While taking into account the experience of past presidential campaigns and the principles of maintaining executive power, I believe that political parties can interact with each other after election campaigns. However, I do not consider such cooperation to be 100% productive since each side has individual views and disagreements regarding optimal governing decisions. Geer et al. (2018) provide examples of recent election campaigns and highlight the distinctive views of Democrats and Republicans on a number of social nuances, such as engagement policies. As a proponent of a more liberal approach, Democrats pursue a concept of equality, while Republicans focus on a conservative approach to social stratification (Geer et al., 2018). As a result, the parties receive different support, which, in turn, is reflected in their interaction during the presidential rule.
The issue is ambiguous due to the fact that the initiatives that both parties put forward during the election campaigns often contradict those of the other side, which impedes subsequent cooperation. Regardless of who wins, the ruling party reserves the right to ratify relevant legislative decisions, which often runs counter to the interests and principles of the other party. For instance, earlier, according to Geer et al. (2018), one of the controversial aspects was diverse representation as Democrats and Republicans could not agree on the representation of candidates from both sides. In the last elections in 2016 and 2020, this issue was particularly acute. The roles of superdelegates have always differed in the perception of the two parties. However, in the 21st century, each side has come to understand the need to follow the principle of equality in the context of diverse representation (Geer et al., 2018). As a result, despite distinctive views, Democrats and Republicans can come to a consensus if required by the norms of modern law and the Constitution.
Moreover, I am convinced that political parties can work successfully in situations that do not imply gaining authority among the population and concern national interests. For instance, defending the US interests in the international arena in case of military conflicts, terrorist threats, or other emergencies requires a combination of efforts to address such problems. Political differences fade into the background when the task of preserving the integrity and independence of the country arises. However, even in such difficult cases, controversial issues may arise. For example, the US geopolitical interests in the Middle East have always been perceived distinctively by presidential administrations, despite common efforts to counter extremist threats. Geer et al. (2018) mention political primaries and note the different approaches of the parties to building their political programs, which, among other things, affect foreign policy. Thus, even in the context of distinctive views, consensus can be reached if the country’s national interests are the background for discussion.
Given the difficult political situation in the world, American parties can work well together after working against each other during campaigns, but disagreements on individual aspects are inevitable. The analysis of election programs proves that in a number of cases, Democrats and Republicans adhere to polar concepts of social, economic, and other forms of the country’s development. Gaining authority among the population is one of the main reasons for these differences. As a result, consensus on various issues requires reciprocal concessions, which is not always easy given the parties’ individual policy lines.
Geer, J. G., Herrera, R., Schiller, W. J., & Segal, J. A. (2018). Gateways to democracy: An introduction to the American government (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.