U.S. Politics: Political Parties

Political parties are often thought of with cynicism in the United States. The notion of parties leads most to realize the potential for partisan politics. Nonetheless, political parties are integral to any democratic system, as they mobilize political ideologies and philosophies. This paper will take an in-depth look at the nature of political parties and the two-party system that has evolved in the United States since the nation declared its independence in 1776. Also highlighted will be the utility of political parties and their controversial nature within American society.

Keywords Gridlock; Independent Voters; Major Party; Partisanship; Plurality; Polarization

Sociology of Politics & Government > U.S. Politics: Political Parties

Overview

At the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the thirteen former British colonies were left with the task of determining the manner of how the new country would be governed. Leading citizens of the United States had differing schools of thought as to how the new country would take shape. Federalists and Anti-Federalists formed political parties, each seeking control over the destiny of the new nation. While Thomas Jefferson viewed these organized political groups as natural by-products of political development—and in fact a necessary system for striking accords between differing ideologies— he also saw no reason to become an adherent to one or the other. In a letter to contemporary Francis Hopkinson, he wrote, "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself." He added, "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all" (Jefferson, cited in Coates, 1999).

Indeed, Political parties are often thought of with cynicism in the United States. The notion of parties leads most to realize the potential for partisan politics. Still, as Jefferson saw it, political parties are an integral part of any democratic system, mobilizing and centralizing various political ideologies and philosophies.

This paper will take an in-depth look at the nature of political parties and the two-party system that has evolved in the United States since the nation declared its independence in 1776. Also highlighted will be the utility of political parties and their controversial nature within American society.

A Brief History of Political Parties

In the fourth century BCE, the Greek city-state of Athens was mired in the Peloponnesian War with Sparta. Future icons of political philosophy, such as Socrates and Plato, worked feverishly to introduce ideals under the declining Athenian ideal of democracy. When Socrates was put to death for impiety, his contemporary, Plato, became disillusioned with government and the establishment of political order. In his seminal political work, The Republic, he made an important assertion that government and politics exist for the purpose of creating justice for the betterment of society. Nonetheless, Plato believed justice—and ultimately peace—would not come through the victory of one faction over another. It would come, rather, from the reconciliation of the issues between the myriad of social groups and classes (Korab-Karpowicz, 2006). In other words, he was acknowledging that considering the diversity of Greek society, it was important that the precursors to modern political parties work together for the betterment of mankind.

Political parties, which are, in essence, coalitions of politically active citizens existing to advance a political agenda, have long been a part of systems and nations that rely on the input of its citizens for government to operate in a socially responsive manner. Some parties form around an issue, such as taxation or civil rights. Others are created to advance a social group, such as women or minorities. If two or more parties form, there are usually two outcomes for the system in question. First, they might form coalitions in order to show greater numbers on mutually relevant issues. Second, they may compete to either defeat the other's agenda, vie for control over government institutions, or both.

As plurality, which is two or more parties, increases, the parties must coexist. Often, they must adjust their platforms and tactics to account for similar adjustments by other groups. Studies indicate that this dynamism is not limited to polar opposites, either. In many cases, platform shifts coincide with changes by parties of similar ideological composition: left-leaning groups respond particularly to the changes of other leftist parties and right-leaning parties to other right-wing groups (Adams & Somer, 2006).

The American System

It was not long into the foundation of the United States of America that the protection of the people —that to which Plato was referring—became a divergent issue among the country's first political parties. Federalists and Anti-Federalists clashed over how best to represent the needs of American citizens in the one document that would become the highest law in the nation — the Constitution. The source of an early controversy was a component that has since become the centerpiece of protecting the interests of the people: the Bill of Rights.

When debate on the development of the Constitution began in earnest in 1789, several factions supported the inclusion of a provision protecting the rights of the people. Led by the Anti-Federalist faction, proponents asserted that if no such amendments were included in the Constitution, the federal government could assert tyrannical rule over the people. Their position was not unfounded, for Anti-Federalists had experienced pronounced repression from the British Empire and elsewhere.

Federalists, on the other hand saw no reason for such a listing of protections. The United States, after all, had detached itself from such tyranny to form a democratic republic that respected the rights of the people. In the view of the Federalists, a list of the rights on which the government could not impinge was unnecessary and would be subject to constant updating (Liu, 2007). However, as a concession to the Anti-Federalists, Congress agreed to name the first ten amendments to the Constitution the Bill of Rights.

Throughout American history, just as it has been elsewhere, political parties have been created with the people's interest in mind. Many are created to address social issues, others to generate safety and security in greater numbers. With so many interests and environmental conditions conducive to the formation of political parties, it would seem logical that there would be countless such organizations in the United States. However, as this paper will next discuss, only two major parties have emerged at the forefront of American politics.

Further Insights

Two Parties in a Diverse Nation

While other democracies, such as India, Germany, and Sweden have numerous active political parties, in the United States there are but two major parties taking part in national elections—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. This two-party system represents an interesting point about the constitutions of these parties. After all, the fundamental conduit that connects the private citizenry with the political process is the political party, which formulates issue platforms, issues policy responses, and fields candidates representative of their interests based on the input of the electorate. Yet, with one of the mostdiverse populations on the planet, the United States stands among the relative few democracies with a simple two-party system.

The fact that these two parties are the only major players in either Congress or the White House means that they must moderate the message they deliver to the electorate. The parties must tailor their information to attract a much broader audience than they would if their issue orientation was more directed at a concentrated interest group.

The parties must also be more flexible in their interactions with voters. A 2004 study gauged voter choices based not on the party stance, but on the ideological leanings of the voter himself or herself. If a voter is an ardent, committed member of the party, he or she will likely demonstrate ideological views that are more true to the platform (and therefore less tempered) and vote for candidates that adhere to that platform. Conversely, a mobilized voter whose philosophy strays from the party line must be addressed in a much more moderate manner (van Houweling & Sniderman, 2004).

Comparably speaking, those democratic systems with multi-party constitutions demonstrate a degree of inter-party competitiveness that is less moderated. In this arena, parties speak to those who share their ideologies and philosophies, understanding that they may lose voters to other parties — the primary goal is therefore to generate the strongest voter base possible. In fact, many multi-party systems are marked not by pursuit of a supermajority in legislative bodies but by simple inclusion. In Finland, for example, what the United States would consider a political "debate" has been transformed into a "discussion," a testament to the number of candidates participating as well as the diversity of the parties involved (Isotalus & Aarnio, 2006).

Creating & Mitigating Gridlock

The oft-contentious relationship between the Democratic and Republican parties does not end on Election Day, either. Two camps have been firmly established throughout Congress and the rest of government, each vying for control over the various branches and chambers. In the executive and legislative branches in particular, such competitive pursuits can create wide gulfs based on partisan ideologies.

In 1995, the Republican-led Congress and Democratic president Bill Clinton had reached an impasse. Several executive agency spending packages were sent to Clinton from Capitol Hill, but he either vetoed them or refused to modify them to the tune the Republicans had asked. When the fiscal year came to an end, the standoff continued, and the government shut down for more than three weeks. Approximately 284,000 government workers were furloughed, and another 475,000 federal employees were deemed "essential" and asked to work through the shutdown without pay (Kosar, 2004). Much of the disagreement centered on tenets of the Republican party platform that were infused into the spending documents.

A similar series of events occurred in the fall of 2013, when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives introduced budgets that would substantially defund Democratic president Barack Obama’s health care initiatives, which had previously been approved by both Congress and the Supreme Court. The president and the Senate refused to approve these budgets, and when further attempts at compromise were unsuccessful, the government shut down for just over two weeks.

Incidents like the 1995 and 2013 government shutdowns have exacerbated American public sentiment that partisan sparring between Democrats and Republicans does little to unify the country. In fact, one study showed that a two-party system that manifests high levels of party discipline is most prone to creating gridlock and divisions in government. Furthermore, the analysis reveals that reductions in political pluralism (the number of political parties) down to an adversarial level, such as that between Democrats and Republicans, may lead to ineffective policymaking (Colomer, 2005).

Regardless of how centrist one or both parties appear to be, however, cynical observers still point to one of the most obvious shortcomings of a two-party system: partisan politics. As discussed earlier, gridlock is a common result when two branches of government are dominated by opposing parties. Partisan politics does not always shut down government, but it can slow the process considerably, water down legislation out of compromise, and, perhaps most significantly, alienate voters.

In Congress, partisanship is considered a necessary evil. A 2007 survey of legislators and Capitol Hill insiders indicates that, by a 2-1 majority, party leaders consider their opposition to be trustworthy and principled. However, a much larger number believes that the opposition has become too partisan and close-minded. Furthermore, if there is common ground among the two parties, it is that both acknowledge the voters' frustration with such partisanship. One Republican insider summarizes voter sentiment appropriately: "Outside the Beltway, people are not interested in political victories; they want action on issues like health care, immigration, energy, etc" (Cohen, 2007).

Such frustration is evident in voter turnout at national elections. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2013), only about 66 percent of registered American voters voted in the 2012 presidential election. Much of the blame for this at-best milquetoast rate focuses on partisanship and the inability of American political parties to consistently work together. Without some moderating element, many American voters believe, such polarization will continue, as will below-average voter turnout.

Bitter Division

From the standpoint of the health status of a democracy, perhaps the thing worse than indifference in a political system is bitter division between factions. Case in point is Trump Administration. Most recent in modern times. ideological diffencees based on demographics.

Such frustration is evident in voter turnout at national elections. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2013), only about 66 percent of registered American voters voted in the 2012 presidential election. Much of the blame for this at-best milquetoast rate focuses on partisanship and the inability of American political parties to consistently work together. Without some moderating element, many American voters believe, such polarization will continue, as will below-average voter turnout.

Shortly after the new millennium in 2000, the demographics of the United States began to undergo significant changes. By its second decade, independent research organizations such as the Pew Research Center began to note the increasing multiculturalism of the United States population. In one such 2019 report, Pew projected that by 2050 the majority of Americans would be non-White. One result of this changing dynamic has been a deepening polarization among American voters. Points of contention developed on how these societal changes would result in potential differences in traditional American political representation. Both political parties reacted differently to these demographic changes. Beginning in 2016 with the presidential victory of Donald Trump, the Republican Party rallied around the slogan of “Make America Great Again.” Issues such as immigration and the construction of a border wall came to the center of the political forefront. This difference in outlook between the two American political parties helped lead to a situation where political apathy was replaced by ideological fervor. The split nature of contemporary American politics can be shown by the 2016 presidential election where, despite Trump’s electoral college win, Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton garnered three million more popular votes. The 2020 presidential elections, which pitted Trump against Joseph Biden, produced a record 74 million Republican votes. This tally nonetheless fell far short of Biden’s 81 million votes which was the most received in American political history.

Three or More Parties

In 1992, reform-minded voters looked for and found a way to increase pluralism in the United States. Embracing the ideology of Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, supporters of change fought hard to get Perot's name on the ballot in every state. His platform of balancing the budget, opposing the North American Free Trade Association as detrimental to American jobs, and fighting against the influence of special interest groups, although largely rhetorical, attracted a sizable following by those who saw a need for change. In the end, 18.4 percent of the voters of the United States cast their votes for Perot in the presidential election.

Though Perot's candidacy had at best an outside chance of being legitimate, it was not unprecedented. In 1980, Republican John Anderson lost the Republican primary to Ronald Reagan and ultimately opposed both the Democratic and Republican candidates in his National Unity Campaign, and in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt started the Progressive party after his own Republican party chose a different presidential candidate. Perot's campaign was obviously the most successful of these third-party endeavors, but none truly shook either the Democratic or Republican parties to the core.

While there are only two major parties — Democrats and Republicans — operating in the U.S. government, there are nearly numerous so-called third parties awaiting legitimacy in the voters' eyes. Perot's Reform Party has achieved some successes, as has the Independence Party (founded by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura) and the Green Party. Possibly the most successful alternative party in the first decades of the twenty-first century has been the Tea Party. Though technically a far-right faction of the Republican Party rather than a completely separate entity, the Tea Party has at times supported politicians who have run against the mainstream Republican candidates. Despite their attempts, however, each of these parties has failed to capture the majority of American voters.

What is left, then, is an American system that is dominated by two parties. To be sure, both of these parties continually undergo shifts in their political stances, some minor and others more significant, in order to activate and attract independent (unaffiliated) voters to their side during an election. Such endeavors are precarious, however, as moderation in tone to attract outside support can draw the ire of partisan loyalists, and actions to mollify the party base may inadvertently spurn moderates and independents.

Nonetheless, in the 2020s incompatibilities between the two historic parties seemed, in large part, to be influenced by the tendencies of both parties to cater to their most ideologically driven segments. For Republicans, one such rightist sub-group carried the label of the “Tea Party,” and a like-minded faction in the U.S. House of Representatives dubbed themselves the “Freedom Caucus.” Their counterparts on the Democratic side were identified as “Progressives” and the Congressional Progressive Caucus was considered the most left-leaning of its members. The bitter nature of the American two-party system was producing divisions so acute that many Americans had begun to consider a third political party. In July 2022, former members of both the Republican and Democratic parties announce the formation of Forward. This was a third party whose platforms and ideologies were more centrist in nature. Members expressed the desire for Forward to serve as an alternative for voters.

Issues

Partisanship

Despite increasing voter complaints about partisanship, this issue has been a mainstay in American politics since the nation's beginnings. George Washington, in his farewell address in 1796, warned of the dangers of factions, as they tend to divert attention from real issues, weaken government, and misinform the American voters. In 1828, however, Washington's words had seemingly fallen on deaf ears, as supporters of Andrew Jackson accused John Quincy Adams of selling virgins into slavery, while Adams's camp returned with the assertion that Jackson had committed 18 murders ("With us or," 2007).

Although separated by more than a millennium, Plato and the founders of the United States saw common ground on two important points. First, politics and government should exist for the purpose of protecting the people's way of life. Secondly, although factions are expected to take shape in this pursuit (it is a natural by-product of inclusive government), those groups should work together to fortify the government and the nation as a whole, not disintegrate them.

The factions to which both Plato and many of the founders were referring are political parties, groups designed to draw together activists in pursuit of influencing government policy-making in order to address a certain political agenda. As democracies thrive on the input of the citizens, political parties, through their active recruitment of members, have become the chief conduit connecting the people with their government. As this paper has illustrated, the success of a political party is evident in terms of its ability to adjust and evolve to account for changes not only in the political environment but also in the society from which it draws.

Of course, in a democracy, political parties must interact (and in most cases, compete) with other parties for representation in government, if not majority rule. In systems in which there are more than two parties, this interaction is manifest across a broad spectrum — from the formation of coalition and political alliances to outright polarization. However, in such systems, party bases tend to be smaller in light of the larger number of legitimate parties. Hence, the tone and rhetoric of inter-party competition must be reduced in order to attract greater numbers of non-members.

In the United States, however, the two-party system has proven the norm since the birth of the nation. Federalists and Anti-Federalists differed primarily on the role of government and how it would protect the rights of Americans. Since then, the two parties that descended from these prototypes grew in size and party platform diversity. Whereas many other nations have a wide range of legitimate parties focusing on an eclectic mix of issues and social causes (such as the environment, indigenous people's rights, taxes, and civil protection), the Democratic and Republican parties have each absorbed such issues and concerns into their platforms and agendas. They must satisfy their core membership base, but in major elections, they must also reach out to non-partisan voters. The result is a scramble to the moderate political center on Election Day.

Most often, the competition between the two American political parties has been marked by rhetoric, hyperbole, and groundless accusations. In many cases, such partisanship has slowed, if not stopped altogether, the machinations of U.S. government. Citizens consistently voice their complaints of this issue, and many leaders are quick to join the chorus. However, few attempts to increase the number of legitimate political parties in the United States have proven fruitful, even in the short term. Throughout U.S. history, Americans have consistently embraced and yet railed against the two-party system it has created for itself.

Terms & Concepts

Gridlock: Political condition in which policymaking and policy implementation is halted due to lack of political consensus.

Independent Voters: Registered voters who do not belong to a party.

Major Party: Political party with a significant party base and legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate.

Partisanship: Political characteristic exemplified by loyalty to the stated party base or agenda.

Plurality: State in which two or more political parties operate

Polarization: State in which political agendas place political parties at opposite and often irreconcilable ends of a spectrum.

Bibliography

Adams, J. & Somer, Z. (2006). Do parties adjust their policies in response to rival parties' policy shifts? Conference Papers — American Political Science Association, 1–33.

Blitzer, W. (1995, December 18). Government shutdown II. CNN. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-18/..

Coates, E.R. Sr., (1999). Thomas Jefferson . University of Virginia. Retrieved June 13, 2008, from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/.

Colomer, J. M. (2005). Policy making in a divided government. Public Choice, 125(3/4), 247–269. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19001453&site=ehost-live.

Gunzburger, R. (2008). Directory of U.S. political parties. Politics1.com. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from. http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm.

Hawley, G. (2011). Political threat and immigration: Party identification, demographic context, and immigration policy preference. Social Science Quarterly, 92,404–422. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60313779.

Hiers, W. (2013). Party matters. Social Science History, 37, 255–308. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87763977.

(2013). International IDEA.International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. .Retrieved November 13, 2013, from http://www.idea.int/..

Isotalus, P. & Aarnio, E. (2006). A model of televised election discussion. Javnost — The Public, 13, 61–71.

Korab-Karpowicz, W. J. (2006). Plato: political philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 14, 2008, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/platopol.htm.

Kosar, K.R. (2004). Shutdown of the federal government: causes, effects, and process.Congressional Research Service. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://scholar.google.com/citations?view‗op=view‗citation&hl=en&user=DmimouEAAAAJ&citation‗for‗view=DmimouEAAAAJ:ufrVoPGSRksC.

Lewis, S. (2020, Dec. 7.). Joe Biden breaks Obama's record for most votes ever cast for a U.S. presidential candidate.CBS News. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-popular-vote-record-barack-obama-us-presidential-election-donald-trump/.

Liu, E. (2007). Building the Bill of Rights.Humanities, 28, 36-37. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27789154&site=ehost-live.

Ostrogorski, M. (1910). Democracy and the party system in the United States. New York: The MacMillan Company.

Parker, K., Morin, R., and Horowitz, J. (21 Mar. 2019). Looking to the future, public sees an America in decline on many fronts Pew Research Center. Retrieved June 15, 2022 from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/03/21/public-sees-an-america-in-decline-on-many-fronts/.

Reid, T. (2022, July 27). Former Republicans and Democrats form new third U.S. political party. Rueters. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-former-republicans-democrats-form-new-third-us-political-party-2022-07-27/.

Schwab, N. (2007, October 29). Would a third party do better? US News and World Report, 143. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27180673&site=ehost-live.

Von Houweling, R. P. & Sniderman, P. M. (2004). The political logic of electoral competition. Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association, 1–41.

(2007, November 17). With us or against us. The Economist, 385(8555), 42. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27547008&site=ehost-live.

Wolf, M. R., Strachan, J., & Shea, D. M. (2012). Forget the good of the game: Political incivility and lack of compromise as a second layer of party polarization. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 1677–1695. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83226694.

Suggested Reading

Brasher, H. (2004). Issue ownership and macropartisan change. Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association, 1–36.

Carmines, E. G., Ensley, M. J., & Wagner, M. W. (2012). Who fits the left-right divide? Partisan polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 1631–1653. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83226692.

Fiorina, M. P. (2002). Parties and partisanship: A 40-year retrospective. Political Behavior, 24, 93–115. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10837991&site=ehost-live.

Kaltenthaler, K., & Miller, W. J. (2012). The polarized American: Views on humanity and the sources of hyper-partisanship. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 1718–1734. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83226696.

Solowiej, L. A., Martinek, W. L. & Brunell, T. L. (2005). Partisan politics.. Party Politics, 11, 557–577. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18385004&site=ehost-live.

Wiseman, A. E. & Wright, J. R. (2008). The legislative median and partisan policy. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 20, 5–29.