We explore the shifts in the party system from the early Republic to the Progressive Era and ask: Are we seeing a significant party shift in real time?
We explore the shifts in the party system from the early Republic to the Progressive Era and ask: Are we seeing a significant party shift in real time?
Party Crashings
March 2024
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
John Adams, Member of the Federalist Party
“The Whig party died of too much respectability and not enough people.”
Edward Stafford
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”
Ronald Reagan
I do not have a fear of flying, I have a fear of crashing
Unknown
My birthplace of Wisconsin is known for many things. Cheese obviously (the bread of life to us natives), supper clubs, muskie, and northern fishing. For winter fishing we often dwell in ice-platformed structures called shannies. Wisconsin has communists in our capital of Madison and neo-fascists in Tigerton. We also have a fair share of political notoriety. Somehow, Wisconsin is the state that produced both Robert (fighting Bob) LaFollette, one of the early progressives, and Joseph McCarthy, of Red Scare fame in the 1950s.
It was also within the great state of Wisconsin where, in 1854, the Republican Party, the Grand Old Party, was founded. Of course, it was not actual people from WI who got the press.
Prominent figures like Francis Preston Blair and Horace Greely deserve the credit. These founders were located in the Northern United States and opposed expanding slavery. The party contained ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, about whom we will learn a little more later in the podcast. The Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party, a group vehemently opposed to immigration.
And thus, one party, the American Whigs, ended, and another, one with us today, was created. Italy, Israel, Germany, and even Britain have several parties, and it is rare when one gets that elusive outright majority. The United States, however, has tended towards two parties with a spattering of 3rd parties that emerge only to have their ideas absorbed into the majors.
Before 1856, there was a fluidity to the ideas and namings of these parties. Since then, we have essentially had the Republicans and the Democrats. As we shall see, these labels mean very different things depending on the time we view them.
In his farewell address, George Washington famously warned against factionalism, calling the concept of parties “obstructions” to the greater will of the people.
They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.
Having died in 1799, Washington was spared the full flowering of the party system, but wise as he was, he must have recognized the seeds, as noted in his farewell address. The political rivalries engendered by Washington’s retirement in 1796 roughly coalesced into two camps. The Democratic-Republicans (yes, there was a party with both names!), led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, believed more in states' rights and wished to put strict limits on the federal government's power. The logically designated Federalists wanted to see more greater centralization of authority. Though this party was short-lived, it did not lack gravitas. Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Charles Coatesworth Pinkney were all members. Yet unlike the Democratic-Republicans, where Jefferson was the clear leader, the Federalists after Washington lacked that figure.
Prickly personalities such as Adams and Hamilton could not coexist, so they never saw presidential authority again after the single win in 1796. Any hope of a Federalist future died with Jefferson’s election over Adams in 1800 and the murder of Hamilton by sitting Vice President Aaron Burr in 1804. By the election of 1816, James Monroe became the only president, aside from Washington, to run for office essentially unopposed. Even Adams's son, John Quincy Adams, ran in 1824 as a Democratic-Republican. His opponent, Andrew Jackson, ran under the same party affiliation. A split was inevitable, so by the election of 1832, Andrew Jackson, our first populist president, ran as a Democrat, and his opponent, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, ran as a National Republican. This new party’s failure was so profound that the Whig party was born just four years later.
Regarding third parties, a pattern emerged in the early Republic that would be replicated throughout America’s history. Emerging in the 1820s, the Anti-Masonic Party is one of the earliest examples of a third-party movement in the United States. Fueled by public outrage over the mysterious disappearance of William Morgan, a Freemason who threatened to expose the secrets of the fraternity, the Anti-Masonic Party capitalized on anti-elite sentiment and suspicion of secret societies. Despite its short-lived existence, the party made significant strides in local and state politics, even fielding a presidential candidate in 1832. And no one capitalized more on the concept of anti-elitism than Andrew Jackson.
From the 1830s, America’s political system was dominated by Jackson’s Democrats. The Whigs could only elect two presidents in the nearly 30-year span, victorious generals William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor. By the 1850s, this alignment was beginning to fray. The Democrats in the North of the nation had somewhat reconciled themselves to slavery through the leadership of Stephen Douglas, but the Whig party was dividing along sectional lines. Taylor never finished his term, dying in 1850 to be succeeded by the hapless Millard Fillmore. In 1852, instead of going with this incumbent, the Whigs again nominated a general, Winfield Scott. Franklin Pierce won, garnering 242 electoral votes to Scott’s paltry 42. The election was also notable for nearly 6% of the vote going to the anti-slavery Free Soil party. Part of this was due to the similarity of the platforms for both the Democrats and the Whigs. In the latter case, they would not take a firm stand against slavery for fear of alienating Southern Whigs.
The Free Soil party comprised a coalition of anti-slavery advocates, abolitionists, and disaffected Democrats and Whigs. Formed in response to the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories, the Free Soilers championed the slogan "Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men." Although short-lived, the party played a pivotal role in shaping the political landscape leading up to the Civil War, eventually, as noted, merging with the newly formed Republican Party.
Ron Brownstein wrote of the Whigs in American Prospect in 2017, “The breaking point for this fraying party system came in 1854 when Stephen Douglas pushed through his Kansas-Nebraska Act. His aim was not specifically to expand slavery. Still, he was willing to allow its spread to advance his deeper goal: to organize those vast territories so they could become the route for a transcontinental railroad that he anticipated would both enrich him (he had a habit of commingling his legislation and investments) and propel him to the presidency.”
In an editorial written in his New York Tribune by Horace Greeley, printed in June 1854, he declared: "We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."
From 1856 through today, we have essentially been a two-party system with various third parties coming and going. There were populists, progressives, and, most recently, the Reform Party. Today, we have libertarians and green parties. However, these 3rd parties have never elected a president or have much in terms of representation in Congress. They can be spoilers.
Yet the concept of the 1856, or even the 1886 versions resembling our current entities is inaccurate. Benjamin Harrison, Republican president from 1889-1893, was the steward of a party that liked centralized government, big spending, and high tariffs. Until the Panic of 1893 and the subsequent mid-term of 1894, it was the Democrats who were pro-business and small government. It was Democratic standard bear Grover Cleveland who noted, “The people exist to support the government; the government does not exist to support the people.” Can one imagine these words coming from Elizabeth Warren or even Joe Biden today?
Similar to the deceased Free Soilers altering the political landscape in the 1850s, in the 1890s, it was the Populist Party who achieved that end and, in many regards, set the course for the Democratic Party we know today. The People's Party, or Populists, eventually emerged as the most significant protest party; in 1892, their presidential candidate gained over 8.6% of the popular vote and 22 electoral votes. The Populist Party emerged as the champion for agrarian and working-class Americans. Advocating for reforms such as the direct election of senators, a graduated income tax, and government control of railroads and telegraphs. The party faltered amid internal divisions and political opposition, ultimately fading into obscurity by the turn of the century. But not before eliminating Cleveland-style candidates in favor of populist William Jennings Bryan, who was nominated three times by the Democrats. And it was so many of the Populist Party proposals that resemble the choices of the Democratic party of Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama.
As the Democrats transitioned from a states' rights, small government, and anti-tariff party to a more populist, reformist entity, the Republicans were able to fill were able to dominate politics. From 1896 through 1928, the Republicans won every presidential election except for 1912 and 1916. Only Wilson, elected because of a split between Teddy Roosevelt and Williams Howard Taft, broke this stranglehold on the White House.
Many historians and history buffs love Teddy Roosevelt. The rough rider led his men up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. The old west tough guy hunting buffalo or the great explorer charting new courses in Amazonia. The Teddy of big stick and bully pulpit fame.
I am not among those. Teddy makes for excellent writing but for poor politics from a conservative point of view. During his seven years in office, he issued more executive orders than all his 25 predecessors combined. Think about the imperial executive politics of today when Obama wields his pen and phone, and Biden undoes four years of Trump border policy, unleashing a civilian invasion on our Southern border. That began with Teddy Roosevelt. And Wilson? Arguably the most onerous president in American history and certainly the worst of the 20th century? That was Teddy, too.
At the dawn of the 20th century, the Progressive Party burst onto the scene, led by Roosevelt. In response to the perceived failures of both major parties to address social and economic inequalities, the Progressives advocated for a wide range of reforms, including women's suffrage, labor rights, and environmental conservation. Though short-lived, the party's influence reverberated throughout American politics, laying the groundwork for future reform movements. A splinter group of the Progressive Party, the Bull Moose Party emerged from the tumult of the 1912 presidential election. Led by Roosevelt, who famously declared himself "fit as a bull moose," the party challenged the entrenched interests of the Republican Party of incumbent Taft and the Democratic nominee, Woodrow Wilson. Despite Roosevelt's charismatic leadership and widespread popularity, the Bull Moose Party failed to secure victory, paving the way for the eventual triumph of Wilson and the Democrats.
Despite hand-selecting his successor, William Howard Taft, in 1908, Teddy just had to run again, conjuring in my mind the words of rapper and American Philosopher Eminem. “Now this looks like a job for me, so everybody just follow me, But no matter how many fish in the sea, It'd be so empty without me.” Not only was Roosevelt ready to betray Taft and his party, but also to break the 120-year precedent set by Washington of only serving two terms. Not even Andrew Jackson, no humble guy he, was willing to break the precedent, but narcissistic Theodore Roosevelt was up for the task.
With the advent of the Progressives, Roosevelt's ego-maniacal power grab, and Wilson’s creation of the modern-day Democratic Party based on the progressive and reform model, the Republicans were also altered. The underrated and unfairly besmirched William Harding and his incomparable successor, Calvin Coolidge, set the tone for the modern Republican party, or at least until 2016. This new party was, unlike the Republicans of Harrison and Roosevelt, distrustful of government, favorable towards business, and isolationist in foreign policy.
Of course, there have been Republican presidents in the 1920-2016 time period who have broken with orthodoxy. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system with federal funding. Nixon created the EPA, and George W Bush completed the most significant expansion of Medicare since its founding with his drug benefit. Bill Clinton reformed welfare and actually presented an incredibly rare surplus in one of his budgets. But the dichotomy of Democrats favoring government interventions with the Republicans in opposition has held until about seven or eight years ago.
Today, in the case of the primary right-wing party, the first crack in the two-party system occurred in the decade before the American Civil War. The party that Donald Trump altered since his emergence in 2015 represents a drastic break in ideology and temperament compared with the Republican Party of Reagan in the 1980s and even the GOP in the Coolidge era in the 1920s.
In rejecting the robust Reagan foreign policy and a greater embrace of government to do the party's bidding under Trump, the GOP as it exists today is no longer comparable to earlier iterations.
Writing back in 2016, the late great Charles Krauthammer noted,
More fundamentally, Trump has no affinity whatsoever for the central thrust of modern conservatism — a return to less and smaller government. If the establishment has insufficiently resisted Obama’s Big Government policies, the beneficiary should logically have been the most consistent, indeed most radical, anti-government conservative of the bunch, Ted Cruz. Cruz’s entire career has consisted of promoting tea-party constitutionalism in revolt against party leaders who had joined “the Washington cartel.” Yet when Cruz got to his one-on-one with Trump at the Indiana OK Corral, Republicans chose Trump and his nonconservative, idiosyncratic populism. Which makes Indiana a truly historic inflection point. It marks the most radical transformation of the political philosophy of a major political party in our lifetime. The Democrats continue their trajectory of ever-expansive liberalism from the New Deal through the Great Society through Obama and Clinton today. While the GOP, the nation’s conservative party, its ideology refined and crystallized by Ronald Reagan, has just gone populist.”
And what does that look like?
There is this odd sense in Trump’s primary campaign, how he acts, and his supporters see him as if he was not president for the previous four years. When he talks about taking down the deep state, solving crime issues, or providing a better health care system, it's as if he never had the opportunity. The massive expansion of spending, even before COVID-19, the riots of 2020, and the failure to get an Obamacare repeal through Congress did not happen to some other guy. It was Trump in the big chair. So we have a sense of his presidential governance, unlike Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis.
Trump, in the Teddy Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson mold, would like to be a “dictator for a day” so he can enact his policies without those pesky constitutional guardrails that inhibited his repeal of Obamacare, for example. He would go to an isolationist policy not because of a sense of the US making intractable problems worse but rather a lack of confidence in our ability to improve things. The spending would not end; Trump has never been a small-government guy. And what about the conservatives who helped shape the 2016-2020 period?
Congressional leaders such as Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are no longer in their posts. Seasoned conservatives, including Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, John Kelly, John Bolton, and Mick Mulvaney, have been routinely roasted by Trump. They will not serve; instead, their ilk will not reside in a 2nd term Trump White House. Rather, we will have cabinets full of populist bomb-throwers like Matt Gaetz, Kristi Noem, and Lauren Boebert. Somewhere in a grave in Louisiana, Huey Long is laughing.
Both major parties embrace government expansion, rejection of necessary entitlement reform, and tendency towards an isolationist position, certainly in the progressive wing of the Democrats.
They agree that the United States is a detrimental international force. Yet this opens room for an actual conservative party to embrace the ideas of Reagan and Coolidge.
It is in those previous party shifts, whether the wholescale ending of the parties or a fundamental change in thinking, that informs the possibility that we will see something not seen since before Lincoln was elected president.