Big tent
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.
The big tent approach argues against any sort of
single-issue litmus tests or ideological rigidity, and advocates a Democratic Party with room for conservative as well as liberal Democrats, and a Republican Party with room for liberal as well as conservative Republicans.
This is in contrast to political parties that promote only a specific ideology. Advocates of a big tent believe that people with a broad variety of political ideologies and viewpoints can unite within a single party to advance shared core issues they agree on, even if they disagree on other issues. 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.
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.
The
Democratic Party and the
Republican Party in the
United States have
liberal and
conservative wings and support bases to such an extent that some supporters from each party align themselves with a particular politician or group within the other. Republican
President of the United States Ronald Reagan gained support from conservative Democrats, who came to be called
Reagan Democrats.
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 current Minister for Finance
Charles McCreevy. Fianna Fáil served in the coalition from 1989 to 1992 with the right wing liberal
Progressive Democrats, then with the socialist
Irish Labour Party and is again in government with the Progressive Democrats, Fianna Fáil tailoring its policies accordingly.
India's
Congress Party and Italy's now defunct
Christian Democrats both attracted such a broad range of support as to make them
Catch all parties.
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
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.
In the United States, the big tent concept is practiced today (in reality if not in name) within the
Democratic Party, the
Republican Party, and the
Reform Party. 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. 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.
However even the Democratic, Republican, 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
left-wing or progressive, excluding more conservative constituencies such as the
Democratic Leadership Council,
Blue Dog Democrats, and
social conservatives. There are factions within the Republican Party which likewise seek to make the Republicans strictly an ideologically
right-wing or
conservative party, and expel those they deem
Republicans In Name Only, those socially too
liberal, and those holding
isolationist foreign policy views (who therefore oppose the Bush administration's foreign policy) such as
libertarians and
paleoconservatives. 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.
Abortion and
gun policy are two examples.
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, some members of the
Democratic party argue that the party should become a more centrist party, such as the
DLC. More left-leaning members wish the party to remain a pure
centre-left party, to balance out the
GOP, an ideologically solid
centre-right party.
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, a lot of times being to the left of labour. In the United States, a lot of 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 only appeals to a small portion of the population. Too pragmatic (Or Big-Tent style) can cause the base on your side of the spectrum (which may very well be very ideological) to split off.
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.
