The New Party System

American history has been marked by alignments, realignments, and transitions in party coalitions. It is untidy, but given the varied interests and social groups backing either party, the process functioned remarkably well over an inclusive timespan. When the aggregate interests represented by a political party becomes too narrow to be competetive nationally, it dies with a whimper. The Democratic party started as the Republican party, then they became the Democratic-Republicans, and finally just the Democratic party. While the name remained the same after the early Nineteenth Century, Democrats have restructured their coalition of groups several times in the last two hundred years. By contrast, the opposition Federalists and Whig parties fell apart before finally incorporating as the Republican party with a lasting legacy. The ideology or guiding philosophy changes over time as well.
The first of these was the transmogrification of the Federalists, the only genuinely aristocratic and conservative force in American history, into the Whigs. This reversed the alignment from aristocratic defenders of privilege as the responsible statesmen into the opposition of perceived royalism of "King" Andrew Jackson. The Age of Jackson is known to most historians as the age of the common man, an extension of democracy and the franchise to white men who hadn't had a stake in government before. But, in an alternate perception that is the thesis of this post, the opposition viewed Jackson and his Democrats as both an enthronement of a monarch and rule by mob. Thus the Whigs took their name for the British faction opposing royal power. After Jackson, the Democratic Party reconfigured as well, from Jefferson's yeomanry and Jackson's craftsmen and traders, slowly and inexorably into the southern party that reinterpreted slavery as a positive good.
As the Democratic Party became the representatives of southern privilege, often electing "Doughfaces" to the Presidency who were Northern men with Southern principles, it became radical as well. Fireaters were passionate defenders of slave power and pushed relentlessly to expand that power and the reach of slavery. The regional balance unraveled in this radicalization as well as the disorganization of opposition, leading to the Civil War. The Republican party emerged from a decade of chaos outside of the ruling Democrats, unifying opponents of slavery behind a rather moderate and inclusive platform.
These are just a few examples of the shifting political landscape in America. The ironic fact is that differing perceptions of where power actually lies drives the party structure more than tangible principles. Irony extends when the diversity of America is recognized, distilling the many viewpoints into two parties, one in power and one in opposition. The stability of our system is well-served by the two-party system, but woefully inadequate to address issues we portend to honor. As vehicles to peacefully transfer power however, the two-party system is an admirable accomplishment. An historian with the long-view can testify to the horror of intrigue, conspiracy, plots, coups, assasinations, and bloody civil wars that were a regular part of human politics before the republican experiment.
The very enshrinement of peaceful transfer of power as tradition has brought about its own troubles in modern America. Perception by partisans, regardless of facts or any kind of empirical evidence, of absolute evil in the other side has increasingly stratified American politics. This is especially true on the Republican side by the simple smell test. When president g. w. bush passed the Patriot Act and other measures that gave government unprecedented, LEGAL, authority to intrude and interfere with the lives of regular citizens, conservatives applauded. But they reacted with horror and delusions of self-pity and perceived victimization when these new powers were retained by the new Democratic administration.
Perception for independents is actually even more ominous. Because if one side is seen to screw up, there is only one alternative to turn to. However, Democrats and Republicans are not equivalent. There is no real Yin and Yang quality to the right and left. Democrats actually believe in governing and the public sector, they do want society to function even if they are almost completely unable to explain why. Democrats believe in democracy and understand at some level that power corrupts. It is not simply belief that drives regulation, but empirical evidence that private business will cut corners and harm people if not restrained by law. Too often they accept the false premises of the right and business power, however, and go along with the stripping of laws to protect "externals."
Republicans have no constraining sense of public duty or service. They can and will sabotage anything they cannot privatize for profit, even turning important elements of national defense over to private companies. Where Democrats feel some sense of responsibility for the public sector, Republicans have proved over and over that they are willing, in fact eager, to shoot the hostage. John Dewey once said that government (or politics) is the shadow cast over society by business. It is the singular achievement of Republicans not only to convince conservatives that the opposite is true, but to focus all anger at real injustice upon the government. Then, convince conservatives to send Republicans to government so they can do battle with the beast. When in reality, what Republicans have reconfigured government to do is closer to what Mussolini described as the purpose of fascism, the conscious alignment and blending of government and business power.
Perceptions of the parties themselves by their leaders, or establishment, however it may be termed, is also important. Republicans are idealists, in the most cynical way possible. They have demonstrated time and again that shrinking government, their professed goal, is not their true objective. The objective is to capture the beast government, crack it open, and distribute the goodies to their real constituancy, loyal businesses. Their idealism lies in an absolute belief in their natural right to rule, ends justify the means and no level of deceit or manipulation is beyond their moral system in this pursuit. Democrats, on the other hand, perpetually see themselves as an endangered species. This is the reason for the schitzophenic words and actions of the Democratic party whether in power or opposition. They have no natural constituancy the way Republicans do, having jettisoned labor and any coherent ideological system. So, in defending the public sector that some instinct drives them to feel responsibility for, they consistantly try to appease the opposition and salvage crumbs of the once proud New Deal.
This is the party system of the twenty-first century, one side divinely inspired to destroy and wreck all aspects of civilization while sincerely believing they are the just, another side whimpering all alone and completely bewildered. The Republican party knows that no matter how insane they are, or appear to be, if they lie, cheat, and steal hard enough they will always get back into the driver's seat of power. The Democratic party treads lightly, knowing that at any time business and conservative power can stomp on them and finish the job of crushing democracy once and for all.