POLI-D-537 Parties and Government in the U.S. 5 ects

1. POLI-D-537 Parties and Government in the U.S. 5 ects Emilie van Haute Week 4

2. Part IParties and Politics in the U.S. Outline I.1. Party Eras I.2. Party System I.3. Party Organization I.4. Party Ideology, Issues and Polarization

3. 3. Party Eras The First Party System (1800-1824): Federalists vs. Jeffersonian Republicans The Second Party System (1828-1856): Whigs vs. Jacksonian Democrats The Third Party System (1856-1896): Ascendant Republicans vs. Democrats The Fourth Party System (1896-1928): Republican Dominance Renewed The Fifth Party System (1932-1968): The Democratic New Deal Era The Sixth Party System (1968-2008): The Era of Dealignment and Divided government

4. 3.6. Sixth Party System (1968-2008)The Era of Dealignment and Divided Government (1) Demographic change - Movements from the Northeast & Midwest to the Sun Belt states - Movements from rural & urban areas to suburbs - California = largest state (big electoral prize) => favors Republicans > Democrats: Utah, Colorado & Arizona, Texas & Florida (previously Democrats, now seriously competitive) => 4 presidents in this period = Sun Belt states Transition period (1964-1968) - African-American voters increased their political participation (Ds) - Democrats endorsed civil rights >< Republicans (1964, Goldwater) - White southerners moved to the Republicans - Party identification declined (Media discourage stable party loyalties)

5. 3.6. Sixth Party System (1968-2008)The Era of Dealignment and Divided Government (2) Divided Government 1 (1968-1992) Democrats - 1968: Johnson challenged over his conduct of the Vietnam War by McCarthy => setback => withdrew from the race => 3-way contest: McCarthy, Humphrey; Robert Kennedy (assassinated the night of the California primary) => disarray benefited the Rs - 1972: same divisions about war; McGovern = worst defeat since CW: did not win a single Southern state => also benefited the Rs => reversed their position: Ds skeptical about war; Rs more aggressive - In the Congress (except 1980-1986) + Carter (1976-1980) Republicans - 1980s: hard on crime (urban riots turned the crime issue national > local), welfare (opposition to benefits; link with crime), lowering taxes (budget deficit) - In the White House (5/7: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, G.H. Bush, G.W. Bush)

6. 3.6. Sixth Party System (1968-2008)The Era of Dealignment and Divided Government (3) Divided Government 2 (1992-2000) Democrats - In the White House (Clinton – 2) - 1992: Perot appealed to Republican voters => benefited Clinton (// Wilson in 1912); strive for a balanced budget Republicans - In the Congress Election 2000: the most even in all of American history - Gore won the popular vote (margin of 500.000 votes) but Bush won the electoral college (271 > 266) - Congress evenly distributed: Senate 50/50; House: Rs have a 7 seats majority Elections 2004-2006 - Republicans won Presidency + Congress but not a long-term majority control Reverse in 2008-2010

7. 3.6. Sixth Party System (1968-2008)The Era of Dealignment and Divided Government (4) 2004

8. 3.6. Sixth Party System (1968-2008)The Era of Dealignment and Divided Government (5) Main features of the period Weakening of party ties - 1840-1960: victories due to better mobilization of party identifiers - Post-1960: victories due to conversion of voters & incumbency advantage = Candidate-centered nature of elections - Emergence of third parties & independent candidates: George Wallace (1968); John Anderson (1980); Ross Perot (1992, 1996); Ralph Nader (1996, 2000, 2004) - Development of split-ticket voting & divided government (national & state) - Revolution in campaign strategies: from patronage, door-to-door, rallies towards money & media (first TV debate between Kennedy & Nixon in 1960)

9. 3.6. Sixth Party System (1968-2008)The Era of Dealignment and Divided Government (6) Dealignment or realignment? - South: realignement: Until mid-20th century: Republicans absent 1960s: Democrats endorse civil rights // Goldwater (R) against Republican presence doubled in 50 years (party affiliation); win 13/22 southern seats in the Senate in 2000 >< 0 in 1960

10. Part IParties and Politics in the U.S. • I.2. Party System • Why Two Parties? • Minor Parties in American Politics • Two-Party-Competition with Variations

11. 1. Why Two Parties? (1) • Institutional Approach = Institutions & rules favoring big parties • Single-member districts • Electoral College system for choosing presidents • Winner take all at the state level • Primaries for nominating candidates • Federal Election Campaign Act • Presidential Debates • State rules for most elections • Practice of ‘non-partisan’ election (no label) • = Clear barriers but ‘no system protects major parties from the electorate’

12. 1. Why Two Parties? (2) • Historical Approach • = Special circumstances of the initial conflicts in the new nation favored 2-party system • = cleavage between agricultural and financial/commercial interests • Duality maintained for each new issue • Tendency for human institutions to perpetuate themselves • Cultural Approach • = way society is organized favors 2-party system • - Society not organized in blocs although diversity: No religious or class cleavage; wide acceptance of the Constitution & capitalism • Ideological eclecticism (non-doctrinaire approach to issues): flexibility • Each party is a broad coalition of various elements of society with different core supporters • Coalitional flexibility: change over time in response to issues

13. 1. Why Two Parties? (3) • Old & continuously operating party system • Since 1852: every president elected as a R or a D • Since 1849: both houses of Congress have been controlled either by the Rs or the Ds • Major changes in partisan balance every 35 years • 15 years of party dominance followed by • 15-20 years of competitive politics (alternation, rise of 3rd parties, divided governments) • Dramatic swings of electoral fortune but durability despite major changes BUT • Minor Parties (third parties & independents) • Variations in the two-party competition

14. 1. Why Two Parties? (4)

15. 2. Minor Parties in American Politics (1) • Types of Third-Parties • Doctrinal Parties (longer history but isolated) • = Socialist Party, Prohibition Party, Green Party, Libertarian, Right-to-Life Party • Short-lived Minor Party Eruption • Significant Third-Parties and Independent Candidates • Anti-Masonic Party (1831; merged to form the Whigs) • Free Soil Party (1848; opposed to expansion of slavery; absorbed by new Rs) • American Party (1854; anti-immigrant & anti-Catholic; disappeared with CW) • Constitutional Union Party (1860; scission of the Whigs opposed to Lincoln) • Southern Democratic Party (1860; schism within the Ds; dissolved) • Liberal Republican Party (1872; dissidence of the Rs; failure) • People’s Party (1890s; populist agrarian radicals; absorbed by the Ds) • Progressive Party (1912; T. Roosevelt; absorbed back in the Rs) • Progressive Party of 1924 (La Follette; future New Deal; died with leader) • State’s Rights Party (1948; faction in Ds South; opposed civil rights) • American Independent Party (1968; Wallace; segregationist; return to Ds) • Independent John B. Anderson (1980; between Reagan & Carter; retired) • Reform Party H. Ross Perot (1992/1996; opposed budget deficit) • Green Party/Ind (Nader; environmentalist & liberal)

16. 2. Minor Parties in American Politics (2) • Impact and Role of Third Parties • Link with major electoral realignment: reflects the inability of the major parties to integrate a new issue • Put new issues to the agenda • Division of votes (ex.: 1912; 2000) • Factors of Success of Third Parties • Must be well positioned on a critical issue ignored by the major parties • Must have a strong leader • Must play the opportunity perfectly • Only ‘third’ party that became major = Republicans (T. Roosevelt & Perot close) • Obstacles to Success of Third Parties • Electoral rules designed by the major parties, for the major parties • Capacity for absorption of protest of the major parties – dissidents become member of the establishment • => Dissolution or absorption

17. 4. Variations in Two-Party Competition (1) • Presidency • Highly competitive since WWII (1960, 1968, 2000) • Average share R+D = 95.4%

18. 4. Variations in Two-Party Competition (2) • Congress • WWII-1990s: Democrats dominate, especially House (40 years continuously) • Advantage for incumbents (+ resources advantage): 90% win • Lack of competition in many districts • Party change in control of House seats = low • State • Ranney Index of competitiveness at the state level • 1999-2003: competitive (31), no one-party dominated state • 1962-1973: clear one-party dominance • Major change = South (no longer one-party D); cfr Florida: modified R

20. 4. Variations in Two-Party Competition (4) • More competition in some contests • Competition for presidential nominees at the state level • More competition for senate contest • More competition for Gubernatorial elections • But • Less competition for the House • Incumbency • Difficulty for minority party to recruit quality candidate & raise funds • Less competition for the state legislative elections (one-party control)

21. 4. Variations in Two-Party Competition (5)