The American Two Party Systems

The America Two Party System



The current two party system as we know it in America is not, as history indicates, what the Founding Fathers intended. As one can learn from reading about the tumultuous early days of the new republic, there were early divisions along ideological lines that caused parties to form and collapse with some regularity. Indeed, it would come as a shock to the framers of our Constitution that today we have, in essence if not in truth, two parties that control the national political process. The juggernauts that we identify as the Democratic and Republican parties dominate the political landscape to the point that no third party is taken seriously beyond their local venue, and with few and rare exceptions, no third party has made a national impact. Is this what was envisioned two-hundred eighteen years ago when the Constitution was ratified to be the guiding structure of our land? Our research will show that it was not.

Early in our history there were already political divisions over ideologies. However, in those early days they were not afraid to form large political parties for the run of an election or two. The earliest such example would be the Federalist, which was a party formed around the thoughts of Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury and a support of strong centralized power in the Federal government. In opposition, over time, came the "Jeffersonian Democrats" who were in support of a less centralized, more state-focused government. At the same time, we also had the Whig and Tory parties, supporting the 'traditional' thoughts about liberal and conservative government forms. There was also, at the time, the "Madisonians" following the ideals of James Madison.

The very presences of such diverse, and shifting political bodies spoke well of the intent "that Government is instituted, and aught to be exercised for the benefit of the People, " a belief that was deep in the minds of the framers. Indeed, during the very period of debate over the Constitution itself, alignments were immediately made over the primary issue of the Bill of Rights. However, "it is important at this point to understand that the Federalists and AntiFederalists, political associations of America…were only loose coalitions of local groups that had banded together during the ratification struggle for one climatic battle. " That is, they did not see themselves as being part of a large organization but as "having differences that were fundamental and irreconcilable ." (Source emphasis.)

As such, we see in the beginning of the very formation of our government that there were not the ideological divisions at the smaller issue level. Groups came together over massive and monumental matters: Declaring independence from England or presenting grievances; Adopting the Constitution as drafted or amending the Bill of Rights to it immediately. It would not be until after the government had formed that we first see the rise of 'party' identities. It would be odd for a modern American to understand that two influential founder, Jefferson and Madison, were cautious in the extreme of consolidated power of any sort. Madison wrote "every power that can be deduced from them will be deduced and exercised sooner or later by those who may have an interest in doing so."

This caution was directly to the nature of parties forming in a permanent manner. Madison felt, rightly so, that "the Union rested on essential equity among its different sections and on popular conviction that the government was genuinely grounded in continuing consent." Sadly, over time that has been eroded.

The understanding of the shift from the concept of parties forming only over critical issues which were seen as threats to the very nature of the Republic to the partisan lines we see today is historical in nature, as well as situational in relevance. The initial form of 'two party' that the United States saw was during the 1820’s, when the support of Andrew Jackson took organizational skills beyond the level of local formations.

During this period, the Jacksonians spread their support of the former General from state to state aligning in each state on the key issues to the nation, such as tariffs and the national bank. Prior to this point, political issues had been severely regionalized. The Jacksonian-Democrats (hereafter, Democrats) however, "introduced national issues into local politics." This had the effect of polarizing people on issues by groups and giving the basis of the two party structure.

However, these early parties, Democrats and Whigs, could not handle the one pressing issue of the day: Slavery. Slavery was a primarily regional issue that conquered the budding two party system due to the wide-spread base that had transcended regionalism. This was not to be the case for long.

Following the collapse of the economic based two-party system , a new two party structure began to arise that would consolidate with the formation of the 'third party' Republicans in the 1860 election. During the escalation of the issue of slavery, we Americans saw the decline of the fluidity of thought that had formed earlier parties in our government. Rather, we saw during that time a rigidity of issue arise. The two primary parties pulled all peoples to them to support and further their beliefs. While it is true that the veneer of Slavery is what drove the matter, the truth is that the more primary and pressing issue of the State versus the Federal entity is what focused the fight. The concept, which had been put forth during the earlier Jefferson v. Hamilton debates, that the Federal government had precedent over the States came to the forefront.

Perhaps during this rise of galvanizing issues, it would have been most prudent to turn to the writings of one of the founders, James Madison, for the intent of what government was to be. "The best protection for the dearest human rights was not a parchment declaration, Madison believed. It was the institution of a large republic with a government structure that would make it hard for an overbearing, interested majority to rule without constraints."

During the period leading up to and through the course of the Civil War that is exactly what was happening: Majorities with vested interests were beginning to rule without constraint. The will of the people was becoming suborned to the rule of the majority. So vehement were matters that the Union shattered. It is not purely coincidental that it did so almost on party lines. The South, which had been prior to the Election of 1860 heavily Democratic, split from the Union.

Following the turmoil of the Civil War, the two party system becomes entrenched in American politics. From 1860 until 1930, the Republicans hold a firm majority in the Congress and are almost exclusively Northern and Midwestern in origin. Similarly, the Democrats are almost exclusively from the South. From this time, the party structure, with a few hiccups, as we know it dominates the political landscape. Are all the matters now embraced by the two dominant, driving factions of Government "fundamental and irreconcilable?" It can not be rationally held so.

The current system of two parties has gone far from what the authors of our guiding principles of government envisioned. " 'Rulers,' the constitution-makers of 1776 realized 'must be conceived as the creatures of the people, made for their uses, accountable to them, and subject to removal as soon as they act inconsistent with the purposes for which they were formed." Looking at our system now, this cannot be held to be the case any longer.

In the passage of time from the great struggle for Independence and Liberty, through the turmoil of Civil War, and onto today, we have seen a shift in thinking from the impassioned participation of the individual voter, who had no regard initially toward the grander ideology of a candidate, to the leviathan of the party system. In the beginnings of the Republic, it was felt "men are 'capable of governing themselves' and therefore would consistently oppose every measure 'that is not strictly conformable to the principle and conducive to the preservation of the republican government."

Almost as if with premonition; "every accumulation of political power, however tiny and piecemeal, was seen as frighteningly tyrannical, viewed as some sinister plot to upset the delicately maintained relationships of power and esteem. Jealousy and suspicion, concluded Charles Carroll of Maryland (in) 1773, had become the very basis of American politics." It is that fearful view of political power-massing that has become what American politics is today.

Is this looking back to the founding enough to conclude that our current system is failed and flawed? That conclusion can, indeed be reached. A two-party system such as ours has become one removed from the direct influence of the people. "Some theorists argue that two-party systems offer a superior form of electoral democracy because unless there are only two parties, there can be no guarantee that any party will have a legislative majority, without which government policy is formed on the basis of bargaining between political elites, which is seen as less accessible to popular control." While it is, of course, possible to theorize such positions, one need only look at our current system wherein "much policy formation takes place with the political parties, also away from popular control," to realize the flawed nature of this system.

No longer is it a matter of the will of the people en masse as to what happens in our government. Rather, it is the will of the Parties. We have gone beyond the mark of the elected representative Republican Democracy envisioned by the founders to a collection of demagogues who remove the nature of government from the governed. Rather than a responsive government formed "for their (the peoples') uses, accountable to them, and subject to removal as soon as they act inconsistent with the purposes for which they were formed," we have institutional parties that inform the people what their accountability is.

This attitude is a direct reflection of a fear held by Jefferson and Madison that a party would emerge "more partial to the opulent than to the other classes of society; and having debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, it follows with them, of course, that government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force." Such we have arrived at today. There is evident in the nation a separation of the governed from the governing. This is, largely, due to the two-party system that makes elite of those who are elected and seeks, rarely with any qualification for the capacity of the officer holder, to return their own to elected office time and again.

Due to the narrow focus of our two-party system, we are deprived of hearing those who exhibit "the rustic traits of the sturdy yeoman" that gave rise to the great beginnings of our nation. We no longer are exposed to those who would serve in office. Instead, we see only the face that their supporting party wishes us to. For the parties have little to fear in that exposure: we are given but two choices at any time. The founders, however, envisioned "the people, who are the authors of this blessing (the Constitution), must also be its guardians." However, we have abrogated that guardianship to the two parties, and look to them for guidance. And when, as is in the nature of humankind, we are even extremely disaffected of those parties, still tenaciously do the people cling to the structure they give us. This is wherein lies the flaw and failure, as illustrated here, of the two party system. The "people aught to be enlightened to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it."

By no longer looking for ideals which are fundamental and irreconcilable upon which to form our political allegiances, but by looking toward the minutia into which government can creep, by looking toward the degree of tiny and piecemeal power accumulation that can be attained, the two party system has failed the American ideals and dreams of the Constitution. It would be more in keeping with the framers' of the Constitution vision that parties would collapse and pass on as the issues upon which they formed were no longer "consistent with the purposes to which they were formed." Such a system would, indeed, better serve the people to the intent of the framers.

If the current politicians, and the parties to which they belonged recalled that "they were but men who 'without the least difficulty,… may be removed and blended in the common mass," rather the a Republican or Democratic fixture of office. A larger, more robust and diverse party system would give the specter of that blending to politics. Even the inclusion of one additional, viable party would shatter the stalemate condition to which we have become so accustomed that compromises are required to even begin the process of action in our Congress. That is the ultimate failure of our current two party system.


Works Cited

Banning, Lance. Jefferson and Madison: Three conversations from the founding.
Copyright 1995 by Madison House Pubilshers, Inc
Sharp, James Roger. American politics in the Early Republic; The new nation in Crisis.
Published with assistance from the Mary Cady Tew memorial fund.
Copy right 1993 by Yale University
Wood, Gordon S. The creation of the American Republic 1776 – 1787
Copy right 1969 The university of North Carolina Press
Printed by Heritage Printers, Inc
Walsh, James P. Rise of the Two Party System.
©2003 CT Heritage.
http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ct1818_1865/twopartysys.htm
Camejo , Peter M. The Avocado Declaration
Published January 5, 2004. Copy Right SWANS. http://www.swans.com/misc/rights.html
Wyn Grant."two-party systems".The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics.
Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Ceredigion Libraries.26 August 2005. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t86.e1411


Works Referenced

Smelser, Marshall. The Democratic Republic 1801 – 1815
Copyright 1968 by Marshall Smelser. Printer by Harper & Row Publishers
St. John, Jeffrey. Forge of Union Anvil of Liberty
Copy right 1992 by Jeffery St. John. Printed by Jameson Books, Inc
Coumo, Mario M., Harold Holzer. Lincoln on Democracy
Edited and introduced by Coumo & Harold., with essays buy:
G. Boritt, W. Gienapp, C. Strozier, R. Current, J. McPherson, M. Neely jr., H. Trefousse
Copy right 1990 by The State of New York/Lincoln on Democracy project. Published by HapperCollins Publishers
"tyranny of the majority". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics.
Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Ceredigion Libraries.26 August 2005. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t86.e1413