In the 1796 Presidential election, two political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, squared off in the first-ever presidential election that involved what James Madison described as “temporary coalitions.” Madison and other senior leaders from the Revolution believed that political parties were only to serve the nation through some of the early controversial elections over its foundation. Little did they know how critical to our political structure the two-party system would become as PACs and Super PACs fuel political nominees with ever-increasing millions of dollars every election cycle.
But how did we get from the Federalist vs. Democratic-Republican era to the Democrat vs. Republican era? Did the Federalist party just die out and the Democratic-Republican party split into two separate entities? In this article I’ll briefly look at how party lines have morphed over the past two-hundred years or so with a more detailed look at its influence on the modern era, and then argue that we are currently living in a time of political transition once more.
The Federalists held a lot of influence in the big cities of the north, where people favored a large central government, and believed that the government could take on new roles going forward through a fluid interpretation of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans believed the Federalists were aristocratic monarchists, and favored minimal government involvement, equality for all citizens (this referred to economic and social equality for all eligible citizens, which at this time excluded women and slaves), and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
However, as the nation entered the Jacksonian era, the Democratic-Republicans began to fracture into smaller factions, which eventually led to the creation of the early form of the modern Democratic Party. In response, anti-Jackson politicians founded the roots of the modern Republican party, or at that time, the Whig party.
Jackson’s Democrats believed in “manifest destiny” (militarism or expansionism), limited government authority, a hands-off approach to the economy, and expanded suffrage for white males (note: you had to hold land and pay taxes to vote at this point).
On the other hand, the National Republicans, or Whigs, believed that it was the role of government to be involved with the economy, including in the construction of roads and railroads, and preserving cultural identities and heritage, which was in stark contrast to the “manifest destiny” and removal of Native Americans by the Jackson administration.
By the time Abraham Lincoln was elected, the Whigs had taken on the name that we know of today, the Republican Party, and the Jacksonian Democrats maintained their nomenclature. Party lines began to shift following the Civil War as Democrats led by politicians such as William Jennings Bryan began to push the Democrats to a more progressive stance, and a movement for prohibition within the Republican party began to turn the Republicans to a more conservative stance.
This would ultimately culminate in the Republicans, under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, becoming much more globalist, and being the party of international interventionism. Meanwhile, the Democrats became less inclined to be involved globally, and chose to focus more on social issues within the nation such as womens’ suffrage and civil rights.
When we look at the formation of the modern Democratic party, it might seem strange that President Obama tried to implement a “healthcare-for-all” plan, which definitely expanded the role of government. On the flip-side, early Republicans believed it was the duty of government to be involved in the economy, whereas now Republicans favor laissez-faire economics and hands off economic intervention.
Democrats in the modern era have continuously pushed for an increase in the size of government and a flexible interpretation of the Constitution. Internationally, Democrats have tried time and time again to get troops out of overseas conflicts, while the Republicans were ever so eager to invest in war. Starting with Woodrow Wilson, Democratic presidents have done everything possible to avoid entrance into war until the last possible second. On the other side, Republicans such as Richard Nixon did not hesitate to get involved with proxy wars in the fight against communism.
But what does this mean in the age of Trump? Last month, Trump announced his withdrawal of troops from Syria, which left the Kurds, who have historically had shaky support from the US, to fend for themselves. Trump reiterated numerous times the importance of “getting the boys home” and “ending the endless wars.” In opposition, multiple Democrats spoke out against Trump's actions to remove troops from the Middle East. In the most recent Democratic debate, former Vice-President Joe Biden said, “It has been the most shameful thing that any President has done in modern history in terms of foreign policy.” But what happened to the party that favored pulling out of the Middle East and criticizing the Republicans for their starting of a cycle of endless wars?
If you haven’t been watching the Democratic debates, you may have already begun to see evidence of party switching. Since Obama’s eight years in office, the Democrats have clearly been liberalizing and pursuing a much more left-leaning agenda than before. Evidence of this can be found in who is leading in the Democratic polls. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden have all risen to the top with their progressive/further left agendas, leaving moderates Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard trailing behind.
While Republicans haven’t wholesale shifted their agenda, they have indeed splintered. Evidence of this can be found in Republican Rep. Joe Walsh’s announcement of a presidential ballot bid earlier in 2019. A month later, Rep. Mark Sanford, another Republican, also announced his White House bid. In an interview with NPR’s Michael Martin, Sanford said, “I think that we need to have a conversation and debate on what it means to be a Republican. Traditionally, the Republican Party stood for some level of financial conservatism. That seems to have been thrown out the window of late, as you see, for instance, with this latest debt deal, the president adding $2 trillion of additional debt to the national debt and a third of a trillion dollars in new spending over the next two years without even a debate.” Sanford represents a number of disenfranchised Republicans and believes that the current platforms of the party do not follow traditional lines.
With Democrats shifting (no, not Schiffting) farther left, and Republicans losing their core beliefs, what will this mean for political lines in the future? Could a third party make an emergence? While this may seem doubtful, if the Democrats continue their leftward slide, moderate democrats will be left without a home, and this could lead to future political action.