political

CHAPTER XXXII

POLITICAL PARTIES AND NATIONAL POLITICS

Two sets of Any one who desires something more than merely a superficial institutions knowledge of the American system of government must study two

sets of political institutions. One may conveniently be described as the machinery of government; the other, as the party system. The first includes the formal organization or structure of our national, state, and local governments, with their executive, legislative, and judicial branches. These formal governmental institutions are more or less fully outlined in the national and state constitutions, in municipal charters, and in the national and state statutes which amplify constitutional provisions. But a study which is restricted to such documents will leave one quite uninformed on the real nature and actual workings of government in the United States; for the effect of many constitutional and statutory provisions, in actual operation, has been widely different from that originally intended. This circumstance is to be explained oftentimes by the customs or unwritten law of political parties in operating the machinery of government; parties, not formal constitutional amendments or statutory enactments, have been responsible for some of the most important changes in our governmental system. To appreciate the truth of this, one has but to recall references in the preceding chapters to the way in which the original purpose of the electoral college has been completely transformed through the rise of political organizations; 1 to the added importance attaching to the presidential office by virtue of the fact that the president is the titular head of his party; 2 and to the fact that the existence of rival parties gives character and color to the whole organization and procedure of Congress, and to much of the legislation enacted by that body. Constitutional documents and statutory enactments create an inert piece of governmental machinery; the motive power for running this machinery and the lubricant which keeps its dif

3

1

See pp. 282-284.

1See pp. 233-235. See Chaps. XXIV-XXV; also W. Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States, Chap. VIII.

XXXII

ferent parts operating with a fair degree of smoothness are fur- CHAP. nished by political parties. Despite their fundamental importance, however, not a word is said about them in the national constitution and very little in state constitutions: they have developed to maturity as extra-constitutional, and also largely extra-legal, institutions.1

political

Although their history contains many sordid and selfish chap- Uses of ters, political parties are powerful forces for good in a democracy: parties they educate and organize public opinion by keeping the people informed on public matters, by discussing every public question in the presence of the people, and by securing not only discussion before the people but, what is quite as important, discussion by the people. In our own country, and in most other democratically governed countries, political parties have become so indispensable that it is hard to conceive of the possibility of getting along without them. They constitute almost the only legitimate channel through which the ordinary citizen can exert a direct influence in the formulation of public policy and the execution of that policy when enacted into law; he finds almost his only point of direct and vital contact with his government when, at the ballot box on primary and election days, he votes for the candidates of one party or another for state and national offices. Parties perform their highest and most legitimate function when they serve as agencies for the application of social, economic, and moral principles to the life of the people. Without organized political action, there can be neither real improvement of social and industrial conditions nor vital changes in government itself.

parties

Political parties everywhere find their genesis in the inability Why of all people to think alike; more specifically, in the inability of arise all people to agree upon what the government should be or do. Those who think alike on these matters naturally come together and arrive at some sort of an organization in order to work the more effectively for the realization of their common objective. Whatever this objective may be, it is, in politics, always best attained by organization. "The most gifted man preaching the clearest truth can do little if he stands alone. He must gather disciples, he must have followers willing to support his cause, or he accomplishes nothing." Political organizations usually have for

1

Nearly a century and a quarter elapsed before Congress, in 1907, passed the first law regulating party activities; and for about a hundred years there was very little state legislation on the subject.

CHAP.
XXXII

The two

party system

Minor parties

their immediate end the control of the government through the winning of elections and the holding of public office. Control of the government means "the power to make and administer law, to levy, collect, and expend public revenues, to undertake and carry on public works, to hold the stewardship of public property, to grant public franchises, to fill public offices, to distribute public employments-to be, in fact, for a given term, the public of cities, of states, and of the great nation, in all the handling of their stupendous corporate affairs.1

However the party affiliations of individual citizens may happen to be determined-whether by careful study and deliberate decision or by inheritance or environment-the mass of American voters are found supporting one or the other of two great parties that have occupied the center of the political stage throughout most of the period since the adoption of the constitution. This two-party system, as it is called, is a distinguishing characteristic of the politics, not only of the United States, but also of all English-speaking countries, and is found practically nowhere else. Here in the United States we began our history under the constitution with the Federalist and the Jeffersonian Republican parties; then ensued a period in which most voters found themselves in either the Whig or the Democratic party; and since the Civil War the great majority of voters have called themselves Democrats or Republicans.

From the first quarter of the nineteenth century, however, there have been many voters, in the aggregate, who for one reason or another have been dissatisfied with the principles, policies, or leadership of the two major parties for the time being, and who have accordingly started independent or "third-party" movements. First among these organizations came the Anti-Masonic party in 1826 and the years immediately following; then the Liberty party, which appeared about 1840; then the Free Soil party, in 1848; the Native-American, or Knownothing, party, in the early fifties; the Republican party, which was at first a minor third party, in 185456; the Prohibition party, in 1872; the Populist party, about 1890; and the Socialist party, about 1897. These and several other minor parties have served a very useful purpose, and at times one or another of them has polled enough votes in pivotal states to change the result of a presidential election.2

J. N. Larned, "A Criticism of Two-Party Politics," Atlantic Monthly, CVII, 291 (Mar.. 1911).

The political history of New York affords several examples. In 1844 the Liberty party's vote in that state was sufficient to throw the state's electoral

XXXII

of party

Before the adoption of the constitution there were no political CHAP. parties in the sense in which that term is now generally understood; as durable and disciplined organizations, parties first appeared in the later portion of Washington's first administration. history Their history from that day to this may conveniently be divided into half a dozen fairly distinct periods, namely, (1) the period of Federalist supremacy (1789-1800); (2) the period of Jeffersonian Republican supremacy (1801-1816); (3) the period of "personal politics" (1816-1832); (4) the period of Democratic and Whig rivalry (1832-1860); (5) the period of Republican supremacy (1861-1884); and (6) the period of Democratic and Republican rivalry, since 1884.1 An attempt will be made in the following pages to summarize the salient features of party history in each of these periods.

alist

(1789

The principal issues between the Federalists and the Jefferson- 1. Feder. ian Republicans arose out of (1) their attitude toward government supremacy and individual liberty; (2) questions of foreign policy; (3) differ- 1800) ent social and economic interests; and (4) questions of constitutional construction.

The Federalists, either by nature or under the influence of economic interests, found it easy to believe in strong government. To them, government existed not merely for the protection of life and property but as an important agency for the promotion of economic prosperity; liberty of the individual was a matter of secondary importance to the establishment of a strong national government. To their opponents, on the other hand, all governments were a necessary evil, to be curbed at every possible point in the interest of individual liberty; the less government there was the better. The national government, in particular, they felt should be restricted in its operation to the narrowest possible sphere compatible with the general welfare. To secure the highest attainable degree of liberty for the individual was, in their view, the allimportant objective of organized government.2

vote to James K. Polk, the Democratic candidate, and so to ensure his election over the Whig candidate, Henry Clay; in 1848 the Free Soil party drew away so many votes from Cass, the Democratic nominee, that the Whig candidate, General Taylor, carried the state; and in 1884 the Republicans held the Prohibitionists responsible for the loss of the state and the consequent election of Grover Cleveland. In 1912, and again in 1916 and 1920, no less than six national parties had presidential tickets in the field. In 1920 these were the Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Socialist-Labor, Prohibition, and Farmer-Labor. 1These dates must not be taken as rigidly marking the limits of the periods mentioned, for each period shaded off gradually into the succeeding period.

C. E. Merriam, "The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson, "Polit. Sci.

Issues:

(a) Liberty

and gov

ernment

CHAP. XXXII

(b) Questions of

foreign policy

(c) Conflicting economic

and social interests

(d) Constitutional interpretation

In the second place, the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans were sharply divided over the question of what should be the official attitude of our government toward the principal nations engaged in the wars arising out of the French Revolution. The Federalists, closely bound to England by commercial ties and feeling scant sympathy for the democratic movement in France, naturally favored an alliance with England. The Republicans, instinctively sympathizing with the movement which had overthrown the French monarchy and gratefully remembering the help rendered by France to our cause during the American Revolution, favored alliance with the French. It is difficult to realize today how deeply this line of division cut into the early history of our national politics.

The rivalry of the Federalists and early Republicans also reflected the clash of economic interests and different social standards. The strength of the Federalist party lay in the more populous sections of the North and East, especially the centers where trade and commerce flourished. Among the Federalists one was pretty certain to find the more aristocratic, the commercial, and such capitalistic groups as there were in that period-the elements that had been chiefly instrumental in bringing about the adoption of the new constitution. The Jeffersonian Republicans, on the other hand, recruited their strength mainly from the more sparsely settled and frontier sections, especially in the South and West, where agriculture rather than trade was the dominant economic interest. Here love of individual liberty was strongest; here the expansion of the powers of the national government was viewed with alarm; here class distinctions were less sharply drawn than in the North and East, and social conditions more nearly approached democratic ideals.

Over important questions of constitutional interpretation also the Federalists and early Republicans were sharply divided at first. The Federalists favored a liberal-their opponents said a looseconstruction of the constitution; in all cases of doubt as to whether the national government had power to act, the Federalists attributed the disputed power to that government. They believed in permitQuar., XVII, 24-45 (Mar., 1902), and History of American Political Theories, Chap. IV.

C. A. Beard, Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York, 1915), Chaps. I, VI, VII, XII, XIV; and "Some Economic Origins of the Jeffersonian Democracy," Amer. Hist. Rev., XIX, 282-298 (Jan., 1914).

'Beard, Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Chaps. v, X, XI.