GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: The History of Political Parties in the United States  (Read 1089 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
The History of Political Parties in the United States
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:02:31 AM »
FYI:

POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES
(from Wikipedia)

This article presents the historical development and role of political parties in United States politics, and outlines more extensively the significant modern political parties. Throughout most of its history, American politics have been dominated by a two-party system. However, the United States Constitution has always been silent on the issue of political parties; at the time it was signed in 1787, there were no parties in the nation. Indeed, no nation in the world had voter-based political parties. The need to win popular support in a republic led to the American invention of political parties in the 1790s.[1] Americans were especially innovative in devising new campaign techniques that linked public opinion with public policy through the party.[2]

Political scientists and historians have divided the development of America's two-party system into five eras.[3] The modern two-party system consists of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In general, since the 1930s the Democratic Party positions itself left-of-center in American politics while the Republican Party positions itself as right-of-center. Several third parties also operate in the United States, and from time to time elect someone to local office

Modern U.S. political party system
The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856.

History
The United States Constitution has never formally addressed the issue of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation.[44] Nevertheless, the beginnings of the American two-party system emerged from his immediate circle of advisers, including Hamilton and Madison.[45]

[edit] First Party System

Main article: First Party System

The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party(Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, an effective banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[46]

The Era of Good Feelings (1816–1824), marked the end of the First Party System. The elitism of the Federalists had diminished their appeal, and their refusal to support the War of 1812 verged on secession and was a devastating blow when the war ended well. The Era of Good Feelings under President James Monroe (1816–24) marked a brief period in which partisanship was minimal.[47] These good feelings inspired the first short-lived "era of internal improvements" from the 18th through the 25th Congress, which ended with the panic of 1837.[48]

This is only part of the article........you can google "the history of political parties in the US" to see the entire discussion/article

Christian Forums and Message Board

The History of Political Parties in the United States
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:02:31 AM »

Offline crowcamp

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3986
  • Manna: 143
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2012, 09:48:06 AM »
IMO, political parties are the main flaw in our broken system. Getting rid of them is the first step to a better nation.
No opinion? No problem. One will be provided for you.

We have no value. We have immeasurable value.
Life is complicated.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2012, 09:48:06 AM »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24558
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2012, 01:33:18 PM »
Sounds like the premise of getting a majority to sign off on a candidate was the key. Would we then just go with whoever got a plurality of the votes of the hundreds or thousands of average Joes running on their own? With write ins and the sheer number of possible candidates, a President could be elected with a few thousand votes it seems. Hardly a majority consensus.
So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. - Milton Friedman

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. - Milton Friedman

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2012, 08:26:02 AM »
 ::pondering::

This pretty much says it all in my opinion.

History

The United States Constitution has never formally addressed the issue of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation.[44] Nevertheless, the beginnings of the American two-party system emerged from his immediate circle of advisers, including Hamilton and Madison.[45]

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2012, 08:26:02 AM »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline crowcamp

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3986
  • Manna: 143
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2012, 08:44:52 AM »
Sounds like the premise of getting a majority to sign off on a candidate was the key. Would we then just go with whoever got a plurality of the votes of the hundreds or thousands of average Joes running on their own? With write ins and the sheer number of possible candidates, a President could be elected with a few thousand votes it seems. Hardly a majority consensus.

Of course not! Field is narrowed to a final two. One chosen from those two. No electoral college, required voting by all qualifying citizens. Majority wins. Majority consensus.
No opinion? No problem. One will be provided for you.

We have no value. We have immeasurable value.
Life is complicated.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2012, 08:44:52 AM »



Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24558
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2012, 11:04:32 AM »
But how do you narrow to two. The most an individual candidate would get is very small with an unlimited number of potential entrants, unless that candidate somehow became natiinally popular which in itself would mean some sort of national information campaign or advertizing  ::eek::
So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. - Milton Friedman

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. - Milton Friedman

Offline crowcamp

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3986
  • Manna: 143
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2012, 12:38:26 PM »
But how do you narrow to two. The most an individual candidate would get is very small with an unlimited number of potential entrants, unless that candidate somehow became natiinally popular which in itself would mean some sort of national information campaign or advertizing  ::eek::
Nope, just an application for the job. Same narrowing process as any employer uses. The obvious "wing nuts" would fall by the wayside early in the process. No advertising or national campaign. None of the baloney that we put up with (and often participate in) today. Remember, under this plan, everyone eligible must vote. Narrow it to 50, then to perhaps a handful, then finally just two from which one is chosen. Heck, if possible, I wouldn't even allow the displaying of pictures of the candidates! Just the facts, ma'am.  ::crackup::
No opinion? No problem. One will be provided for you.

We have no value. We have immeasurable value.
Life is complicated.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24558
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2012, 01:13:06 PM »
The problem is as always who arbitrates the facts? With adequate fact checking our present primary etc process would function more sensibly. Then you have the whole thing about good ideas and no experience vs good ideas with experience.

Since the death of journalism, who will be the watchdog for truth?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 04:17:46 PM by Jaime »
So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. - Milton Friedman

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. - Milton Friedman

Offline geronimo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
  • Manna: 23
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2012, 04:38:30 PM »
But how do you narrow to two. The most an individual candidate would get is very small with an unlimited number of potential entrants, unless that candidate somehow became natiinally popular which in itself would mean some sort of national information campaign or advertizing  ::eek::
Nope, just an application for the job. Same narrowing process as any employer uses. The obvious "wing nuts" would fall by the wayside early in the process. No advertising or national campaign. None of the baloney that we put up with (and often participate in) today. Remember, under this plan, everyone eligible must vote. Narrow it to 50, then to perhaps a handful, then finally just two from which one is chosen. Heck, if possible, I wouldn't even allow the displaying of pictures of the candidates! Just the facts, ma'am.  ::crackup::

I think I agree with you Crow (hope you don't mind me using your first name). Maybe a competency test for the job they seek to see if they know the job or the truth concerning it. Maybe a deduction from their votes if it's found they lied, or bribed or coerced anyone. Or maybe expulsion from the contest.
 
 Jaime, I don't believe either facts or truth are arbitrary. Also, I don't believe journalism is dead. It just serves a different purpose than to inform. Especially with the HUGE increase in folks who try and appear to be journalists in order to sell often misguided points of view or ideas. That is why we need truth checkers. IMO.
 Blessings,
 geronimo
Live in gratitude, worship accordingly.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24558
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2012, 05:00:40 PM »
Who would the truth checkers be? They would have to be someone that EVERYONE could trust not to be biased.
So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. - Milton Friedman

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. - Milton Friedman

Offline crowcamp

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3986
  • Manna: 143
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2012, 06:10:04 AM »
Who would the truth checkers be? They would have to be someone that EVERYONE could trust not to be biased.

Who are the "truth checkers" now? Ultimately, it is up to every individual. Don't you trust yourself? Don't you vote on the information as it is provided? No one can guarantee an absolute non bias, but having all candidates void of party affiliation would seem to a great first step in limiting that bias. You see, someone such as yourself, Jaime, would have to look closely at the candidate's bio and positions, not simply rely on the "R" behind their name.
No opinion? No problem. One will be provided for you.

We have no value. We have immeasurable value.
Life is complicated.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24558
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2012, 07:12:20 AM »
Crow, I'm perfectly happy with my judgement if the truth. It is the vast numbers that only respond ti the best tv ads and do do not do any research. With an unlimited amount of entrants into the races, there will me many many candidates that have identical stances. Most issues are pretty much black and white. I wouldn't foresee a broad range of stances. Everyone would segregate into 3 or 4 camps of opinion. Then it would boil down again to personality whiteness of teeth, and hair style.

And please, I am not a party idealogue, anymore than you are a useless bum that doesn't want to participate in the process and just gripe. So, no more statements like: "folks like you......"  There ARE NO folks like me.

If Dems had a reasonable party platform, and if there was not the process of assigning congressional comittee leadership and cimmittee makeup by which party controls congress and everyone kniws the most liberal and unacceptable of the Dems are those leaders that ascend ti those committee positions. Honestly if that could be resolved, there would be NO reason for parties or party loyalty.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 07:22:05 AM by Jaime »
So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. - Milton Friedman

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. - Milton Friedman

Offline crowcamp

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3986
  • Manna: 143
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2012, 07:40:01 AM »
Crow, I'm perfectly happy with my judgement if the truth. It is the vast numbers that only respond ti the best tv ads and do do not do any research. With an unlimited amount of entrants into the races, there will me many many candidates that have identical stances. Most issues are pretty much black and white. I wouldn't foresee a broad range of stances. Everyone would segregate into 3 or 4 camps of opinion. Then it would boil down again to personality whiteness of teeth, and hair style.

And please, I am not a party idealogue, anymore than you are a useless bum that doesn't want to participate in the process and just gripe. So, no more statements like: "folks like you......"  There ARE NO folks like me.

If Dems had a reasonable party platform, and if there was not the process of assigning congressional comittee leadership and cimmittee makeup by which party controls congress and everyone kniws the most liberal and unacceptable of the Dems are those leaders that ascend ti those committee positions. Honestly if that could be resolved, there would be NO reason for parties or party loyalty.
So when's the last time you voted for someone with a "D"?
 
And no more t.v. ads. All info to come from that which is provided in a standardized format. It's gleaning wheat from chaff. Each kernel is unique- if you look close enough. Definitely better than the current process that produces nothing but hulls.
No opinion? No problem. One will be provided for you.

We have no value. We have immeasurable value.
Life is complicated.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2012, 08:38:52 AM »
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

First Party System
 
Main article: First Party System
 
The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party(Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, an effective banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[46]
 
The Era of Good Feelings (1816–1824), marked the end of the First Party System. The elitism of the Federalists had diminished their appeal, and their refusal to support the War of 1812 verged on secession and was a devastating blow when the war ended well. The Era of Good Feelings under President James Monroe (1816–24) marked a brief period in which partisanship was minimal.[47] These good feelings inspired the first short-lived "era of internal improvements" from the 18th through the 25th Congress, which ended with the panic of 1837.[48]
 
[edit] Second Party System
 
Main article: Second Party System
 
In 1828, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay. The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer. The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage.
 
The 1850s saw the collapse of the Whig party, largely as a result of deaths in its leadership and a major intra-party split over slavery as a result of the Compromise of 1850. In addition, the fading of old economic issues removed many of the unifying forces holding the party together.
 
[edit] Third Party System
 
Main article: Third Party System
 
The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid 1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until the Compromise of 1877, which ended the latter. Thus, both parties became broad-based voting coalitions. The race issue pulled newly enfranchised African Americans (Freedmen) into the Republican party while white southerners (Redeemers) joined the Democratic Party. The Democratic coalition also had conservative pro-business Bourbon Democrats, traditional Democrats in the North (many of them former Copperheads), and Catholic immigrants, among others. The Republican coalition also consisted of businessmen, shop owners, skilled craftsmen, clerks and professionals who were attracted to the party's modernization policies.
 
[edit] Fourth Party System
 
Main article: Fourth Party System
 
The Fourth Party System, 1896 to 1932, retained the same primary parties as the Third Party System, but saw major shifts in the central issues of debate. This period also corresponded to the Progressive Era, and was dominated by the Republican Party. It began after the Republicans blamed the Democrats on the Panic of 1893, which later resulted in William McKinley's victory over William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 presidential election. The central domestic issues changed to government regulation of railroads and large corporations ("trusts"), the protective tariff, the role of labor unions, child labor, the need for a new banking system, corruption in party politics, primary elections, direct election of senators, racial segregation, efficiency in government, women's suffrage, and control of immigration. Most voting blocs continued unchanged, but some realignment took place, giving Republicans dominance in the industrial Northeast and new strength in the border states.
 
[edit] Fifth Party System
 
Main article: Fifth Party System
 
The Fifth Party System emerged with the New Deal Coalition beginning in 1933.[49] The Republicans began losing support after the Great Depression, giving rise to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the activist New Deal. They promoted American Liberalism, anchored in a coalition of specific liberal groups, especially ethno-religious constituencies (Catholics, Jews, African Americans), white Southerners, well-organized labor unions, urban machines, progressive intellectuals, and populist farm groups. Opposition Republicans were split between a conservative wing, led by Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft, and a more successful moderate wing exemplified by the politics of Northeastern leaders such as Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, and Henry Cabot Lodge. They steadily lost influence inside the GOP after 1964.[50]
 
Experts debate whether this era ended in the mid-1960s when the New Deal coalition did, the early 1980s when the Moral Majority and the Reagan coalition were formed, the mid-1990s during the Republican Revolution, or continues to the present. Since the 1930s, the Democrats positioned themselves more towards Liberalism while the Conservatives increasingly dominated the GOP.[51]

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24558
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: The History of Political Parties in the United States
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2012, 08:51:09 AM »
I voted for Perot in 1992 who was running Independent. I have no aversion to people with Ds after their name other than they are usually way to the left of me. Dukakis, Algore, Clinton and Kerry. In the old days say 40 years ago good people with sensible views could be Democrats, but the party moved NOT the people. My whole family tree was Democrat then. Again the party descended into weirdness. The people didn't change their views or values. The Bible belt including West Texas used to be a Democrat stronghold. It's still a stronghold for the guys against the party whose values left THEM.

I did highly respect Senator Sam Nunn and would have voted for him as President.

As to ads or resumes or e-broshures, information would be put out for review and voracity test. Just as in TV ads. Just as in any job interview there is always a level of BS to filter. As we see and have seen for decades if not a couple of centuries depending on the medium conveying the information.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 10:24:40 AM by Jaime »
So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. - Milton Friedman

The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem. - Milton Friedman