Why don't US parties have opposition 'leaders'

[Astrad]

I'm not all that up on the american political system so excuse me for this question. But in parliamentry systems, opposition parties (parties out of power) have leaders who exercise tremendous control of policy and issue positions. It doesn't seem to do a lot of good for the Democratic party not to have a leader. It seems to emphasize the notion that there is a lack of cohesion in the party. Why not elect a leader now who will run for president in 2008 and who exercises some discipline over the party while in opposition?

[rockymountaindem]

1. Both the majority and minority parties have leaders in both houses

However, they fulfill mostly the roles of organizers and spokespeople. They do not necessarily lead the debate on the floor, nor do they create all the policy initiatives.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Mainly because...

Parliamentary governments organize by coalition. You either have a single party with a clear majority of seats, or you have a coalition of parties that, together, hold a clear majority of seats. This ruling party then creates the government whole cloth. The non-majority parties generally form an opposing coaltion and create a shadow government, minister for minister, to deal with legislation proposed by government ministers.

With the United States' separation of powers, that kind of system can not exist. The offices of our ruling government exist in the Executive branch, as the President, Vice President and Cabinet; Congress is an entirely different branch of government. There is no government in Congress (insert pause here for laughter to subside) and so there is no need for an opposition government in Congress.

Along those lines, the emphasis on party loyalty in a congressional form of government is pretty weak. A parliamentary government requires that the government, as a whole, propose and pass legislation as a block; if MPs are allowed to routinely vote their conscience, the whole system falls apart. Perforce, the opposition government must likewise vote as a block. In a congressional government, these forces are absent; the US governemnt will not come crashing down if members of Congress vote independently of their party.

[Astrad]

3. Very informative response. Thank you...

Party discipline is a two-edged sword. I do see the benefits though when you have a relatively progressive majority leader who can, for example, establish national health care regardless of how much lobbying occurs of individual party members. It's my understanding that it was also Democratic members of congress who helped scuttle Clinton's health care plan. Party discipline would have helped there.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Congress has "whips" to try and beat party members in to compliance

I kid you not: there are appointed positions within both parties and within both houses of Congress that carry the title of Whip. The job of the whip is to lobby members of his party within his house to get them to support party legislation. But really, lobbying is all that they can do.

My understanding of the parliamentary system is that it is parties who run for office, not individuals. While John Smith might be standing for the Liberals to represent Little Winding, voters are voting for the Liberals, not for John Smith. I believe that, as a result, the Liberals can expel John Smith if he gets out of line, tossing him from the party and effectively from his seat in Commons.

In the US, we vote for the individual. The only way a member of Congress can be removed from office early is with the consent of two-thirds of all members of his house, so you can imagine that this has happened very, very rarely. Again, our system of government makes it difficult to enforce the kind of party loyalty that you find in a parliamentary system. Yes, it can be annoying, but I think that ultimately it is a great strength.