|
|
Party System 5
(1932-1968?)
The stock market crash and the Depression intervenes
between the election of 1928 and 1932. The election of F. D. Roosevelt
in 1932 signals significant changes in partisan realignment in America.
Many of the groups which had been the stalwarts of the Republican Party had
changed by 1932: Union veterans were a dwindling number, blacks who had
suffered heavy job losses during the Depression left the GOP, eastern labor
and farmers all were suffering during the Depression
Roosevelt also creates the New Deal
The New Deal ushers in an extended period of government activity in a variety
of areas. Along with an emphasis upon government "management" of
the economy, the New Deal also emphasized government activity in support for
the individual. The New Deal thus provided a specific answer to the
"Tudor polity" debate about the role of government. Rather than the
limited government (that didn't intervene when evidence of impending economic
catastrophe loomed), government was now an aggressive force to not only
control economic fluctuations but to mitigate their effect upon individuals.
The thrust of the New Deal thus sets the stage for contemporary political
debate about the proper role of government in America.
Many also argue that government intervention in international arena is also
an outgrowth of the Roosevelt presidency. America's entrance into World War II and
its actions as a "global leader of the free world" for the next
half-century are part and parcel of an "activist" approach
associated with the Democratic party.
The Democratic New Deal coalition holds together through Truman,
falls to the popular General Eisenhower,
returns with John
F. Kennedy and then.....
Party System 6? (1968?-present)
During the Kennedy administration American involvement in the small southeast
Asian country of Viet Nam began to grow. Over the next few
years U.S. involvement steadily increased.
Eventually the Democratic party (and the country) began to split over
continued involvement in Viet Nam. While many of the domestic
policy actions of the Johnson
administration appealed to the traditional Democratic party coalition (Model Cities, Medicare, anti-poverty programs,
and Civil Rights), foreign policy differences over Viet Nam began to tear the Democratic
party coalition apart.
Eugene McCarthy began a challenge to Johnson and after Johnson's decision not
to seek another term, the Democratic party primary fight expanded to include
Vice-President Humphrey and Robert Kennedy. In a year of strong passions and
violence including riots at the Democratic national convention, the
presidential election race was a whisper thin victory for Republican Richard Nixon.
Nixon won overwhelmingly in 1972 against George McGovern.
In 1976, after Nixon's resignation, Ford's
controversial pardon, and internal dissension in the GOP, the Democrats
recaptured the White House with a relatively obscure Georgia governor named Jimmy Carter.
Four years later, Ronald Reagan
captured the presidency and then won overwhelmingly in 1984. His vice-president,
George Bush,
retained the presidency in 1988.
In 1992, the Democrats recapture the presidency with Arkansas governor Bill Clinton,
who wins reelection in 1996 despite having the Republicans capture both
houses of Congress in the 1994 off-year elections.
Was 1968 a realigning election? 1980? or are we
still in the party system 5 era of Democratic party ascendency?
or has the "party system" totally broken
down?
Perhaps the advent of the media age has made the notion of partisanship
(party identification) meaningless!
Questions we will have to consider when we explore the impact of the media on
interest articulation in a few weeks!
Burnham’s Theory of
Critical Elections
Burnham argues that one should
view elections in light of two questions:
1) did the party in the majority (the
party with the dominant percentage
of identifiers) remain in power or
lose?
2) did the fundamental
issues remain the same or change?
Answering these two questions
leads to a four-fold typology:
|
|
party in power WINS
|
party in power LOSES
|
|
issues remain THE
SAME
|
MAINTAINING
|
DEVIATING
|
|
issues CHANGE
|
RECONFIRMING
|
REALIGNING
|
Dealignment??
Some question whether Burnham's
approach is still valid, as elections since 1968 have often yielded "divided
government", ie. one party
dominates the White House, the other party dominates the Congress, and
either party can dominate governorships.
Was 1968 a realigning election?
It certainly doesn't fit the standard criteria!
There are those who
argue that the 1968 marked not a new realignment, but
the dealignment of
American politics!
According to the dealignment explanation, partisan identification is
no longer an important factor in voting.
They argue that the following three trends conspire to
make partisanship irrelevant:
|
1)
|
parties
have lost control of the nomination process through changes in the primary
system
|
|
2)
|
the
media encourages the growth of maverick candidates
|
|
3)
|
the changing nature of American
campaigns encourages the growth of the
"candidate-centered" campaign organization.
|
History of US Party Systems
|
System
|
Period
|
Leading Parties
|
Events/Issues
|
|
1
|
1800-1824
|
Federalists
Dem/Reps
|
Parties evolving/
Power of the national government
|
|
2
|
1824-1860
|
Whigs
Democrats
|
Conventions/
Economic Issues
Slavery
Regional Conflict
|
|
3
|
1860-1896
|
Republicans
Democrats
|
Urban machines and political
bosses/
Reconstruction
States' Rights
|
|
4
|
1896-1932
|
Republicans
Democrats
|
nonpartisan election
weakening of congressional parties/
Regulation of big business
|
|
5
|
1932-1968?
|
Republicans
Democrats
|
Race/ Civil Rights
Communism
Vietnam
Welfare state politics
|
|
6?
|
1968-present
|
Republicans
Democrats
|
Economy
Quality of Life
|
|