POLI 100C POLITICAL PARTIES
14 February 2006

  1. Sundquist: Party Realignment Theory
    1. Definition of Realignment -- "A realignment is a durable change in patterns of political behavior."
    2. A Model of Realignment – An Ideal Society that divides first over an irrigation system and then over a saloon.

      1. Downs Chapter 8 Figure 2 (p. 118) – One dimensional public-works dimension.



      2. Progressives vs. Conservatives – They eventually divide into two groups over a proposal to build an irrigation system.

        1. Progressives are activists and believe the role of government should be an activist one and the government should take risks to better society. Progressives see Conservatives as people without vision who are more concerned about personal short-run material satisfaction than long-run public good.

        2. Conservatives fear the consequences of these risks and are suspicious about the “new” society that the Progressives want to build. Conservatives see Progressives as reckless and profligate spenders of the people’s money.

      3. Saloon – Someone wants to build a saloon. This splits both parties.

    3. Realignment Scenarios (Spatial Theory Interpretation of Realignments -- Poole and Rosenthal Figure 5.1)



      1. No Realignment – The two parties take the same position on the issue and the salience of the issue declines as a result. (System freezes at B or C in Figure 5.1)

      2. Realignment in which Neither Party is Replaced – Pro-Salooners take over the Progressive Party and the Anti-Salooners take over the Conservative Party. (System freezes at D in Figure 5.1)

      3. Realignment in which One Party is Replaced – A new party enters – the Liberal Party – as Pro-Saloon and absorbs members of both the Progressive and Conservative party. (System freezes at D or E in Figure 5.1)

      4. Realignment in which Both Parties are Replaced – Two new parties enter – the Liberal Party and the Prohibition Party – System completely realigns on saloon issue. (System freezes at E in Figure 5.1)

    4. The Essential Dynamic – The Center Does Not Hold – The new issue produces two polar blocs and a centrist bloc. If the Centrists in both old Parties can retain control then realignment is avoided.

    5. Five Variables That Affect Realignment

      1. Breadth and Depth of the Underlying Grievance

        1. How long does the issue last?

        2. Is the Issue a Moral One? If it is perceived as “the forces of light” versus “the forces of darkness” then people are more likely to switch parties.

        3. Slavery vs. Abortion

      2. Capacity to Provoke Resistance –

        1. Is the issue zero-sum?

        2. Does solving one problem create a new problem? Does it create a new “injustice”? (Redistribution of Wealth; Affirmative Action)

      3. Leadership –

        1. The power and capacity of the established party leadership are matched against the strength and momentum of the issue.

        2. If the Issue is a moral one then compromise may be seen as reprehensible – one cannot compromise with evil.

      4. Division of Polar Blocs Between the Parties

        1. If the opposing blocs polarized around an issue fall mostly into the existing parties then realignment will be easy. The new issue is simply absorbed into the current alignments. (This is something like Figure 5.1 D)

        2. If the blocs are about evenly split between the parties the realignment will be delayed. (The A to E process shown in Figure 5.1)

      5. Strength of Existing Party Attachments – The weaker the identification that people have with a political party, the easier it is to separate them from the party and trigger a realignment. Factors:

        1. Age – Partisan attachments get stronger with age. Young people who do not remember the issue conflict that created the current alignment tend to be weaker party identifiers.

        2. Reference Groups – Most groups in society have some degree of partisan bias which sometimes is embedded in the group’s tradition and most people belong to one or more such references groups – family; racial; ethnic; religious.

        3. Personal (Economic) Philosophy – This causes cross-pressure – Catholic Businessmen (at least until the 1980s).

  2. The Realignment of the 1850s

    1. The Founders Tried to Duck The Issue:

      1. Section. 2. Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

      2. Section. 9. Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

      3. Amendment XIII. (ratified 6 December 1865)

        Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

        Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    2. The Invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney in 1793




      By 1860 Cotton Exports were $192,000,000 or four times U.S. Government revenues. About 86% of the Cotton was grown on farms of 100 or more acres. England imported about 80% of its Cotton from the South and about 1.5 million people were employed in the English Textile mills.




    3. The Formation of the Whig-Democrat Mass Based Political Party System

      1. The 1828 Election



      2. Popular Democracy During the Whig-Democrat Era



      3. Congressional Elections: 1826 - 1858
                         HOUSE                                   SENATE
      Jackson  Anti-Jackson  Nullifiers       Jackson  Anti-Jackson  Nullifiers
      Democrat    Whig      Anti-Masons       Democrat    Whig      Anti-Masons
1826    113       100                            27        21
1828    136        72                            25        23
1830    126        66           21               24        22            2
1832    143        63           34               20        26            2
1834    143        75           24               26        24            2
1836    128       100           13(1)            35        17               
1838    125       109            6(2)            30        22
1840     98       142             (2)            22        29             (1)
1842    147        72             (4)            23        29
1844    142        79             (6A,1)         34        22             (2)
1846    110       116             (1A,2)         38        21             (1)
1848    113       108             (1A,9F,2)      35        25             (2F)
1850    127        85             (4F,10U,7)     36        23             (3F)
1852    157        71             (4F,2)         38        22             (2F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Opposition                              Opposition
               Republican                              Republican
1854     83       100             (51A)          39        22             (1A)
1856    132        90             (14A,1)        41        20             (5A)
1858     83       116             (5A,36)        38        26             (2A,2)
      4. Presidential Elections: 1828 - 1860
        
                  Democrat                  Whig              
----------------------------------------------------------------
1828    Jackson    178    642,553     Adams      83    500,897
1832    Jackson    219    701,780     Clay       49    484,205
1836    Van Buren  170    764,176     Harrison   73    550,816 
1840    Van Buren   60  1,128,854     Harrison  234  1,275,390
1844    Polk       170  1,339,494     Clay      105  1,300,004
1848    Cass       127  1,223,460     Taylor    163  1,361,393
1852    Pierce     254  1,607,510     Scott      42  1,386,942
----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Republican              American/Whig
1856    Buchanan   174  1,836,072     Fremont   114  1,342,345  Fillmore   8   844,032

1860    Douglas       12  1,004,042  21.47%  Northern Democrat
        Lincoln      180  1,855,276  39.67%  Republican
        Breckinridge  72    672,601  14.38%  Southern Democrat
        Bell          39    590,980  12.64%  Unionist
        (Fusion)       0    553,570  11.84   Misc. Fusion Tickets
      5. Population Increase was very Rapid


      6. The Elections of 1840 -- Both the Whigs and Democrats were competitive in nearly every region of the United States





      7. A (near) Party-Line Roll Call Vote in the House in 1841 -- Red are Whigs and Blue are Democrats



      8. A Roll Call Vote on Whether to Accept a Petition Concerning Slavery -- Red is to Accept and Blue is to Reject



      9. The Issue Differences Between the Whigs and the Democrats

    4. The Economy Before the Civil War







    5. The Crisis Over the Extension of Slavery to the Territories: 1820 - 1850

      1. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 Hemmed in the South



      2. Texas Becomes Independent From Mexico, 14 May 1836, and Andrew Jackson Recognizes the Republic of Texas on 1 March 1837

      3. Texas Admitted to the Union on 29 December 1845 with the Provision that it could have divided itself into 5 States



      4. The War with Mexico -- 13 May 1846 to 13 January 1847



      5. The Wilmot Proviso of 1846 and 1847 Would Have Banned Slavery From the Territories Seized From Mexico

      6. Unanswered Questions -- Did the Missouri Compromise Line extend to the Pacific Ocean?; Popular Sovereignty -- Let the Citizens of the Territories Decide the Slavery Matter Themselves

    6. The Compromise of 1850

      1. California to be Admitted as a Free State

      2. Part of Texas Given to the New Mexico Territory

      3. The Slave Trade was Abolished in the District of Columbia

      4. A Fugitive Slave Law

      5. Utah and New Mexico Were Organized as Territories.
    7. The Crisis Over the Extension of Slavery to the Territories: the 1850s

      1. The United States at the Compromise of 1850



      2. The Publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852. Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe it sold 300,000 copies during its first year of publication. It was turned into a stage play that was performed throughout the North. It helped fuel Northern Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law.



      3. Stephen A. Douglas and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 30 May 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act Repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and declared "that all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the people residing therein, through their appropriate reprsentatives." It organized the Kansas and Nebraska Territories.





      4. Preston (Bully) Brooks' Attack on Charles Sumner on the Senate Floor on 21 May 1856.



      5. The Dred Scott Decision of 6 March 1857. In effect the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no right under the Constitution to exclude Slavery from the Territories.

      6. John Brown's Raid on the armory at Harper's Ferry, VA (now WVA) on 16 October 1859



    8. The Election of 1860