American Party Research Articles

The Republicans: from Lincoln to Bush

Republican party has always been fascinating to those who subscribe to its beliefs, as well as to those who take an alternative stand on the issues. In The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush, Robert Allen Rutland has brought a clear and concise understanding to this political party to the general reader. book provides an overview of the Republican party, from its beginnings in the 1850s through the 1994 congressional elections, which saw the Democratic domination of the House and Senate come to an abrupt end. Rutland begins by explaining how the obnoxious Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 overturned the Missouri Compromise, inflamed the North, and caused the collapse of the Whig and American parties. result was the birth of the Republican party, whose purpose was to oppose the Democrats and stop the spread of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was elected the first Republican president in 1860. This text suggests that a major shift in voting strength took place twice during the 20th century, first in the New Deal years, and again after 1968 when the GOP made an appeal to southern voters and finally took control of the area that had previously been dominated by the Democrats. With the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan as the 40th president of the United States, the Republicans gained support from many first-time voters, middle-class whites, and labour unions - groups not previously expected to vote Republican. In the companion volume, The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton, Rutland provides an honest and straightforward assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Democratic presidents. Here he presents an even-handed look at the good and not-so-good Republicans. By using stories and anecdotes from various administrations to enliven this narrative of political history, Rutland gives Republicans and Democrats alike a deeper appreciation for the two-party system.

Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter, 1828–1924

Conventional wisdom states that where ideas and values have mattered in American political life they have usually been the product of a single, overarching political culture. The United States, it is argued, has had political conflict but notideologicalconflict. Perhaps nowhere is this premise more noticeable than in the study of political parties. According to Du-verger, “[T]he two parties are rival teams, one occupying office, the other seeking to dislodge it. It is a struggle between theinsand theouts, which never becomes fanatical, and creates no deep cleavage in the country.” Everett Carll Ladd writes, “[T]he need to seek support within an overarching ideological consensus, has historically imposed certain characteristics on the major American parties – social group inclusiveness, accommodationism, a ‘non-ideological’ stance vis-a-vis their principal opponents (which, after all, accept the same ideology).”

Latin America's parties

Latin America’s Parties Jonathan Hartlyn (bio) Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Edited by Scott Mainwaring and Timothy R. Scully. Stanford University Press, 1995. 578 pp. This book represents a major step forward in the analysis of parties and party systems in Latin America, enriching the debate enormously. Introductory and concluding chapters by the coeditors make an important general argument, raise issues for further research, and place the country cases in a coherent comparative framework. In between, the 12 country studies provide a wealth of information; written by a mix of senior and junior scholars, the chapters are of uniformly high quality. Mainwaring and Scully argue that “the critical difference among Latin American party systems is whether or not a competitive party system is institutionalized” (p. 1). For them, a strong, institutionalized party system is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for consolidating democracy and for governing effectively. I agree, although I believe that they have not considered all the relevant issues regarding institutionalization here. Their conclusion briefly reviews the impact on parties and party systems of several contemporary changes in the region. These include the region’s wave of democratization, severe economic crisis, the emergence of antistatist economic policies, the questioning of the traditional Left in the wake of the Soviet collapse, and the impact of the mass media and other technological changes on campaigns and party organizational strength. The editors’ focus on party institutionalization leads them to reject categorizing countries by the traditional criterion of the number of parties. To determine party institutionalization, Mainwaring and Scully combine four criteria: regularity of party competition (low electoral volatility); stability of parties’ roots in society; legitimacy accorded parties and elections; and the existence of solid party organizations independent of individual leaders. On the basis of these criteria, the 12 country cases are divided into “institutionalized party systems,” “inchoate party systems,” and an intermediate and somewhat residual category, “hegemonic party systems in transition.” The “institutionalized party systems” include six countries that differ in terms of the longevity of their parties, the types of parties and party systems that they have, the history and nature of their democratic experiences, and their evolution subsequent to the book’s publication. Chile (chapter by Timothy Scully) and Uruguay (Luis González), both with deeply rooted parties of long standing and a long history of [End Page 174] democracy, but also both victims of military takeovers in the 1970s, are naturally located here. Scully focuses principally on elements of continuity, whereas González stresses the challenges of change. Colombia (Ronald Archer), with traditional parties reaching back into the nineteenth century, is often superficially lumped together with Venezuela (Miriam Kornblith and Daniel Levine) because both experienced transitions to democracy in the late 1950s and did not experience military breakdowns in the 1970s. Not in this book. Instead, the chapters here show that the history and nature of the major parties, their organization, and their links to both state and society have varied greatly across the two countries, with profound implications for the kinds of problems of governance and democracy that each has experienced. The chapter on Venezuela was completed prior to the 1993 presidential elections, which saw the emergence of new political forces and a dramatic fall in the vote for the two parties that symbolized the country’s institutionalized party system. Yet the chapter’s discussion of the challenges of economic scarcity; of the perceived “suffocation” of civil society by the two excessively centralized, pragmatic, and corrupt political parties; and of the military’s discontent make this outcome understandable. Also included is the often overlooked case of Costa Rica (Deborah Yashar), the only unequivocally successful democracy in the region since the early 1950s. James McGuire’s chapter on Argentina analyzes the “movementist tendencies” of the major parties, especially the Peronists, and the weakness of the ties between class actors and the parties, two features that call into question the extent to which Argentina falls into the “institutionalized” category. The two hegemonic party systems in transition are Mexico and Paraguay. Ann Craig and Wayne Cornelius place in their proper context societal dynamics and the myriad electoral-rule changes enacted by Mexico’s hegemonic Institutional Revolutionary...

Dial-In Democracy: Talk Radio and the 1994 Election

Detractors call them right wing nuts, apostles of hate, fomenters of violence. Fans hear them as inspirational, voices of reason, enlighteners of the public. Similarly, their audience is portrayed as maladjusted, intolerant, and dangerous -or as guardians of the republic, socially conscious, and public spirited. Talk radio, its hosts and listeners: Is it a bedlam of conservative yakkers? A forum for seditionists? An electronic version of New England town meetings? Is it all of the above, some, or none?' Whether characterized as laboratories of demagogeury or of democracy, talk radio has become a staple of American political discussion, especially since the 1994 election the political tsunami that uprooted scores of Democratic members of Congress, senators, governors, and state legislators. The election ended forty years of Democratic dominance of the House of Representatives, over sixty years of control of state houses and legislatures, and perhaps laid the groundwork for the sixth realignment of the American party system (or signaled continuing dealignment).2 Republicans won 230 seats in the House of Representatives, picking off 52 formerly held by Democrats, with 52 percent of the national House vote. The Republicans also gained control of the Senate by capturing eight

Political Parties and Class Mobilization in Contemporary United States Elections

Research on historical and contemporary American party systems suggests how political party and party system attributes are relevant to class-specific mobilization. The more liberal and competitive the Democratic party in a state, the greater the mobilization of lower-class voters. Liberal and competitive Democratic parties will enhance turnout of the lower classes more than that of other classes. The latter relationships will be stronger in off year elections than in presidential elections. Pooled time-series and cross-sectional analyses of turnout are conducted by social class, state, and year for 1978 through 1990. The first two hypotheses about party attributes and class-specific mobilization are strongly supported, but only in presidential election years.

Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America

This volume fills the need for a comprehensive, up-to-date portrait of parties and party systems in Latin America. It includes chapters on all the large and medium-sized countries, as well as those smaller countries with older democratic traditions: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The book is framed by an introduction that provides a theoretical and comparative conceptual map for charting Latin American party systems and a conclusion that looks ahead to the challenges and trends for party building in the 1990's. The twelve country case studies address five analytical themes. Finally, and most important, the authors characterise the nature of the party system in each country - how institutionalised it is and how it can be classified.

Reporting Environmental Policy Debate

With American parties finally acting more like those in most other industrial democracies, with lines of ideological dispute clearly drawn, 1995 created an opportunity for the media to move toward their ideal role as civic educators. This case study explains how and why they missed this opportunity, highlighting the impact of the persistent nonideological and nonpartisan biases that structure the news. These biases led journalists to frame the debate over environmental policy reform in ways that prevented the average citizen from engaging in rational deliberation.

Women's Movements and Political Parties

Comparing the orientation of the American and Canadian women's movements toward political parties and electoral politics between 1970 and 1993, the article concludes that the predisposition away from established parties posited by new social movement theorists is present in both movements, but is in tension with the substantive and symbolic benefits that engagement with partisan and electoral politics promises. Within the broad context of these contradictory impulses, opportunity structures have shaped specific movement strategies. The permeable character of American parties, coupled with a two-party system, have facilitated the American movement's engagement with political parties, particularly the Democrats. In contrast to this, the cohesive, impermeable character of Canadian parties and a three-party system have prevented the Canadian movement from developing an exclusive relationship with any one party, and have contributed to the movement's growing apartisan orientation since the mid-1980s.

The Amesbury-Salisbury Strike and the Social Origins of Political Nativism in Antebellum Massachusetts

On May 31, 1852, John P. Derby, newly appointed agent of Salisbury Manufacturing Company, announced that luncheon privilege would be abolished following day. so-called luncheon privilege, a custom at this woolen factory since it began production in 1823, amounted to two fifteen-minute breaks in morning and afternoon for male employees. next day about onehundred operatives defiantly left mills at usual hour for their morning break. All were discharged for their insubordination, and were soon joined by most employees of SMC, male and female, in sympathy strikes. Within two weeks Samuel Langley, another newly appointed agent of nearby Amesbury Flannel Manufacturing Company, announced that his firm would likewise revoke luncheon privilege. Threatened with a massive strike, Langley refused to rescind his order and watched his mills completely shut down.1 As operatives streamed out of mills, residents organized a political response. Led by towns' native-born journeymen, master craftsmen, and small storekeepers, a local movement erupted in mid June for ten-hour working day. leaders penned a Hour and sent it to surrounding communities in July. In it, activists declared it to be the duty of every well-wisher to prosperity of state to unite in favor of a ten-hour law. They emphasized how issue transcended usual schemes and prejudices of party politics, maintaining all classes have a common and inseparable interest in legislation for a ten-hour day. On this note of antipartyism and cross-class solidarity Ten Hour Circular announced a decisive break with political orthodoxy. Amesbury and Salisbury, Massachusetts, once roseately described by Quaker-poet John Greenleaf Whittier as places where the utmost harmony prevails and has always done so between employer and employee, were plunged into a period of political upheaval.2 tumult peaked two years later when local insurgents united behind Know Nothing, or American party in November 1854 election. Know Nothing candidates in both towns, and indeed throughout state, swept to record majorities, obliterating Whig party and speeding collapse of second American party system in Massachusetts. In fact election of 1854 capped years of popular frustration, both locally and statewide, with Bay State's conservative Whig establishment. Remarkably, insurgent party carried nearly every town in state-a complete rout that suggests scope of voter antipathy towards politics-as-usual. Proclaimed one Amesbury nativist: The American movement gives more power to mechanics, true strength of country. It excludes those broken-down wire-pullers and party hacks, he gloated triumphantly, who will sell themselves for political office.3 Historians continue to debate sources of Know Nothing revolt in

Why Did the Whigs Die (and Why Didn't the Democrats)?: Evidence from National Nominating Conventions

Institutional survival can be a concern for any organization, but for long-standing and well-established institutions such as major political parties survival is usually taken for granted. When a party suffers crushing defeat in a national election, alarmist journalists may attract attention with head-lines suggesting its imminent demise, but not since the Civil War has the viability of the Democrats and Republicans been seriously in question. Therefore, the conditions under which a major party maintains itself has not been a focus of scholarship regarding American political parties.

Proportional Representation and the Future of the American Party System

Few laws have had a more direct impact on American political parties than the requirement that elections be conducted in single-member districts, with the winner being the candidate with the plurality of the vote. This common electoral arrangement has played a significant role in determining the structure of the United States party system and in shaping the behavior of our parties. It is also an arrangement that has largely been taken for granted by most citizens and political scientists.

Sidney M. Milkis. <italic>The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal</italic>. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. Pp. xi, 404. Cloth $49.95, paper $19.95

Sidney M. Milkis. The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. Pp. xi, 404. Cloth $49.95, paper $19.95 Get access Milkis Sidney M.. The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. Pp. xi, 404. Cloth $49.95, paper $19.95. Richard S. Kirkendall Richard S. Kirkendall University of Washington Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 100, Issue 4, October 1995, Page 1324, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/100.4.1324 Published: 01 October 1995

The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal.

Presenting a new synthesis of twentieth-century American political development, The President and the Parties is the first text to examine closely the association between the chief executive and the two-party system. Placing parties in a broad historical context and shedding light on their connection to other parts of the American political system, Sidney Milkis argues that, beginning with the New Deal, reforms intended to liberate the chief executive from the shackles of partisan politics only weakened an already fragile relationship, isolating presidents from what was once popular and institutional support from their parties. Written for political science students at all levels, this comprehensive analysis covers a broad range of issues and events, including FDR's 1938 Purge of the Democratic Party, The Executive Reorganization Act of 1939, the legacy of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and the triumph of executive centralization during the Reagan Revolution. By providing a unique perspective on the elements of American government, Milkis offers new insights into the decline of the party system and the process that fashioned a stronger, more active national state, but one lacking in vital representative institutions capable of common deliberation and choice. Placing the issue in contemporary perspective, he warns of the challenges ahead for a nation struggling to repair its frayed connection between government and people.

The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal.

The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal.

Richard P. McCormick and the Second American Party System

Richard P. McCormick and the Second American Party System

Why Clinton Won and Dukakis Lost

This article examines the change in the presidential fortunes of the US Democratic Party from 1988 to 1992. It focuses on the role of presidential candidates as the key dynamic aspect of American party politics. The analysis recognizes that candidates can influence the vote in several ways, including their personal attributes, ideological positions and policy and performance issues that are associated with them. For many American voters, the presidential candidates are the party. Contrary to the fears of many, candidate-centered politics have not led to presidential elections being determined by the personalities of the nominees. Nor has the decline of party politics led to ideological volatility, with the deciding factor being how closely candidates position themselves to the median voter. The major reason why Clinton won and Dukakis lost was that domestic issues favored Vice President Bush in 1988 but worked against President Bush in 1992.

Black and White: Unite and Fight?

In late August 1963, a few days after a quarter-million Americans gathered in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate support for civil rights legislation, socialist writer and activist Michael Harrington published an article on the future of the movement. Harrington had participated in civil rights protests since the mid-1950s; in 1960, working with Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders, he coordinated round-the-clock picketing of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in support of a strong civil rights plank for the party platform. For the next three years, thanks to the Freedom Rides and the Birmingham protests, civil rights moved from the periphery to the center of national debate. Harrington believed the movement held the potential to give American politics an enormous shove leftwards, because white and Negro working men and women have a basic and common interest against the alliance of racism and profiteering.' Since the late 1930s, Harrington noted, the possibilities for significant national reform had been blocked by a congressional bloc of southern Dixiecrats and conservative Republicans. Equal rights for blacks in the South, and especially voting rights, were the key to a realignment of American party politics which could break the stranglehold of the Dixiecrats on the southern Democratic party and the congressional agenda. If economic interest rather than racial prejudice came to determine voting behavior, and if Negroes and whites with the same urgent need for social change pooled their resources in a single movement which was uncompromisingly for civil rights and housing and education and a decent wage, then, Harrington argued, there would be real progress in the land.2 Of course, that turned out to be a very big if. With the advantage of thirty years' hindsight, Harrington's optimism in

What Politics Do Presidents Make?

Sidney M. Milkis is Associate Professor of Politics and Senior Research Associate with the Gordon Public Policy Center at Brandeis University. He is the author of The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal (1993) and the coauthor with Michael Nelson of The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776-1993 (1994), and with Richard A. Harris of The Politics of Regulatory Change: A Tale of Two Agencies (1989).

Book Reviews

Book review in this article: Explaining Policy Reversals. By Christopher Hood. The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System Since the New Deal. By Sidney M. Milkis. Values and Public Policy. Edited by Henry J. Aaron, Thomas E. Mann, and Timothy Taylor. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adam to George Bush. By Stephen Skowronek. International Handbook of Local and Regional Government. By Alan Norton. Rethinking School Choice: Limits of the Market Metaphor. By Jeffrey R. Henig.

The President above the Party - Sidney M. Milkis: The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System Since the New Deal. (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Pp. xi, 404. $49.95. $19.95, paper.)

The President above the Party - Sidney M. Milkis: The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System Since the New Deal. (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Pp. xi, 404. 19.95, paper.) - Volume 57 Issue 4