking points. As a corollary to this the candidate must have a knack for getting the average person to believe he or she is on their side and even agrees in all essentials with the voter's pet prejudices. Such a quality is referred to as either Reaganaura or Obamystique after the two most effective practitioners of this art in late 20th century and early 21st century national politics.

The party platform should hold up inclusiveness as a major desired feature of its composition. This is most effective when there are putatively disenfranchised interests or natural minority groups who are cultivated as partaking in a broader constituency that lends legitimacy to the party. It is easiest to carry out this strategy when the party's core platform is composed of malleable platitudes or alternatively when inclusiveness is regarded as more important than other core principles of the platform.

As a corollary to this, the candidate must cultivate an image of inclusivity in interpersonal relationships and political affiliations even at the expense of allocating time to the cultivation of affiliations according to natural taste, ability or the content of the affiliate's character. It is best that the candidate maintain a visible personal life style whose character is above reproach or, failing that, to cultivate protective relationships with the media according to one's state in life. In 21st century politics that state in life may permit significant peccadilloes, sexual promiscuity, casual drug use, draft avoidance, habitual and even reflexively spontaneous prevarication, or even negligence of such civic duties as the timely payment of taxes, according to the dominant persona the candidate has cultivated prior to their candidacy.