What would it take for a major U.S. political party to become irrelevant?

[Subway_Prophet]

I’m noting that hardly anyone attends the national Whig party conferences any more. It’s a shame, because they had the best cheesecake.

I suppose my question is based on the de facto two-party system we have going in American politics. The Republican and Democratic parties didn’t exactly start out dominating the government, but they’ve each had their share of running (or not running) things. What would it take for one or the other to become irrelevant?

Now, by “irrelevant” I don’t mean “minority vote.” We’ve seen the Democratic party hold a solid second place in Congress in recent years - but while they’ve had a difficult time getting bills passed, they’re hardly powerless. By “irrelevant”, I mean “without any practical influence.” By way of example, I alluded to the Whigs, which have long since been absorbed into the Republican party. A person running on the Whig platform today would (a) likely be confused as a Democrat or maybe a Socialist, and (b) gather about as many votes as he or she has family members.

I also recognize that the continually shifting political climate makes this question incredibly difficult to address. A Democrat from 1940 would hardly accept some policies currently promoted by today’s Democratic party. However, the name is still the same, many of the core platform values haven’t changed, the party is still a major component of American politics, and arguably some Democrats from 1940 are still members of the party in 2006.

Is it possible that the U.S.A. has become so entrenched in the two party system that nothing short of civil war will change it?

[Evil_Captor]

One or other parties would have to go way out on a limb in support of a position that had little or no adherents in the voting public. Ain’t gonna happen baby. Both parties are not about ideology if they ever were, they’re just about consolidating power from groups that do have ideological interests. Even “what, me worry?” Bush is backing down on Iraq now that the electorate is showing signs of discontent. Whatever the public wants, that’s what the Dems and Pubbies are for.

[John_Mace]

I’m sure I’m not the only one who, upon reading the thread title, thought: Act like the Democrats have been acting for the last few years.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Subway Prophet

What would it take for one or the other to become irrelevant?

It would take the demise of the American primary system. As long as we nominate candidates in primaries, how could either party become irrelevant? If a party attempted to self-destruct by staking out fringe turf, candidates opposed to the unpopular orthodoxy would defeat insiders in its primaries.

It’s no accident that the two-party system became ossified in amber at the same time that most states implemented nomination by primary in the early Twentieth Century.

[Der_Trihs]

It would happen if one party stayed in control of all three branches of government long enough to fully entrench itself. At that point, they could simply ignore the other party, not to mention the law and public opinion. Personally, I think the Republicans are rapidly approaching that point, if they haven’t already; if they maintain control for another election cycle, I expect America will become an effective 1 party government for the foreseeable future.

[Polycarp]

It might be instructive to view the two major parties which at one time elected Presidents and controlled Congress, but later declined:

The Federalists continued for several years to be a major political party in New England and the Northeast, but never regained control of the Presidency or the Congress. With the death of Washington and Hamilton (the latter being shot to death by Burr in a duel), and the retirement of Adams, the Federalists were left without a strong leader, and grew steadily weaker. … They were increasingly seen as aristocratic and unsympathetic to democracy. In the South the party had lingering support in Maryland, but elsewhere was crippled by 1800 and faded away by 1808.

The Federalists were dominated by conservative businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government. The party was closely linked to be the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt, the assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and industrial development, the use of a tariff and domestic incentives to encourage economic growth, opposition to France in the French Revolutionary Wars, and the creation of a strong army and navy. Generally speaking, Hamiltonian policies were pursued in the Washington Administrations, and to a lesser extent, the Adams Administration. Ideologically the controversy between Republicans and Federalists stemmed from a difference of principle. For Madison, republicanism meant the recognition of the sovereignty of public opinion and the commitment to participatory politics;above all it meant the states should be more important than the national government. Hamilton advocated a more submissive role for the citizenry and a more active role for the political elite, all looking toward a powerful nation state. In the end, the nation synthesized the two positions, adopting representative democracy and a strong nation state. Just as important American politics accepted the two-party system whereby rival parties stake their claims before the electorate, and the winner takes control of the government.

As time went on, the Federalists lost appeal with the average voter and were generally not equal to the tasks of party organization; hence, they grew steadily weaker as the political triumphs of the Republican (and eventually Democratic-Republican) party grew. For economic and philosophical reasons, the Federalists tended to be pro-British… During “Mr. Madison’s War”, as they called it, the Federalists attempted a comeback but the patriotic euphoria that followed the war undercut their pessimistic appeals.

The Federalists limped into the 1820s no longer a national party, but retaining some local strength in New England and New York, around Philadelphia, and in the border states of Maryland and Delaware.

After 1800 the major Federalist role came in the judiciary.

1852 was the beginning of the end for the Whigs. The deaths of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster that year severely weakened the party. The Compromise of 1850 fractured the Whigs along pro- and anti-slavery lines, with the anti-slavery faction having enough power to deny Fillmore the party’s nomination in 1852. Attempting to repeat their earlier successes, the Whigs nominated popular General Winfield Scott, who lost decisively to the Democrats’ Franklin Pierce. The Democrats won the election by a large margin: Pierce won 27 of the 31 states including Scott’s home state of Virginia. Whig Representative Lewis Davis Campbell of Ohio was particularly distraught by the defeat, exclaiming, “We are slayed. The party is dead–dead–dead!” Increasingly politicians realized that the party was a loser. For example, Abraham Lincoln, its Illinois leader, simply walked away and attended to his law business.

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act exploded on the scene. Southern Whigs generally supported the Act while Northern Whigs strongly opposed it. Most remaining Northern Whigs, like Lincoln, joined the new Republican Party and strongly attacked the Act, appealing to widespread northern outrage over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Other Whigs in 1854 joined the Know-Nothing Party, attracted by its nativist crusades against “corrupt” Irish and German immigrants. In the South, many Whigs were partyless, until a variation of the Know-Nothings called the American Party won over their votes between 1855 and 1859. Some Whigs supported Fillmore in 1856; after a three month delay, he renounced nativism, accepted the American Party nomination and campaigned against the danger of civil war should Republican John C. Fremont be elected. Historians estimate that, in the South, Fillmore retained 86 percent of the 1852 Whig voters. He won only 13% of the northern vote, though that was just enough to tip Pennsylvania out of the Republican column. The future in the North, most observers thought at the time, was Republican. No one saw any prospects for the shrunken old party, and after 1856 there was virtually no Whig organization left anywhere.

(Note: both quotes are substantial but >10% excerpts from the Wikipedia articles on the respective parties.)

Bottom line, to me: the party leadership must have lost touch with that which motivates and is held as ideals by the average citizen. Appealing to a minority is one sure way to remain a minority party (or die altogether). But naming a judiciary is one sure way to keep one’s control after one begins losing elections.

[gonzomax]

@Freddy the Pig

It would take the demise of the American primary system. As long as we nominate candidates in primaries, how could either party become irrelevant? If a party attempted to self-destruct by staking out fringe turf, candidates opposed to the unpopular orthodoxy would defeat insiders in its primaries.

It’s no accident that the two-party system became ossified in amber at the same time that most states implemented nomination by primary in the early Twentieth Century.

I disgree Mr. Pig. I think if we dont get public campaign financing of elections we are doomed. The corporations and other money people are able to control everything. Pols can gett elected over and over as long as they enact legislation to help the contributors. They will not change the system it serves them. Incumbancy rates at 98 %. We must be extremely happy with what they are doing. Or, we are irrelevant.

[mks57]

@Der Trihs

It would happen if one party stayed in control of all three branches of government long enough to fully entrench itself. At that point, they could simply ignore the other party, not to mention the law and public opinion.

You mean like the Democrats? My grandfather used to complain about “King Roosevelt”.

[Little_Nemo]

Being as American government essentially is run on a two party system, the only way a major party is going to disappear is if it’s replaced by a new party.

The normal way this would happen would be if large minority factions of the parties decide they have more in common with a faction of the “opposing” party than they do with the majority of their own party - the Republican Party for example was formed when the anti-slavery factions of the Whigs and the Democrats joined together.

The most likely similar scenario I could see in our current political landscape would be if the Libertarians managed to form a coalition with the “the government shouldn’t be regulating business” and Second Amendment factions of the Republicans and the “the government shouldn’t be regulating sex” and NORML factions of the Democrats.

[silenus]

Which could happen. The center could form a new party, leaving the fringes to the Pubs and Dems. But it would require strong, charismatic leadership and courage, things that are quite lacking in today’s political arena. they would also require a core issue that a majority of Americans felt strongly about. Good luck with that.