Is America on the cusp of a Seventh Party System?

Great Debates
1

Historians have identified a (controversial) number of “party systems” in American history, each beginning and ending with a decisive election:

First Party System: 1792-1816. Federalists (Hamilton, Adams) vs. Democratic-Republicans (Madison, Jefferson).

Era of Good Feelings: 1816-1824. Democratic-Republicans ascendant, Federalists marginalized.

Second Party System: 1837-1852. Democrats (Andrew Jackson) vs. Whigs (Henry Clay).

Third Party System: 1854-1896. Republicans (mainly Northeastern and Midwestern power base) vs. Democrats (in control of the “Solid South” from 1874).

Fourth Party System: 1896-1932. Republicans (McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt; in the ascendant) vs. Democrats (Woodrow Wilson).

Fifth Party System: Began in 1933 with the FDR Administration, but whether it came to an end in the 1960s, or the 1990s, or is still with us, is controversial. I incline to the theory that the failure of Goldwater in 1964, followed by the growth of Goldwater’s wing of the party into “movement conservatism,” which ultimately triumphed in 1980 with the election of Reagan, represents the emergence of the

Sixth Party System: Which we’re living in now. Includes the “Republican Revolution” of 1994. The Sixth Party System has been characterized by a wholesale exchange of the Dems’ and Pubs’ geographical-regional bases, following the success of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which broke the “Solid South” and transformed the GOP into a predominantly Southern party (which would have bemused both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis to no end). This realignment has resulted in making both parties more ideologically homogeneous than they were before – conservative “Southern Democrats” and liberal “Rockefeller Republicans” have alike been marginalized, or or else switched party affiliation. However, in the process, both parties have shifted their political center-of-gravity to the right.

The Dems took control of Congress in 2006; most pundits expect them to increase their majority this November; and Obama is leading McCain in the presidential polls. I’m thinking this might mean the end for movement-conservative predominance. In the next decade, the Democrats will be in the ascendant, and the most important political fights will be between their pro-business and left-populist wings (Obama represents the former, by the way; his economic policies and advisors are mostly Chicago-School libertarian). The Republicans may recoup their fortunes by marginalizing the movement conservatives within their ranks and becoming a party that has a place for liberals, as the party was in Nixon’s day; indeed, many conservatives already feel marginalized, and have loudly said so, by McCain’s candidacy.

However, this does not mean movement conservatism will be entirely irrelevant; it still has a vast network of well-funded think-tanks, grassroots organizations, and wholly-owned media outlets. It will be interesting to see what role they play as a party-in-opposition – not only to the Dems but to the Pub institutional leadership – in the coming period.

A good description of “movement conservatism” can be found in Right Nation by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge; excerpted here.

2

Conservative Democrats have by no means been neutralized or purged anywhere near as effectively or completely as the Liberal Republicans have. There’s a whole caucus of conservative/“moderate” Democrats in the House, known as the Blue Dogs. Whereas there is no equivalent caucus of Republicans, because there are few to no liberal Republicans left. Lincoln Chaffee was one of the last. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (both of Maine) are moderate Republicans, but Collins is in danger this year.

This is one of the reasons that Democrats are disadvantaged in getting their agenda across and fighting to keep the Administration’s and Republicans’ agenda from being passed…the Republicans don’t really have a moderate/liberal caucus at all. We have about half of our House delegation fighting against us on liberal/left-moderate issues, like FISA.

3

What about Schwarzenegger? Isn’t he a fairly liberal, and high-profile, and successful Republican? (Linked by marriage to the Kennedys, yet!)

4

That looked to me like more of an election strategy. The Gubernator doesn’t seem to follow any party philosophy. He and republican mayor of NYC, Mike Bloomberg, are currently championing the fight on climate change.

As for a new party system, no politician seems to be going after a new demographic. Not as clearly as Nixon did when he talked to the “silent majority”, which was his appeal to the people (mostly southerners) who were upset with the liberalism of the Warren Court, indecency, and who thought they were being marginalized by cultural elitists.

Obama’s supporters seem to be the same as Kerry’s, except more enthusiastic.

McCain is still going after the conservative base.

The jaws of Nixon’s polarizing politics have loosened, and the nation is ripe for a realignment if anyone has the political foresight to do it. Obama certainly has a golden opportunity here. Though he isn’t going to shift anything if he continues to shy away from taking bold positions on today’s issues.

I think it might be more clear after the election which demographic, if any, decides to realign itself with a new party.

5

Relevant thread from a year ago.

6

Well, the Pew Research Center divides Americans into nine political typology groups. The Pubs have the Enterprisers and Social Conservatives pretty solidly sewn up; the Dems have the Conservative Democrats, the Disadvantaged Democrats, and (when Nader ain’t on the front page) the Liberals. The groups to fight over are the Pro-Government Conservatives, the Upbeats, and the Disaffecteds. (The Bystanders are probably beyond anybody’s reach.) If the Dems can appeal to just the P-GCs, they’ll have a lasting majority; the trick is how to do so without alienating the Liberals. But the Pubs have had success with an even stranger coalition.

7

It feels like we’re on the verge of some sort of grand realignment, but what final form it will take is still uncertain.

Here’s what I think will happen. Obama will win in the fall and the Democrats will pick up a substantial number of seats in the House and Senate. The Republican Party will be wracked by finger-pointing and recriminations. They will ultimately decide that they lost because they “forgot their roots” and will respond by running hard-right social conservatives like Huckabee in 2010 and 2012 that will further alienate the rest of the country and cement their position as a minority party.

The Democrats with a comfortable majority will turn their attention to purging the Blue Dogs. A lot of the most important races in 2010 and 2012 will take place during the Democratic primaries where young progressives run against centrist incumbants.

The final form of the new alignment will depend on who winds up with control of the wreckage of the Republican Party and who wins the Progressive / Centrist split in the Democratic Party.

8

Highly relevant new book: The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington, by David Sirota. N.B.: By “Scaring Washington” he means the inside-the-Beltway Dem establishment as much as anything else.

9

Being a Republican of the libertarian wing of the party, I really want the party to reorganize in that direction. The social conservatives and religious right have thoroughly trashed the party. But I’m not hopeful in the near term.

The right-wing Republicans will need to be trounced at the polls for a long while (like three presidential elections) before change will filter through. I think it’s more likely the party will muddle through and stay about where it’s at ideologically.

The reason is that in our two-party system, both parties have to push for an ideological shift in order for to happen. If the Republicans shift toward the libertarian direction, they’ll need to pick up the votes they’ll lose from the right wing. I don’t imagine people like me are a large proportion of the population (I’m not even represented by any of the nine Pew typology groups). Where will they come from? What marginally Democratic voters would they pick up?

So I think that’s the real question. It’s clear that the Republican party is under stress to shift its ideology. But what about the Democratic party? Unless they start to shift, the Republicans will be stuck where they’re currently at, because that’s what’s leftover.

10

Possibly some of the Liberals, currently 59% Dem, 40% independent – most of those 40%, I’m sure, are more likely to vote for Ralph Nader than Bob Barr, but there is some common ground or overlap there. Look at the Liberal Democrats in Britain – they started out trying to stake out a middle ground between the Conservatives and Labour, and now they’re definitely to the left of Labour while still maintaining what amounts to a small-l libertarian orientation in many respects.

11

This appears to be what Obama is going for in this election. He made an appeal to this group today with his announcement that he plans to revamp Bush’s faith-based initiatives.

From politico:

As far as trying not to alienate his liberal base…

12

I know. I was hoping I at least wouldn’t be disappointed in him until after he takes office. Still, politics is the art of the possible, the perfect is the enemy of the good, strange bedfellows, and all that.

13

People who are interested in this thread should read this blog post.

14

There is certainly a possibility for a shake up as none of us alive have ever seen. Obama and his COS Rahm Emmanuel are trying to position the Democrats as the party of business and moderation, essentially telling liberals like me that we have no where else to go (damn, they are right). Meanwhile the Republicans have with 8 years of slavishness to Cheney and Bush ruined their brand as badly as babies crapping a diaper. The Tea Partiers are finally rejecting the Bush years dismantling of civil rights, warmongering and embracing of ruinous deficits, but refusing to call themselves Republicans. This threatens the established Republican Party with the ersatz Tea Party splitting their vote while Obammuel tries to pick up the business Republicans.

These movements are a danger to each party respectively, although it appears that the Republicans are in more serious trouble being out of power and divided and leader-challenged.

15

Everyone note that this is a zombie thread.

However, it was short enough (and peaceful enough) in its first incarnation that the usual reasons for closing zombies does not seem to require that action.

Behave yourselves.
[ /Modding ]

16

That was written two and a half years ago, before the economic crisis and recession we are currently in was apparent. Energy independence is clearly not a dominant theme of politics today, with health care, Wall Street, and the economy in general taking the center stage.

2008 may have been a realigning election, but it wasn’t for the reasons the author describes.

17

This is an interesting question but one that demonstrates the problem with our discourse in this country. Parties should be irrelevant. I personally am a libertarian (my ideology not party affiliation) and I hope the country shifts in that direction. The left-right spectrum is misleading. It should be Freedom on one side and Authoritarian government on the other. Most parties throughout our history have favored one form of authoritarian government or another. We should reestablish balanced budgets, personal liberty, respect for our Constitution, a foreign policy of non intervention and PEACE. This is what our founders believed in. Parties are irrelevant. Its like choosing between which gang you want to run the streets in LA, the Crips of the Bloods. You lose either way.

So don’t get caught up in national elections. Occasionally there may be a candidate you can actually hold some level of hope for, but don’t be so fucking gullible. Change starts through education and community organizing at the local level. We need people who rally behind ISSUES. Like a non partisan coalition to end overseas military wars like Afghanistan, a coalition to Audit the Federal Reserve system, and a coalition to balance the budget and get our financial house in order and save the dollar. Parties are a way to divide to populace while the bankers, military contractors, and corporate interests are laughing all the way to the bank. Don’t get caught up in that. The last thing they want is southern social conservatives and east/west coast social liberals coming together for one populist cause. Avoid labels and advocate policy changes. Keep it intellectual and challenge the establishment.

18

jrodefeld --Libetarianism is fine & all, but it’s principle occupations are:
A)Infighting worse than the Democrats
and
B)Failing to get into office.

More of a hobby than a party.

19

You actually offer very valid criticism of libertarians. It seems to me that libertarianism is more likely a philosophic and intellectual pursuit first and foremost. As you could probably tell, I have very little faith in the political process in pursuing social goals. I think rather than electing politicians, we should focus on educating people. If enough people believe in liberty and stop demanding free “stuff” from government we would have a chance. Plus the libertarian party is still the most successful third party in the country (not saying much). That doesn’t mean that they can’t influence the two major parties. There are Republicans who have libertarian positions and Democrats that hold libertarian positions. Thats why I like to think of it as a philosophic movement rather than an actual party.