critical thinking questions about political parties

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9: Political Parties

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 153708

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

• 9.1: Introduction
• 9.2: What Are Parties and How Did They Form?
• 9.3: The Two-Party System
• 9.4: The Shape of Modern Political Parties
• 9.5: Divided Government and Partisan Polarization
• 9.6: Key Terms
• 9.7: Summary
• 9.8: Review Questions
• 9.9: Critical Thinking Questions
• 9.10: Suggestions for Further Study
• 9.11: References

Tips for Thinking Critically About Political Beliefs

How to distinguish beliefs from facts and applying this to engaging politics..

Posted May 7, 2021 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

It’s been over 100 days now since Joe Biden took office as U.S. President, and whether you believe the change to be for better or worse is irrelevant because, essentially, we’re looking at belief systems here. Consistent with a previous post on this blog a few years back, one must acknowledge that, given the existence of at least two political sides in most Western societies, there exists more than one perspective on how a country should be run and its people governed. As I also mentioned in that post, if there was one true, correct way to conduct these tasks, then we would probably have adopted it by now.

But there isn’t one true, correct way—each and every individual has their own set of beliefs on how said tasks should be done. Of course, you might try to change other people’s minds , but getting someone to change their mind is not easy, especially if you’re trying to get them to change their beliefs . The problem with beliefs is that they aren’t necessarily factual, as implied above—just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it so.

Moreover, someone’s politics are a set of beliefs developed in light of what they believe to be right and just. This issue throws a further spanner into the works, given that the concept of what is morally "right" or "just" is by no means universal. Morality and the concepts of right and wrong are relative—what is unjust to some might be no problem for another, and likewise, what one believes to be right might be perceived as completely unjust to another.

Again, this is why political debate lives on. In my last post on politics , I recommended that people who value critical thinking should avoid party affiliations and take on a centrist role if they are to engage political debate, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each party and making judgments in light of these about how they believe their country should be run and its people governed. In this piece, I maintain that perspective but also argue that "siding" with the left or right is a rather pointless endeavor.

One of my pet peeves (yes, I’m aware that subjective emotion is at play here) is when people quote historical figures to help support the point they’re trying to make, such as in social media posts, without really understanding the figure’s background or even the context from which the quote originates. I often see quotes by Karl Marx regarding the evils of capitalism and, on the other hand, quotes from Adam Smith regarding the great benefits of capitalism. Given that both these individuals are long deceased, the reality is that neither truly understands the nature of capitalism—or communism (or socialism for that matter)—as we know them in the 21st century. Likewise, the people who generally quote either of these historical figures often don’t really understand the foundations or historical context from which these two were speaking. Hell, many people today confuse socialism and communism!

Is capitalism evil? No. Is communism evil? No. Neither construct is evil. In fact, both were "developed" in an effort to benefit society as best as possible. What makes them appear "evil" is the potential for corruption of the system, and many readers of this blog know a little something about human nature from a psychological basis—people will generally select actions that self-preserve, self-serve, and self-protect. As a result, people—who are fallible—will, from time to time, make decisions that benefit themselves at the cost of others to some extent, thus facilitating the potential for corruption.

Regular readers of this blog will also know that I am not an advocate of using personal experience as the primary rationale for a decision, but in this case, I use it to support the logic I provided above. I’ve lived in two countries in my life—one with a "capitalist slant" and one with a "socialist slant."

Guess what?

They both have their positives, and they both have their negatives, and neither is fully devoid of alleged corruption. For those who have only lived in one type of country and focus on the negatives of living there, it’s only likely that from this "unhappiness," you will wonder if "the grass is greener on the other side." However, if you think critically about it, you’ll see both the negatives and the positives.

So, with that, I have a recommendation. If you are truly against how your country is run, you could consider leaving it and living in another country where you think things are better. I don’t mean that in the old "like it or leave it" way; I genuinely mean it as a considered, viable alternative.

Of course, you must also recognize that if you live in a country where you are allowed to leave, that country probably isn’t as bad as you think it is. Alternatively… and I hate using such a clichéd phrase, but "be the change you want to see in the world"—or your country at least. That is, consider entering politics.

Start small and run for local office, making contributions all along your rise. If you don’t win office, it might just be that not enough people agree with how you think things should be run—indicating, also, that not everyone shares your beliefs . Then again, if you don’t care enough about being that change or doing anything about what you see as wrong (other than simply pointing out the negatives), then you should probably do something else other than thinking about politics. Having that kind of negativity in your life is not good for your mental well-being!

Now, please don’t misinterpret my position as implying that politics are pointless. They aren’t. What I am saying is that the level to which people seem to have been riled up over politics in recent years, without doing anything productive about it, is pointless and is seriously lacking in critical thought. If you’re politically minded, great—do something contextually productive. If not, that’s fine too—vote for the candidate that you trust more than the others, in terms of believing that they will do the things that best reflect your beliefs of how things should be done and how people should be governed.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

The Politics of Critical Thinking

Redefining critical thinking and encouraging its widespread adoption could lead to a healthier and more productive public discourse.

By Ilana Redstone

If there were a single, low-cost strategy we could implement that could both soften the sharper edges of our political divide and diminish the hostility in our national conversations, would we do it? And if the same strategy might lead to a more engaged and productive discourse, would we jump at the chance? I would love to say yes, but I’d be wrong.

People of different political convictions don’t agree on much these days. From minor issues—whether Ellen’s apology was heartfelt—to major ones— how to proceed with filling the Supreme Court spot left vacant by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—there’s precious little common ground.

Given how far apart the two sides are, one would be forgiven for assuming we’d do everything possible to move forward in any area where we found common ground. One of those rare areas, at least in principle, is the need for a populace capable of critical thinking. Critical thinking is necessary for businesses to remain competitive by fostering innovation, and it’s essential for the health of our society through supporting democratic norms of debate and dissent. However, it turns out that this most fundamental skill has itself fallen victim to politics.

And yet it’s clear that, when it comes to our conversations on sensitive social and political issues, we have a real problem—one that critical thinking could help solve. Too often, conversations deteriorate into name-calling and bad-faith assessments of the other person’s motivations. These interactions can only be productive when advocates of the ideas in question allow them to be subject to criticism and debate rather than placing them on a pedestal. Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, examined, and challenged.

The antidote to treating ideas as though they’re exempt from scrutiny—the discourse-killing approach referenced above—is critical thinking. But critical thinking is a slippery term. How else could we describe something that everyone thinks should be a priority, yet somehow few people seem to be able to do? (More on that claim in a minute.) It’s probably not due to a lack of goodwill. After all, I’d be shocked to find any educator who doesn’t value or encourage critical thinking by students. So, what’s going on?

In articles and studies in which authors express concern about low levels of critical thinking skills, they’re usually referring to something specific. Frequently, it’s folded in with the related skills of reasoning and problem-solving. This is almost certainly the definition used in the 2011 book Academically Adrift . In that study, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa used data from student surveys and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to evaluate what exactly students are learning in college. According to a review in “Inside Higher Education,” the authors found that, “45 percent of students ‘did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning’ during the first two years of college” and “36 percent of students ‘did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning’ over four years of college.” In that same review, Arum states his concern as follows: “You can't have a democratic society when the elite—the college-educated kids—don't have these abilities to think critically.”

Yet, as grim as Arum and Roksa’s portrait is, the situation is arguably even worse. The CLA measured critical thinking and problem-solving together, using well-known sample performance tasks. In these tasks, students were given a set of information and asked to solve a problem drawing on the information provided. As shocking as it is to learn that many students struggled with this charge, an even more alarming finding with direct political implications has become apparent: Many students lack a basic ability to criticize ideas .

A Forbes.com article from Sept. 21, 2020, puts this in perspective while spotlighting an important asymmetry. The headline reads “Trump’s Patriot History Lessons Or Critical Thinking: You Can’t Have Both.” The article referred to an executive order to create the 1776 Commission to promote “patriotic education” in U.S. schools. This commission is widely seen as a countermove to the popular 1619 Project , which some see as advocating a wrong-headed view of America that runs counter to its founding values.

The Forbes.com author is, of course, correct. You can’t have both. Imbuing school curricula with a reflexively patriotic and hagiographic view of this country’s history isn’t accurate. But neither is the view put forth by the 1619 Project, which has itself been adopted by various schools and received no analogous criticism by the Forbes.com author.

Critical thinking has to cut both ways—through all the political posturing, not just the posturing of the side you don’t agree with. The reason the author cited above is correct about “Trump’s Patriot History Lessons” being incompatible with critical thinking is because such an approach doesn’t leave room for people to learn to debate the spin being put on history and learning. However, that same logic has to be applied universally.

My evidence for how well (or poorly, in this case) we’re teaching this skill comes from my experience as an educator. In several of my classes, we look at a few controversial ideas as critical thinking test cases. For instance, when I ask students to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the idea of a meritocracy, they can usually do so with little trouble. They describe how the idea that people are compensated or rewarded based on their contributions or their competence makes sense.

Sometimes, they’ll give the example of grades—they get the grade they earned in a particular class. The grade reflects the effort and the degree of mastery. At least that’s the hope. They also can describe the ways in which the meritocracy falls short. They talk in detail about the barriers faced by members of underrepresented groups and how they don’t always have the same opportunities to succeed. All in all, they do a decent job of describing the advantages and disadvantages of the concept.

However, there are clear constraints to how widely this is applied. For example, I get very different responses when, instead of asking about a meritocracy, I ask students about microaggressions, colorblind racism, or white privilege. To be sure, they are able to speak comfortably and with depth about the advantages of each of these concepts. Microaggressions provide a language for people to talk about the small instances of racism that members of minority groups face every day. Colorblind racism denies the true experiences of oppression and discrimination that minorities face. And white privilege is crucial to our collective understanding of inequality because it helps people recognize some of their unearned advantage and gives a way to have conversations about what that advantage means. All reasonable responses as far as I am concerned.

The evidence of our collective failure is on display when I ask them whether they can criticize any of those topics. The vast majority of students I encounter, in the multiple times I have posed this question, are unable to come up with a clear answer or one that they don’t dismiss out loud before it has become a completed sentence. Sometimes they raise points like “White privilege might be viewed as denying the difficulties that some white people face,” but more often than not, they’re stumped. Apparently, they are only taught to criticize certain ideas. But this is unsustainable if for no other reason than the following: Reasonable people can and do think differently about these topics. When it comes to instruction, if critical thinking won out over facts, then now we’re doing neither well.

True critical thinking would involve a deeper understanding of these issues. For instance, what assumptions does a particular perspective make? Is that assumption controversial? Why might two people of reasonable minds come to different conclusions about it? What are the implications of pursuing any particular line of thinking? These questions should be applied universally and with vigor. We need a citizenry that understands that even—or especially—the most cherished ideas need to be held up to the light, examined, inspected, and challenged.

Changing the norms about how we think and talk about ideas is central to shifting how we think and talk about social problems more broadly. After all, the more time we spend talking about the relative merits of different ideas, the less focused we are on impugning the motives of others. If they took this lesson to heart, our political and cultural leaders could transform the dialogue on issues that really matter—whether it’s how to respond to a crisis or how to solve a seemingly intractable problem. And that shift would leave us all better off.

Ready for more?

9.1 What Are Parties and How Did They Form?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe political parties and what they do
• Differentiate political parties from interest groups
• Explain how U.S. political parties formed

At some point, most of us have found ourselves part of a group trying to solve a problem, like picking a restaurant or movie to attend, or completing a big project at school or work. Members of the group probably had various opinions about what should be done. Some may have even refused to help make the decision or to follow it once it had been made. Still others may have been willing to follow along but were less interested in contributing to a workable solution. Because of this disagreement, at some point, someone in the group had to find a way to make a decision, negotiate a compromise, and ultimately do the work needed for the group to accomplish its goals.

This kind of collective action problem is very common in societies, as groups and entire societies try to solve problems or distribute scarce resources. In modern U.S. politics, such problems are usually solved by two important types of organizations: interest groups and political parties. There are many interest groups, all with opinions about what should be done and a desire to influence policy. Because they are usually not officially affiliated with any political party, they generally have no trouble working with either of the major parties. But at some point, a society must find a way of taking all these opinions and turning them into solutions to real problems. That is where political parties come in. Essentially, political parties are groups of people with similar interests who work together to create and implement policies. They do this by gaining control over the government by winning elections. Party platforms guide members of Congress in drafting legislation. Parties guide proposed laws through Congress and inform party members how they should vote on important issues. Political parties also nominate candidates to run for state government, Congress, and the presidency. Finally, they coordinate political campaigns and mobilize voters.

POLITICAL PARTIES AS UNIQUE ORGANIZATIONS

In Federalist No. 10, written in the late eighteenth century, James Madison noted that the formation of self-interested groups, which he called factions, was inevitable in any society, as individuals started to work together to protect themselves from the government. Interest groups and political parties are two of the most easily identified forms of factions in the United States. These groups are similar in that they are both mediating institutions responsible for communicating public preferences to the government. They are not themselves government institutions in a formal sense. Neither is directly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution nor do they have any real, legal authority to influence policy. But whereas interest groups often work indirectly to influence our leaders, political parties are organizations that try to directly influence public policy through its members who seek to win and hold public office. Parties accomplish this by identifying and aligning sets of issues that are important to voters in the hopes of gaining support during elections; their positions on these critical issues are often presented in documents known as a party platform ( Figure 9.2 ), which is adopted at each party’s presidential nominating convention every four years. If successful, a party can create a large enough electoral coalition to gain control of the government. Once in power, the party is then able to deliver, to its voters and elites, the policy preferences they choose by electing its partisans to the government. In this respect, parties provide choices to the electorate, something they are doing that is in such sharp contrast to their opposition.

Link to Learning

You can read the full platform of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party at their respective websites.

Winning elections and implementing policy would be hard enough in simple political systems, but in a country as complex as the United States, political parties must take on great responsibilities to win elections and coordinate behavior across the many local, state, and national governing bodies. Indeed, political differences between states and local areas can contribute much complexity. If a party stakes out issue positions on which few people agree and therefore builds too narrow a coalition of voter support, that party may find itself marginalized. But if the party takes too broad a position on issues, it might find itself in a situation where the members of the party disagree with one another, making it difficult to pass legislation, even if the party can secure victory.

It should come as no surprise that the story of U.S. political parties largely mirrors the story of the United States itself. The United States has seen sweeping changes to its size, its relative power, and its social and demographic composition. These changes have been mirrored by the political parties as they have sought to shift their coalitions to establish and maintain power across the nation and as party leadership has changed. As you will learn later, this also means that the structure and behavior of modern parties largely parallel the social, demographic, and geographic divisions within the United States today. To understand how this has happened, we look at the origins of the U.S. party system.

HOW POLITICAL PARTIES FORMED

National political parties as we understand them today did not really exist in the United States during the early years of the republic. Most politics during the time of the nation’s founding were local in nature and based on elite politics, limited suffrage (or the ability to vote in elections), and property ownership. Residents of the various colonies, and later of the various states, were far more interested in events in their state legislatures than in those occurring at the national level or later in the nation’s capital. To the extent that national issues did exist, they were largely limited to collective security efforts to deal with external rivals, such as the British or the French, and with perceived internal threats, such as conflicts with Native Americans.

Soon after the United States emerged from the Revolutionary War, however, a rift began to emerge between two groups that had very different views about the future direction of U.S. politics. Thus, from the very beginning of its history, the United States has had a system of government dominated by two different philosophies. Federalists , who were largely responsible for drafting and ratifying the U.S. Constitution, generally favored the idea of a stronger, more centralized republic that had greater control over regulating the economy. 1 Anti-Federalists preferred a more confederate system built on state equality and autonomy. 2 The Federalist faction, led by Alexander Hamilton , largely dominated the government in the years immediately after the Constitution was ratified. Included in the Federalists was President George Washington , who was initially against the existence of parties in the United States. When Washington decided to exit politics and leave office, he warned of the potential negative effects of parties in his farewell address to the nation, including their potentially divisive nature and the fact that they might not always focus on the common good but rather on partisan ends. However, members of each faction quickly realized that they had a vested interest not only in nominating and electing a president who shared their views, but also in winning other elections. Two loosely affiliated party coalitions, known as the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans , soon emerged. The Federalists succeeded in electing their first leader, John Adams , to the presidency in 1796, only to see the Democratic-Republicans gain victory under Thomas Jefferson four years later in 1800.

The “Revolution of 1800”: Uniting the Executive Branch under One Party

When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, its authors were certainly aware that political parties existed in other countries (like Great Britain), but they hoped to avoid them in the United States. They felt the importance of states in the U.S. federal structure would make it difficult for national parties to form. They also hoped that having a college of electors vote for the executive branch, with the top two vote-getters becoming president and vice president, would discourage the formation of parties. Their system worked for the first two presidential elections, when essentially all the electors voted for George Washington to serve as president. But by 1796, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist camps had organized into electoral coalitions. The Anti-Federalists joined with many others active in the process to become known as the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalist John Adams won the Electoral College vote, but his authority was undermined when the vice presidency went to Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, who finished second. Four years later, the Democratic-Republicans managed to avoid this outcome by coordinating the electors to vote for their top two candidates. But when the vote ended in a tie, it was ultimately left to Congress to decide who would be the third president of the United States ( Figure 9.3 ).

In an effort to prevent a similar outcome in the future, Congress and the states voted to ratify the Twelfth Amendment, which went into effect in 1804. This amendment changed the rules so that the president and vice president would be selected through separate elections within the Electoral College, and it altered the method that Congress used to fill the offices in the event that no candidate won a majority. The amendment essentially endorsed the new party system and helped prevent future controversies. It also served as an early effort by the two parties to collude to make it harder for an outsider to win the presidency.

Does the process of selecting the executive branch need to be reformed so that the people elect the president and vice president directly, rather than through the Electoral College? Should the people vote separately on each office rather than voting for both at the same time? Explain your reasoning.

Growing regional tensions eroded the Federalist Party’s ability to coordinate elites, and it eventually collapsed following its opposition to the War of 1812. 3 The Democratic-Republican Party, on the other hand, eventually divided over whether national resources should be focused on economic and mercantile development, such as tariffs on imported goods and government funding of internal improvements like roads and canals, or on promoting populist issues that would help the “common man,” such as reducing or eliminating state property requirements that had prevented many men from voting. 4

In the election of 1824, numerous candidates contended for the presidency, all members of the Democratic-Republican Party. Andrew Jackson won more popular votes and more votes in the Electoral College than any other candidate. However, because he did not win the majority (more than half) of the available electoral votes, the election was decided by the House of Representatives, as required by the Twelfth Amendment . The Twelfth Amendment limited the House’s choice to the three candidates with the greatest number of electoral votes. Thus, Andrew Jackson, with 99 electoral votes, found himself in competition with only John Quincy Adams, the second place finisher with 84 electoral votes, and William H. Crawford, who had come in third with 41. The fourth-place finisher, Henry Clay, who was no longer in contention, had won 37 electoral votes. Clay strongly disliked Jackson, and his ideas on government support for tariffs and internal improvements were similar to those of Adams. Clay thus gave his support to Adams, who was chosen on the first ballot. Jackson considered the actions of Clay and Adams, the son of the Federalist president John Adams, to be an unjust triumph of supporters of the elite and referred to it as “the corrupt bargain.” 5

This marked the beginning of what historians call the Second Party System (the first parties had been the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans), with the splitting of the Democratic-Republicans and the formation of two new political parties. One half, called simply the Democratic Party, was the party of Jackson; it continued to advocate for the common people by championing westward expansion and opposing a national bank. The branch of the Democratic-Republicans that believed that the national government should encourage economic (primarily industrial) development was briefly known as the National Republicans and later became the Whig Party 6 . In the election of 1828, Democrat Andrew Jackson was triumphant. Three times as many people voted in 1828 as had in 1824, and most cast their ballots for him. 7

The formation of the Democratic Party marked an important shift in U.S. politics. Rather than being built largely to coordinate elite behavior, the Democratic Party worked to organize the electorate by taking advantage of state-level laws that had extended suffrage from male property owners to nearly all White men. 8 This change marked the birth of what is often considered the first modern political party in any democracy in the world. 9 It also dramatically changed the way party politics was, and still is, conducted. For one thing, this new party organization was built to include structures that focused on organizing and mobilizing voters for elections at all levels of government. The party also perfected an existing spoils system, in which support for the party during elections was rewarded with jobs in the government bureaucracy after victory. 10 Many of these positions were given to party bosses and their friends. These men were the leaders of political machine s , organizations that secured votes for the party’s candidates or supported the party in other ways. Perhaps more importantly, this election-focused organization also sought to maintain power by creating a broader coalition and thereby expanding the range of issues upon which the party was constructed. 11

Each of the two main U.S. political parties today—the Democrats and the Republicans —maintains an extensive website with links to its affiliated statewide organizations, which in turn often maintain links to the party’s country organizations.

By comparison, here are websites for the Green Party and the Libertarian Party that are two other parties in the United States today.

The Democratic Party emphasized personal politics , which focused on building direct relationships with voters rather than on promoting specific issues. This party dominated national politics from Andrew Jackson’s presidential victory in 1828 until the mid-1850s, when regional tensions began to threaten the nation’s very existence. The growing power of industrialists, who preferred greater national authority, combined with increasing tensions between the northern and southern states over slavery, led to the rise of the Republican Party and its leader Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860, while the Democratic Party dominated in the South. Like the Democrats, the Republicans also began to utilize a mass approach to party design and organization. Their opposition to the expansion of slavery, and their role in helping to stabilize the Union during Reconstruction, made them the dominant player in national politics for the next several decades. 12

The Democratic and Republican parties have remained the two dominant players in the U.S. party system since the Civil War (1861–1865). That does not mean, however, that the system has been stagnant. Every political actor and every citizen has the ability to determine for him- or herself whether one of the two parties meets his or her needs and provides an appealing set of policy options, or whether another option is preferable.

At various points in the past 170 years, elites and voters have sought to create alternatives to the existing party system. Political parties that are formed as alternatives to the Republican and Democratic parties are known as third parties , or minor parties ( Figure 9.4 ). In 1892, a third party known as the Populist Party formed in reaction to what its constituents perceived as the domination of U.S. society by big business and a decline in the power of farmers and rural communities. The Populist Party called for the regulation of railroads, an income tax, and the popular election of U.S. senators, who at this time were chosen by state legislatures and not by ordinary voters. 13 The party’s candidate in the 1892 elections, James B. Weaver, did not perform as well as the two main party candidates, and, in the presidential election of 1896, the Populists supported the Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan. Bryan lost, and the Populists once again nominated their own presidential candidates in 1900, 1904, and 1908. The party disappeared from the national scene after 1908, but its ideas were similar to those of the Progressive Party, a new political party created in 1912.

In 1912, former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt attempted to form a third party, known as the Progressive Party , as an alternative to the more business-minded Republicans. The Progressives sought to correct the many problems that had arisen as the United States transformed itself from a rural, agricultural nation into an increasingly urbanized, industrialized country dominated by big business interests. Among the reforms that the Progressive Party called for in its 1912 platform were women’s suffrage, an eight-hour workday, and workers’ compensation. The party also favored some of the same reforms as the Populist Party, such as the direct election of U.S. senators and an income tax, although Populists tended to be farmers while the Progressives were from the middle class. In general, Progressives sought to make government more responsive to the will of the people and to end political corruption in government. They wished to break the power of party bosses and political machines, and called upon states to pass laws allowing voters to vote directly on proposed legislation, propose new laws, and recall from office incompetent or corrupt elected officials. The Progressive Party largely disappeared after 1916, and most members returned to the Republican Party. 14 The party enjoyed a brief resurgence in 1924, when Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette ran unsuccessfully for president under the Progressive banner.

In 1948, two new third parties appeared on the political scene. Henry A. Wallace , a vice president under Franklin Roosevelt, formed a new Progressive Party, which had little in common with the earlier Progressive Party. Wallace favored racial desegregation and believed that the United States should have closer ties to the Soviet Union. Wallace’s campaign was a failure, largely because most people believed his policies, including national healthcare, were too much like those of communism, and this party also vanished. The other third party, the States’ Rights Democrats, also known as the Dixiecrats , were White, southern Democrats who split from the Democratic Party when Harry Truman , who favored civil rights for African Americans, became the party’s nominee for president. The Dixiecrats opposed all attempts by the federal government to end segregation, extend voting rights, prohibit discrimination in employment, or otherwise promote social equality among races. 15 They remained a significant party that threatened Democratic unity throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Other examples of third parties in the United States include the American Independent Party, the Libertarian Party, United We Stand America, the Reform Party, and the Green Party.

None of these alternatives to the two major political parties had much success at the national level, and most are no longer viable parties. All faced the same fate. Formed by charismatic leaders, each championed a relatively narrow set of causes and failed to gain broad support among the electorate. Once their leaders had been defeated or discredited, the party structures that were built to contest elections collapsed. And within a few years, most of their supporters were eventually pulled back into one of the existing parties. To be sure, some of these parties had an electoral impact. For example, the Progressive Party pulled enough votes away from the Republicans to hand the 1912 election to the Democrats. Thus, the third-party rival’s principal accomplishment was helping its least-preferred major party win, usually at the short-term expense of the very issue it championed. In the long run, however, many third parties have brought important issues to the attention of the major parties, which then incorporated these issues into their platforms. Understanding why this is the case is an important next step in learning about the issues and strategies of the modern Republican and Democratic parties. In the next section, we look at why the United States has historically been dominated by only two political parties.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz (Content Lead), Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD (Lead Editor)
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 2e
• Publication date: Feb 21, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-2e/pages/9-1-what-are-parties-and-how-did-they-form

© Mar 9, 2022 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Critical Thinking Questions

American Government 2e Copyright © 2019 by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book