Political Parties in American Political Development
OxfordHandbooksOnline
PoliticalPartiesinAmericanPoliticalDevelopment
DavidKarol
TheOxfordHandbookofAmericanPoliticalDevelopment(Forthcoming)
EditedbyRichardValelly,SuzanneMettler,andRobertLieberman
OnlinePublicationDate: Oct
2014
Subject: PoliticalScience,U.S.Politics,ComparativePolitics
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697915.013.33
AbstractandKeywords
ThisarticleexaminestheroleofpoliticalpartiesinAmerica’spoliticaldevelopment,withemphasisonpartiesas
institutions.ItconsidersthreedevelopmentsinAmericanpolitics:theemergenceofmasspartiesthatflourished
duringtheso-calledPartyPeriodinthemid-nineteenthcentury;thedeclineandincreasingregulationoftraditional
partiessincetheProgressiveEra;andtherevivalofpartiesinanewformsincethe1970s.Italsoanalyseshow
partieshaveinfluenced—andhavebeeninfluencedby—majorinstitutionssuchasCongress,thePresidency,the
nationalbureaucracy,andinterestgroups.Thearticleconcludesbydiscussingtwokeyconcernsofscholarsof
Americanpoliticaldevelopment:developmentandexceptionalism.
Keywords:politicalparties,politicaldevelopment,America,politics,Congress,Presidency,bureaucracy,interestgroups,development,
exceptionalism
Wherethereisdemocracy,therearepoliticalparties.America,uniqueinsomanyways,isnoexceptiontothis
rule.DespitetheFounders’well-knownaversiontofactions,partiesaroserapidlyintheUnitedStates.Thiswas
controversial,notleastbecausestrongpartiescanunderminetheseparationofpowersestablishedinthe
Constitution.Yetparties’sustainedimportancemakesthemaninescapablefocusinanysurveyofAmerican
politicaldevelopment.
InthischapterIfocusonpartiesasinstitutionsratherthansurveyingthemanychangesinparticularparties’
fortunes,coalitions,andplatforms.Scholarshavelongexploredthesetopics,buildingmodelsofrealignmentand
dividingUShistoryintoseveral“partysystems”(Key1955,1959;Schattschneider1960;Burnham1967;Sundquist
1983;StonecashandBrewer2009;butseeMayhew2002).
Aninstitutionalfocusyieldsadifferentperiodizationfromthefamiliarpartysystemsone.Iexaminethree
transformationshere:theriseofmassparties,whichflourishedinthemid-nineteenthcentury“PartyPeriod,”the
declineandincreasingregulationoftraditionalpartiesbeginningintheProgressiveEra,andtherevivalofpartiesin
anewformsincethe1970s.
Ininvestigatingthesechanges,Idescribehowpartieshavebothshapedandbeenshapedbythedevelopmentof
keyinstitutions,includingCongress,thePresidency,thenationalbureaucracyandinterestgroups.Ihighlighttwo
keyconcernsofAmericanPoliticalDevelopment(APD)scholars:developmentandexceptionalism.Whilethe
changesinpartystrength(rise,decline,andriseagain)arenotastraightforwarddevelopmentaltrajectory,parties
havedevelopedinimportantways.Theyhavebecomemoreregulatedandmorecentralized.Thetwo-party
systemhasgrownstrongeraswell.
Asforexceptionalism,fewdisputeEpstein’s(1986,4)claimthat,“ThedistinctivenessofAmericanpoliticalparties
isoldandwellestablished.”PartiesintheUSAaresaidtolackdiscipline,tobeuniquelydecentralizedandporous,
andhavenorealmembership.RegulationofpartieshasbeengreaterintheUSAthanelsewhere.Anotherclaim
Page 1 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
concernstheallegednarrownessoftheideologicaldebatebetweenpartiesintheUSA.Finally,theAmerican“twopartysystem”hasbeenauniquelyrobustduopoly.Iarguethattheseclaimshavesomevalidity,butfewholdtrue
inalleras.
DefiningParties
Assessingthedevelopmentofpartiesisachallenge.PartiesintheUSAarepoorlyboundedentitiescomparedto
stateinstitutions.Onpaper,theDemocratsandRepublicansaresetsofcommitteesisomorphictothestructureof
government.Yet,asSchlesinger(1984,379)notes,“theformalstructureisobviouslynottherealorganization.”
Theleadingmid-twentieth-centurypartyscholars,E.E.SchattschneiderandV.O.Key,didnotevenagreeon
whethervoterswerepartofparties.ForSchatschneider(1942,53),“whateverelsetheymightbe,partiesarenot
associationsofthevoterswhosupportthepartycandidates.”Bycontrast,Key(1952)wroteof“thepartyinthe
electorate”alongwiththe“partyingovernment”andthe“partyorganization.”Foradisciplineheavilyinfluenced
bybehavioralismKey’sformulation—whichseemtojustifyvoter-focusedsurveyresearch—wasmoreappealing,
butnotuniversallyaccepted.
Disagreementpersists.Manyscholarshavefocusedonformalpartystructuresandthelocalorganizationsthat
soughttocontrolnominationsinordertowinthespoilsofoffice.ForMayhew(1986)thesewere“traditionalparty
organizations”and,wheredominant,“machines.”Forthosesharingthisconceptionofpartiestheriseofvoter
influenceinprimariesandthedecayofsuchorganizationsproduced“candidate-centered”politicsandparty
decline(Polsby1983;Silbey2009)or,atmost,“partiesinservice”tocandidates(Aldrich1995).Bycontrast,those
assertingparties’continuedcentralityde-emphasizeformalstructures,definingpartiesbroadlyascoalitionsof
politicians,activists,andinterestgroups(Schwartz1990;BernsteinandDominguez2003;Skinner2006;Cohenet
al.2008;Bawnetal.2012;DiSalvo2012).Thesedefinitionaldisputesunderliepersistentdisagreementsover
parties’currentstatusandtheirhistoricaltrajectory.
TheRiseoftheTraditionalPartySystem:1780sto1890s
Thefirstmajortransformationwasthemovetoapartysystem.Whilesomecolonieshadseenintermittentparty
activity,1nationalpartieshadnotexistedundertheArticlesofConfederationandtheFoundersdidnotanticipate
theirrapidemergence.TheConstitutiontheywrotedoesnotmentionpartiesandispremisedontheirabsence.For
example,theprocedurerequiringmembersoftheElectoralCollegetoassembleinstatecapitalsonthesameday
ratherthanconveningtopickaPresidentormeetingondifferentdateswasjustifiedasawayofminimizingthe
possibilityof“cabal,intrigueandcorruption.”2 Theriseofpartiesthatpickedpresidentialnomineesandelected
theelectorswhowouldformallyselectthechiefexecutivequicklyunderminedthesesafeguards.
Yetabasisforpartydivisionwasalreadyevidentinthesplitbetweenthesupportersandopponentsofthe
Constitution(Cohenetal.2008)andpartiesappearedevenduringtheadministrationofGeorgeWashington,who
hadportrayedhimselfasabovesuchdivisions.However,asHofstadter(1969)noted,whilepartiesemerged
rapidly,theideathattheywouldpersistandalternateinpowerwasnotwidelyacceptedformanyyears.The
FederalistsimprisonedcriticsofPresidentJohnAdams.RepublicanPresidents,especiallyJeffersonandMonroe,
soughttoco-optFederalists,withmuchsuccess.WhiletheJeffersonians’tacticsweremorebenignthanthe
Federalists’,theytoodidnotinitiallyseepartycompetitionasausefuloreveninevitablepractice.
Yetasthesuffrageexpandedintheearlynineteenthcentury,acceptanceofparties’inevitabilityandutilitygrew
(Hofstader1969).Thelargerelectorateandthedeclineofdeferencetosocialelitesmadethepoliticsconducted
ascorrespondencebetweengentlementhatJeffersonpracticedobsolete.Massparties,whichmobilizedlarge
numbersofactivistsofhumbleoriginsviapatronageandsocialactivities,emergedandreachedtheirapogeefrom
the1830stothe1890s,anerahistorianstermthe“PartyPeriod”(McCormick1979;McGerr1986;Silbey1991;
Formisano1999).PresidentialnominationswerenolongermadebyaCongressionalCaucus,butbylarger
assemblages,theNationalConventions.Theseyearssawmoreinstabilityinalignmentsthanlatereras.Thefirst
leadingparty,theFederalists,wasdefeatedin1800anddefunctbythe1820s.Theirrivals,theDemocratic–
Republicansbecamedominant,butsplinteredafterabriefhegemonicperiod(theEraofGoodFeelings).Two
partiesemerged:theDemocratsandtheWhigs.TheslaveryissueundidtheWhigsinthe1850s.Thetwo
contendersforthealternativepoletoTheDemocracywerethenativistAmericanParty(the“Know-Nothings”)and
Page 2 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
theanti-slaveryRepublicans.TheRepublicanstriumphedandremaintheDemocrats’opponents.Beyondthe
Democraticschismin1860,important,ifshort-lived,thirdpartiesaroserepeatedlyinthisera,includingtheAntiMasonicParty,Liberty,andFreeSoilPartiesintheantebellumyears,andtheGreenbackersandPeople’sParty
(Populists)inthelatenineteenthcentury.
TraditionalPartiesinGovernment
Unlikethepresidency,bothpartiesarealwaysrepresentedinCongress,soitisonCapitolHillwherepartisan
behaviorismosteasilyobserved.ScholarsdescribeboththeinstitutionalizationofCongressandthegrowthof
partyorganizationsonCapitolHillinthenineteenthcentury.Thesedevelopmentsarerelated,butnotalways
reinforcing.TheroleofSpeakeroftheHousewasestablishedintheConstitution,butitscurrentpartisancharacter
wasnot.JenkinsandStewart(2012)showthatthemodernSpeaker,anaggressivepartisanleaderelectedona
party-linevote,onlyemergedinthe1850s.
Mostcongressionalpartyleadershippostspost-datethepartisanSpeakership.TheChairmanshipsoftheHouse
DemocraticCaucusandtheRepublicanConferenceemergedinthemid-nineteenthcentury.TheHouseMinority
LeadershipgraduallydevelopedlaterinthenineteenthcenturyandotherkeyrolesincludingtheMajority
LeadershipandthepartyWhipsfollowedinthe1890s(Heithusen2011.)Thiselaborationoftheformalparty
structurewouldcontinueinthetwentiethcentury.
TheestablishmentofstandingcommitteesintheHouseofRepresentativesin1816wasanotherkeystepinthe
institutionalizationofCongress.Yetuntilthemid-nineteenthcenturyCongressionalmajoritiesdidnotmonopolize
committeechairmanships(JenkinsandStewart2012.)OncetheSpeakerconsistentlyappointedco-partisansto
chairs,thelatterhadreasontobepartyteamplayers.
ManynineteenthcenturyMembersofCongress(MCs)leftCapitolHillonlytoreturnafterastintinprivatelifeor
otheroffice.SinceSpeakersappointedchairmen,accruingsenioritywasnotessential.Insomeareasanormof
“rotationinoffice”(Kernell1977),reinforcedbyintrapartyinterestingivingdifferentfactionstheirchance,
encouragedMCstoretireafteratermortwo.Politiciansmadecareersaspartisans,butnotnecessarilyasMCs.
EventheSpeakershipwasnottheculminationofapoliticalcareeruntilthelatenineteenthcentury;manySpeakers
wereelectedafterashortapprenticeship,servedonlybrieflyandlaterheldotheroffices(Polsby1968).
Despiteitsslowinstitutionalization,CongresswasthedominantbranchofgovernmentduringthePartyPeriod.
VotingpatternswerequitepartisanandobstructionoccurredinbothHouses.Whiletodayweseeobstructionasa
Senatorialtactic,inthisperiodthe“disappearingquorum”wasusedbytheHouseMinoritytogreateffect,untilthe
adoptionofthe“ReedRules”in1890.
InthaterafewChiefExecutiveswerememorable.Mostwerenotevenrenominated.Presidentsseemedmore
servantsoftheirpartiesthantheirmasters.Inexplaining“WhyGreatMenAreNotChosenPresidents,”Bryce
(1914,80)pointedtotheparty“wire-pullers,”—laterobserverswouldspeakofthebossesinconvention“smokefilledrooms”—whosoughtqualitiesotherthangreatnessincandidatessuchasacceptabilitytodiversefactions,
electability,andtractability.
Overseeingasmallfederalestablishmentintheeraofthepartisanpress,PartyPeriodPresidentsdidnotdominate
themediaandwereusuallyremotefigures.Forcedtoappointcabinetsrepresentingpartyfactionsandlackingthe
largestaffofmodernPresidents,ChiefExecutiveswerenotwellplacedtoaddresstoomanyissues.Theyspent
muchoftheirtimefocusingonpatronageappointments.
Prevailingnormsstigmatizingovertpoliticalambitionhelpedproducecampaignsdominatedbypartiesratherthan
presidentialcandidatesinthePartyPeriod.Overtpoliticalambitionwasstigmatized.Presidentsdidnotstumpwhen
seekingre-election;evenmostnon-incumbentnomineesdidnotmakespeeches(Troy1996).Nomineesdidnot
appearatconventionsbecausethiswouldhaveimpliedtheyactuallysoughtthenomination(Ellis1998).Instead,
nomineesissuedanacceptancestatementorspeechdaysaftertheconvention,conductedcorrespondenceand
metvisitors.Partysurrogatesdidtherest.Thecampaignwaswagedbetweenpartisancamps,notdueling
personalities.
Page 3 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
TraditionalPartyOrganization
Powerinnineteenth-centurypartieswasconcentratedatthelocallevel.Campaign-focusednationalstructures
wereeventuallyestablished;theDemocraticNationalCommitteedatesfrom1848,theRepublicanNational
Committeefrom1856.HouseRepublicansandDemocratsformedcampaigncommitteesin1866and1870
respectively(Kolodny1998).3 Yettheseorganizationslackedsignificantpermanentstaffsorbudgetsuntilwellinto
thetwentiethcentury.ThenationalcommitteeswereoftenactiveonlyduringPresidentialelections(Cotterand
Hennessy1964).
Duringthisperiodthefederalgovernmentwassmall,vis-à-visboththenationaleconomyandstateandlocal
governments.EvenmostfederalpatronagepositionswasoutsideofWashington,inPostOffices,CustomsHouses,
andotheragencies.ChiefExecutivesconsultedwithstatepartyleadersinmakingtheseappointments.Senators
fromthePresident’spartyplayedtheleadingrole,withotherofficialsorpartyleaderssubstitutinginstatesinwhich
Presidentshadnoco-partisansenators.
Thisperiodwastheheydayofthe“partypress.”Originally,partiespublishedtheirownpapers.Laterprivately
ownedpaperswithclearpartyaffiliationsthatskewednewscoveragewereprevalent(McGerr1986).Theeditors
andpublishersofthesepaperswereoftenpartyleadersthemselves.
Interestgroupswerelessprominentthantheywouldlaterbecome,leavingpartyorganizationsthedominantrolein
campaigns.Yetsomeimportantearlylobbieshadclearpartisanties.TheGrandArmyoftheRepublic,the
organizationofUnionArmyveterans,wasincreasinglyalignedwiththeGOP,aswastheAmericanProtectiveTariff
League.
Alookatlatenineteenth-centurypartyorganizationshowshowtime-boundsomeclaimsofexceptionalismare.
Prominentnineteenth-centuryobserversdescribedAmericanpartyorganizationsasstrongerthanEuropeanones
(Bryce1891;Ford1898.).Theestablishmentofwhitemanhoodsuffrageby1830inmoststatesledtothegrowthof
largepartyorganizationsthatcouldreachthevast,far-flungelectorate.Theabsenceofcivilservicelawsuntilthe
latenineteenthcenturymeantthattherewereabundant“spoils”tomotivatejob-seekingpartyworkers.
Bycontrast,suffragewasmorelimitedinnineteenth-centuryEurope,wherenon-socialistpartieswereoftenmere
parliamentarycliqueswithlittlegrassrootsorganization.TheDemocratsandRepublicanswiththeirtorchlight
parades,patronagearmies,andpartypressmusthaveseemedquitesubstantialbycomparison.
Pollingdataarelacking,buthistoricalaccounts(Hofstadter1969;McGerr1986)alsosuggestvoters’emotional
attachmenttopartiespeakedinthisera.Voterturnoutwashigherinthelatenineteenthcenturythaneverbefore
orsince.Splitticketvotingwasuncommon.Theanti-partysentimentthatpervadedAmericanpoliticalthoughtin
theFoundingerahadfadedandtheProgressivecritiqueofpartieshadyettoemerge.
WeakerPartiesbutaStrongerTwo-partySystem
TheProgressiveEratothe1970s
FromtheProgressiveErauntilthe1970straditionalpartiesdecayedasorganizations,becamelesscohesivein
government,andseemedlessmeaningfultovoters.Partiesbecameincreasinglysubjecttoregulationinthisperiod
aswell,whichmayhavecontributedtotheirorganizationaldecline.YetinthesameeratheDemocratsand
Republicansdevelopedmoreelaboratestructuresandceasedtofaceanyrealchallengefromthirdparties.
TraditionalPartyOrganizationsinDecline
Manyscholarsassertthatthegrowthofthestateweakenedparties.Skowronek(1982)sawthestate’sgainas
parties’loss:administrativecapacitygrewaspatronagedeclined;startinginthe1880scivilservicereforms
requiredapplicantsforgovernmentjobstopasswrittentestsorattaineducationalcredentials.Similarly,for
Carpenter(2001)“bureaucraticautonomy”developedwhenpolicyentrepreneursbuiltreputationsbasedon
expertisethatwonthembipartisansupportpatronageappointeesneverhad.Coleman(1996)contendsthatthe
postNewDeal“fiscalstate”inwhichpoliticiansfocusedontamingthebusinesscycleweakenedparties.This
Page 4 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
managerialagendadidnotallowpartiestoadoptconsistentpoliciesmeaningfultovotersthewaytheearliertariff
issuehad.
Otherfactorsoutsidethestateworkedagainstpartiesinthisperiod.Changesinthenewspaperbusinessand
emergingnormsofprofessionalizationimportantthroughoutAmericansocietyinthisperiodledtoadeclineofthe
partypress(Schudson1978).Newspapersstillendorsedcandidates,buttheirpoliticalcoveragewaslessskewed,
especiallyasthenumberofpapersshrankandthesurvivorssoughtbroadappeal.
Scholarswritinginandaboutthisperiodoftensawpartiesandinterestgroupsincompetition.Schatschneider
(1942,192)statedthateffectiveparties“wouldshutoutthepressuregroups.”Hansen(1990)describesparties
andinterestgroupsascompetingsourcesofintelligenceforre-electionseekingMCs.Clemens(1997)seestherise
ofmodernlobbiesintheProgressiveEracomingatparties’expense.Majorinterestgroupsthataroseduringthis
period,includingtheAnti-SaloonLeagueandtheAmericanLegion,wereexplicitlynon-partisan.Evenunionsdid
notbecomeentrenchedintheDemocraticPartyuntilthe1930s,althoughtheyalsohadalignedwithDemocrats
earlier(Greene1998).Lobbieswithnationalconstituencieswouldalmostnecessarilybenon-partisanatatime
whentheparties’strengthvariedsomuchbyregion.
Inanagewhencivilservicereformhadweakenedtraditionalpartyorganizationsandelectronicmediaprovided
newwaystoreachvotersanewprofessionarose;thepoliticalconsultant(Sheingaten.d.).Specialistsinpolling,
advertising,pressrelations,andfund-raisingbecameveryprominentinpoliticsbythe1960s.Formanytheriseof
consultantswasfurtherevidencethatpoliticshadbecome“candidate-centered”andnolonger“party-centered”
(Menefee-Libey2000).Ifcandidatesraisedmoneyfrominterestgroupsandotherdonorstohireconsultantsto
craftacampaigntoreachvoters,whydidtheyneedpartiesandwhywouldtheyguidecandidates’behavioronce
elected?
TheDeclineofPartiesinGovernment
DuringthisperiodtheCongressionalpartyleadershipstructurecontinuedtogrow.TheHouseMajorityLeadership
wasseparatedfromtheChairmanshipoftheWaysandMeansCommitteein1919(Polsby1968,158).Sincethe
1930stheoncesolitaryHouseMajorityandMinoritywhipshaveledagrowingwhip“system”(Ripley1964;Sinclair
1998).PartyleadershipwasslowertoariseintheUpperHouse.GammandSmith(2002)detailtheemergenceof
theSenateMajorityandMinorityLeadershipfromthe1890stothe1930s,withwhipsappearingaround1915and
otherrolesfollowingstilllater.
Yetalargerleadershipstructureisnotnecessarilyamoreeffectiveone.Themid-twentieth-centuryCongresshad
moreelaboratepartyorganization,yetlessparty-linevotingthanlatenineteenth-centuryCongresses(Pooleand
Rosenthal2007).Afterthe1910revoltagainstSpeakerJoseph“Czar”CannonbyacoalitionofDemocratsand
progressiveRepublicans,Speakerslostthepowertoappointcommitteesandthe“senioritysystem”became
entrenched(Polsby1968;Polsby,GallaherandRundquist1969).Accordingtothiscustom(whichwasnevereven
aformalruleoftheHouse,letalonealaw),themajoritypartyMCwiththelongestcontinuousserviceona
committeewouldbecomechairman.Chairswhodidnotowetheirpoststopartyleadersorcaucuseswerenot
partyagents.TheSpeakeralsolosthisroleasRulesCommitteeChair,allowingthiscrucialagenda-settingpostto
fallintothehandsofunreliableRepresentatives.
IntheDemocraticParty,whichlongdominatedCongress,manyofthesafestseatswereintheSouthwherethe
GOPwaslargelyabsent.ThusSouthernDemocraticMCsaccruedmoreseniorityandaccordinglywereoverrepresentedamongcommitteechairs(WolfingerandHeifetz1965).GiventheideologicalgapbetweenNorthern
andSouthernDemocratsemergingintheNewDealyears(Katznelson,Geiger,andKryder1993),thismeantthat
therewouldbeawiderangeofviewsamongchairs,ratherthanallchairsreflectingacommonpartyline.
Inthisperiodpolicystandstakenbyrepresentativesweremorealignedwithconstituencyattitudesandlessa
functionofpartyaffiliationthanbeforeorsince(Ansolabehere,SnyderandStewart2001).Writinglateinthis
period,Mayhew(1974,27)contended,“notheoreticaltreatmentoftheUnitedStatesCongressthatpositsparties
asanalyticunitswillgoveryfar.”Withafewprominentexceptionsobstructionisttacticswereuncommon,and
whereused,asoncivilrights,werenottypicallypartisan.
Page 5 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
ThefactorsunderminingpartycohesioninCongresswerenotnecessarilythosethatweakenedtraditionalparty
organizations.ThecasethatcivilservicereformandprimariesweakenedCongressionalpartiesisweak.Social
changesandshiftsinpartycoalitionsreducedthecohesivenessofCongressionalpartiesformuchofthetwentieth
century.TheriseofindustryhelpedproducethedividebetweentheprogressiveRepublicansandthetrust-friendly
“OldGuard,”resultingintheRevoltagainstSpeakerCannon.Similarly,theGreatMigrationofAfricanAmericansto
northerncitiesandtheirincorporationinthenorthernDemocraticParty,alongwithnewlyformedCIOunions
sympathetictothem,helpedproducethedividebetweennorthernandsouthernDemocrats.
Thepresidencygrewinthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.Presidentsacquiredlargestaffsandamore
prominentpublicroleaidedbychangingnormsandtheriseofelectronicmedia.Accordingly,scholarscameto
differentiatebetween“traditional”and“modern”Presidents,withthemodernsbeginningtypicallywithFDR.4
Rossiter(1956),oneofthefirsttodiscussthemodernPresident,stillconsidered“chiefofparty”tobeakey
presidentialrole.YetNeustadt(1960)heldthattheincreasingprevalenceofdividedgovernmentandintra-party
divisionsbarredmodernPresidentsfromgoverningaspartisans.Startinginthelate1930s,DemocraticCongresses
rejectedthedomesticprogramsofDemocraticPresidents,whileEisenhowerwonmoresupportfromDemocratic
MCsthanRepublicansonsomekeyforeignpolicyissues(Karol2000.)
Neustadt’sviewofPresidentsasincreasinglyunmooredfrompartieswaslongshared(Lowi1985;Seligmanand
Covington1989;Milkis1993).ScholarsheldthatthedecayofpartyorganizationsandPresidents’newabilityto
“gopublic”(Kernell1986)viaelectronicmediameantchiefexecutivesincreasinglywonsupportbothinCongress
andtheelectorateacrosspartylines.Withstateadministrationmorecomplicatedandchiefexecutivesless
beholdentopartyorganizations,appointmentsincreasinglywentto“technocrats”andcronies,withfewerchosen
fortheirpartyties(Polsby1983).Inshort,scholarssawalesspartisanpresidency.
TheRiseofRegulationandtheEntrenchmentoftheTwo-partySystem
Whiletraditionalpartyorganizationshadbeendecliningsincethelatenineteenthcentury,thetwo-partysystem
itselfwasbecomingbothmoreentrenchedandmoreregulated.Thesearedevelopmentsofthepartysystem
towardexceptionalism.Mostotherstabledemocracieshaveseveralparties.Eveninothercountrieswithtwomajor
partiesemployingthesingle-memberdistrictpluralityelectoralsystem(Duverger1954),atleastoneotherparty
winssomelegislativeseatsorasignificantpercentageofthevote.
Duvergerianlogiccanexplaintwomajorparties,butnotwhytheAmericanonesaremoredominantthanthosein
othercountrieswithsingle-memberdistrictsandpluralityvotingliketheUK,Canada,andIndia.Anotherfactorsaid
toexplaintheexceptionaltwo-partyismoftheUSAisthepresidency,whichencouragesfactionstocoalesceinto
twocamps,eachlargeenoughtocapturetheWhiteHouse(McCormick1982,Epstein1986).Yetthepresidency
datesfrom1789,soitcannotaccountforthedisappearanceofsignificantthirdpartiesinthemidtwentiethcentury
onitsown.
Beforethemid-twentiethcenturythetwoleadingpartiesfacedatleastintermittentchallenge.FreeSoilers,
Greenbackers,Populists,Progressives,andSocialistsallelectedMCsinmultiplestates.Otherpartiesprosperedin
asinglestate,includingtheFarmer–LaboritesinMinnesota,andtheWisconsinProgressives(Valelly1989).Yet
eventheselocalexceptionstotheDemocratic–Republicanduopolyarelonggone.5Thenotablerecent
independentPresidentialcandidateshadnotiestosignificantthirdparties.Thefew“independents”electedtohigh
officeshavebeenalignedwithamajorparty,orhavehadbriefcareers.
Individualthirdpartieswereshort-lived.AsHofstadter(1955,97)observed,“Whenathirdparty’sdemands
becamepopularenough,theyareappropriatedbyoneorbothofthemajorpartiesandthethirdpartydisappears.
Thirdpartiesarelikebees;oncetheyhavestungtheydie.”Yetwhilethirdpartiesdidnotlast,theyarose
repeatedly.Theirdisappearancerequiressomeexplanation.
AnothertrendwastheriseofpoliticalregulationaffectingAmericanparties,whichisuniquelyintrusivein
comparativeperspective(Ware2006.)Thisexceptionalismisamodernonehowever.America’spartyregulation
regimeemerged,likemuchelseAPDscholarsstudy,intheProgressiveEra.Americanpartieslong“operated
withoutanylegalrecognitionorrestriction”(Winkler2000,876),yetlaterbecameseentooccupyanintermediate
positionbetweenstateandsocietyakintoa“publicutility”(Epstein1986.)
Page 6 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
Elsewhere,primariesarenotthenorm.Whereinplacetheyareoftenrestrictedtodues-payingmembersandrun
byparties(HazanandRahat2010).Bycontrast,Americanstatesmandateandconductthesepartycontests.Party
“registration,”whichunderpins“closedprimaries”andistheclosestthingtomembershipintheUSAisalsostate
administered.
Inothercountriesonepartycanalteritsruleswithouthavinganydirectimpactonitsrivals’procedures.For
example,theUKLabourPartyopeneduptheirleadershipelections—oncerestrictedtoMembersofParliament,to
ordinarypartymembersin1981,buttheConservativesonlydidin2001.
Bycontrast,theDemocrats’post-1968reformoftheirpresidentialnominationprocesshadanimmediateeffecton
theGOP(Polsby1983,Bartels1988).SeveralstatescontrolledbyDemocratsrespondedtothenewrulesby
institutingpresidentialprimaries.Asstatestypicallyholdbothparties’primariesonthesameday,Republican
contestswerecreatedatthesametime,insuringthatmostdelegatestobothparties’Conventionswereelectedvia
primaries.
Ware(2002)andReynolds(2006)explainwhypartisanstatelegislatorsenacted“anti-party”progressivereforms,
includingthestate-printedorAustralianBallotandthedirectprimary.Theyassertthatsuchreformsactually
servedsomepartyinterests.State-printedballotsendedthedangerofdissidentfactions“pasting”,thatis,handing
outballotswithdifferentnamessubstitutedfortheofficialnominees.Thenominatingconventionsprimaries
supplantedwerealreadyindeclineasnormschangedand“hustlingcandidates”arosewhowondelegatesbefore
conventionsopened.Divisiveconventionswherenominationswerestillfoughtoutweremessy,allowinglosersto
cryfraudmoreeasilythantheycouldafteraprimary.SopartyregularsaswellasProgressiveshadreasonto
supportsomereforms.
Courtshavealsoregulatedparties,oftenissuinghostilerulingsinareassuchascampaignfinance,ballotaccess,
primarystatutes,andcivilserviceprotections(Peltason1998;Winkler2000;Lowenstein2006.)Thesedecisions
arehardertoexplainasstemmingfromparties’interests.
TheseregulationsmayhelpexplainthedisappearanceofthirdpartiesintheUSA.
IsaacharoffandPildes(1998)warnagainstanti-competitive“lockups”inwhichthetwoleadingpartiesusestate
powertoprotecttheirduopolystatus.BeforetheAustralianballotreform,statesmerelycountedballotsparties
gavetovoters.Anyonewithaprintingpresscouldstartaparty.Oncestatesbeganprintingballots,theycouldand
didlimitaccesstopartieswhohadreceivedacertainvoteshareinthepast,orpresentedacertainnumberof
petitionsignaturesandafilingfee.
Epstein(1986)suggestedthattheAustralianBallotandthecreationofprimariesencouragedinterestgroupsto
capturepartiesviatheprimaryprocess,ratherthancreatetheirownparties,astheyhaddonepreviously.Yet
HiranoandSnyder(2007)findonlylimitedsupportfortheseclaims,chieflyintheSouth.
Anotherpossibleexplanationis“anti-fusion”lawsadoptedintheProgressiveErabanningcandidatesfrom
appearingontheticketsofmultipleparties(Scarrow1986).Yetsuchlawscannotexplainthedisappearanceof
thirdpartiesthathadnotreliedonfusion,includingtheMinnesotaFarmer-LaboritesandWisconsinProgressives.
Otherreforms,suchasthepublicfinancingofpresidentialcampaignsstartinginthe1970swerebiasedinfavorof
theestablishedparties(IssacharoffandPildes1998).Yetthatsystempostdatesthedeclineinthirdpartiesby
severaldecades.
Partypolicyshiftsalsoplayedarole.Valelly(1989)arguesthatNewDealagriculturalandlaborpoliciesleftthe
MinnesotaFarmLaborPartyunabletosustainthecoalitionthatitdevelopedinthe1920s.HiranoandSnyder
(2007)alsoseetheNewDealasakeydevelopment,contendingthattheDemocrats’leftwardturnduringthe
1930sstolethethunderofsmallerparties,mostofwhichwereontheleft.
CentralizationofParties
Anothertrendduringthisperiodwasthegrowingpowerofnationalpartyinstitutionsvis-à-visstateparties.
PresidentTaftwasrenominatedin1912,despiteTeddyRoosevelt’smanyprimaryvictoriesduetoTaft’scontrolof
SoutherndelegationstotheRepublicanNationalConvention.InthesolidlyDemocraticSouthofthaterathese
Page 7 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
delegationsrepresentedfewvotersandwereeasilypliedwithpatronage.Theunseemlinessofthisandthe
resultingpartyschism,ledtheGOPin1916toadoptadelegateallocationrulethattookaccountofRepublicans’
politicalstrengthinstates,aswellasstates’electoralvotes.Democratsfollowedsuitin1944(Norrender2010).
Thecivilrightsmovementpromptedfurthernationalpartyencroachmentonstateparties’traditionalprerogatives.
In1964Democratsagreedthatfuturedelegationselectedinaraciallydiscriminatorymannerwouldnotbeseated
(Norrander2010,17).Inthe“post-reform”eraofpresidentialnominations(1972topresent)nationalpartieshave
increasinglyregulatedstateparties’delegateallocationandschedulingofprimariesandcaucuses.Democrats
alsoimposedaffirmativeactioncriteria(Miroff2007,22)and,briefly,barreddelegationsselectedinprimariesin
whichRepublicanscouldparticipate.
InmanyrespectspartieswereweakerinthiserathantheyhadbeeninthePartyPeriodorwouldbesubsequently.
Traditionalpartyorganizationswereinterminaldecline.CongressionalpartieswerefragmentedandPresidents
werelessdefinedbytheirpartyaffiliationthaninothereras.Ticket-splittingwaswidespread,leadingtochronic
dividedgovernment.Turnoutdeclinedandsurveysrevealedanincreaseinself-describedindependents.
Yetsomedevelopmentalprocessesthatstrengthenedpartiesbeganorcontinuedduringthisperiod.Thetwo-party
systemceasedtofaceseriouschallengeinanystateafterthe1930s.Nationalpartyorganizationsbegantoexert
someauthorityoverstatepartiesinpresidentialnominations.PartyleadershipstructuresinCongressalsobecame
moreelaborateduringthisperiod,eveniftheydidnotcommandvastauthorityinitially.
ContemporaryParties
Sincethe1970spartieshaverevived,albeitinadifferentformfromthetraditionalone(Karol2014).Theylackthe
patronagearmiesofold,yetlinkvotersandelectedofficialsmoreeffectivelythantheydidseveraldecadesago.
Theyhaveachievedthisdespitebeingsubjecttoregulationsthatdidnotburdentheirnineteenthcentury
predecessors.Restrictionsontraditionalpartyactivityhavebeenstrengthenedasjudicialrulingshaverestricted
parties’remainingpatronageprerogativesandcampaignfinancelawshavefurthercomplicatedparties’missions.
Therevivalhasbeensothoroughastogenerateconcernsaboutexcessivepolarization.
ContemporaryPartiesinGovernment
ApartyresurgenceisevidentonCapitolHill.Legislatorsvotingpatternshavebecomefarmorepartisansincethe
1970s(PooleandRosenthal2007).Committeeleadershippositionsarealsofilledinamorepartisanmanner.
Parties’seniorMCsonacommitteearenolongerguaranteedthechairorRankingMinorityMember(RMM)position
(Rohde1991).TowinthesepostsMCsmustnowworkwithleadersandraisefundsforco-partisans.Theseniority
normremainsstrongerintheSenate,butcommitteesarelessimportantinthatbody.Republicansinbothchambers
havealsoterm-limitedchairsandRMMssincethemid1990s,furtherdevaluingseniorityandweakeningcommittee
headsvis-à-vispartyleaders,whoarenotterm-limited.Thecombinationofcohesivepartiesandcommitteechiefs
subordinatedtopartyleadersmakesthecontemporaryCongressmoresimilarinkeyrespectstoCapitolHillofthe
latenineteenthcenturythantothemid-twentiethcenturyCongress.Polarizationagainfuelspartisanobstruction,
althoughnowthisactivityisconcentratedintheSenate.
AnotheraspectoftheinstitutionalizationofCongressthathasbolsteredpartiesisthegrowthoftheCongressional
staff.AstheExecutiveBranchexpanded,Congressacquiredmorestaff.MCswerefirstgrantedafull-time
employeeonlyin1893(Malbin1980,14).Committeestaffs,whichdatetothemid-nineteenthcentury,remained
smallfordecades.Yetby2009theaverageRepresentativehad16.6employees,whiletheaverageSenator
employed40.2staffers(Petersen,Reynolds,andWilhelm2010.)CommitteechairsandRankingMinorityMembers
alsocontrolmanypositions(sincecommitteeshavestaffforthemajorityandminority);in2003theaverageHouse
Committeehad68staffers;theaverageSenateCommitteehad46(PontiusandBullock2003,2).
Thisgrowthinstaffwasoncesaidtofostercandidate-centeredpolitics.WhereMCshaddependedonparty
organizationstowinre-election,eachnowhadhisowntaxpayer-funded“enterprise”allowinghimtopursue
legislativeandelectoralgoalsinanindividualisticmanner(SalisburyandShepsle1981).Fromthisperspective,the
growthinstaffmaybeseenasanothercaseofstate-buildingweakeningparties.
Page 8 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
Yetatatimewhencivilservicelawshavecurtailedpatronage,thegrowthofCongressionalstaffallowsthousands
tomakealivinginpolitics,aspartisans.Moreover,theshareofstaffemployedintheofficesofpartyleadersand
organizationshasincreased(Lee2009).Congressionalstaffhascontinuedtogrowslowlysincethe1970s,while
partylinevotinghasskyrocketed,undercuttingclaimsthatgivingMCsmoreemployeeswouldfosterindividualism
amongthemandundermineparties.SomestaffersbuildcareersworkingforMCsfromthesameparty.Others
becomeMCsthemselves(Herrnson1994),orfillexecutivebranchpositionswhentheirpartywinstheWhiteHouse.
Manyex-staffersbecomelobbyistsandsupportthecampaignsofMCsoftheirparty.Aconsideredviewof
Congressionalstaffrevealsittobepartofthe“expandedparty”(BernsteinandDominguez2003).
ThepartyrevivalhasnotbypassedtheWhiteHouse.ThemodernPresidencytheorists’viewofaChiefExecutive
increasinglydisengagedfrompartiesisoutdated.Newpatternsareevidentsincethe1980s.Congressional–
Presidentialrelationsarenowhighlystructuredbypartyties.Presidentialsupportforabillattractsco-partisans,but
repelslegislatorsfromtheotherparty(Lee2009).Split-ticketvoting,whichcross-pressuredMCsbetweentheir
partiesandPresidentswhocarriedtheirdistricts,hasgreatlydeclined(Bartels2000,Jacobson2013).
Presidents’partytiesextendbeyondCapitolHill.PublicopinionabouttheChiefExecutiveisnowstrongly
associatedwithvoters’partyidentification.Presidentshaveincreasinglyengagedin“party-building”activitiesas
well(Galvin2010).Presidentialappointeesnowtypicallyhavestrongpartyties,asitwasintheperiodbeforethe
modernPresident.Notingthesetrends,Skinner(2012)delineatesa“modernpresidency”runningfromFDRto
Carteranda“partisanpresidency”startingwithReagan.
ContemporaryPartyOrganization
Scholarsnotegrowingactivitysincethelate1970s,inbothnational(Herrnson2013),andstate(Cotteretal.1984)
partyorganizations.TheNationalCommitteesnowhavelargebudgets,permanentstaffsandheadquarters.The
nationalcommitteessubsidizestatepartieswheretheparty’sminoritystatusmadeithardtoraisefundslocally.
Theparties’Congressionalcampaigncommitteeshavealsobecomemoreactive(Kolodny1998),recruitingand
financingcandidates,farbeyondanythingthatoccurredduringthePartyPeriod.
Yetthecentralizingtrendhasitslimits.Thevariousnationalpartybodiesareindependentofoneanother.Local
partiesretainautonomy.ThemorecentralizednominationproceduresofBritishparties,inwhichcandidatesmust
beapprovedbyboththeconstituencyassociationandthenationalleadership,andCanadianpartyleaders’
practiceof“parachuting”candidatesintoaridingremainalientoAmericans.Presidentialnominationcontents
remainprotractedaffairs,inpartbecausestatepartiesretaindiscretionindetermininghowandwhentheir
delegateswillbechosen.
Muchoftheresurgenceofpartisanshipexistsoutsideoftheformalpartystructure.Partisancommentaryhas
emergedonradio,television,andthewebsincethelate1980sthatrecallsthenineteenth-centurypartypress.
Theseoutletsreinforcethepartisanshipoftheactivistswhoplayanoutsizeroleinparties(Levendusky2013).
Thegroupsthatscholarssawreplacingparties,politicalconsultantsandinterestgroupsworkwithinpartiestoa
greatextent.CampaignconsultantsusuallyworkexclusivelywithDemocratsorRepublicans.Evensomescholars
focusedonpartystructureseeconsultantsmoreaspartnersmorethanrivalsforcontemporaryparties(Kolodny
2000).LikeCongressionalstaff,consultantsarebestunderstoodaspartofthe“expandedparty”network
(BernsteinandDominguez2003).
Interestgroups,alsooncecastasrivalstoparties,arenowcentraltopartyactivityinbothcampaignsand
governance.Partyorganizationslackingthepatronagearmiesofoldnowworkwithinterestgroupalliestogetout
thevote(Skinner2006).UnionsandBlackchurchesplaythisroleforDemocratsandevangelicalchurchesfor
Republicans.Someinterestgroupsalsomake“independentexpenditures”thatoverwhelminglyaidoneparty’s
candidates.
Thelong-termcoalitionsofsuchgroupsarethecoreofpartiesinoneview(Karol2009;Bawnetal.2012.)Karol
(2000,2009)findsthatpartyissuepositionsderivefrominterestgroups’preferences.Whengroups’preferences
changepoliticiansfromtheirpartyadapt.DemocraticMCs’protectionistturnfollowingunionpressureisone
example.
Page 9 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
Otherscholarsreversethiscausalarrow.UnionsfollowedtheleadofDemocraticpoliticiansonhealthcare
(Gottschalk2000).GOPCongressionalleadersinsistedthatcorporatelobbiessupportRepublicans’broad-based
taxcutsbeforebusiness’smoreparochialdemandswouldbemet(Sinclair2006).Partofthestoryofpolarizationis
themovementofinterestgroupsintopartycoalitions:religiousconservatives,gunrightsactivistsandanti-tax
advocatesintheGOP,andracialminorities,feminists,LGBTrightssupporters,triallawyers,andenvironmentalists
fortheDemocrats.Voterturnouthasincreasedinthispolarizedera.
Conclusion
TheAmericanpartysystemremainsdistinctive.Nootherduopolyhasbeenasdurableorasfreefromsignificant
challenge.AmericanpartiesstandoutsincetheProgressiveEraduetotheirdecentralizedandporousstructure
andthedegreetowhichtheyhavebeensubjecttoregulation.
OtherclaimsfortheexceptionalismofAmericanparties,includingtheirincoherenceandthenarrownessoftheir
disagreements,aredated,however.ThecontrastbetweentheheterogeneousAmericanpartiesandthe
disciplined,programmaticEuropeanonesthatinspiredthe1950AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationreport,
“TowardaMoreResponsibleTwo-PartySystem”isnolongerclear.PolarizationintheUSAalongwiththedeclineof
class-basedpoliticsandpartymembershipinEuropehasmadeAmericanpartieslessdistinctive(Adams,Green,
andMilazzo2012;Rae2013).
Relatedly,therehasbeena“durableshiftofgovernmentalauthority”(OrrenandSkowronek2004)withinparties
parallelingthegrowthinparticipationoverthecourseofUShistoryviasuffrageexpansionandthedeclineof
indirectelection.PresidentialnominationsshiftedfromtheinformalCongressionalcaucustothelarger,more
transparentconventionsinthe1830s,followedbyvotersgaininginfluenceviaprimariesandopencaucuses
duringthetwentiethcentury(Ceasar1979,Polsby1983,Cohenetal.2008).
TheProgressiveerabuildingofa“newAmericanstate”didnotdestroyparties,butdidundermineacertaintypeof
party.Thecomplextasksgovernmentnowperformswouldbeimpossibleforprecinctcaptainswithlittleexpertise
andlessjobsecurity.Manyobserversbelievedthatthetraditionalpartiesweretheonlypossiblekind.Forthemthe
decayofmachinesandtheriseofcivilservicemeantpartieswereindecline,ifnotirrelevant.
YetfocusinglessonformandmoreonfunctionrevealsthatpartiesarethrivingdespitetheProgressiveErareforms
andmorerecentanti-partycourtrulings.Partiesaggregateinterests,nominatecandidatesandorganizegoverning
coalitionswithgreatereffectivenesstodaythantheydidfiftyyearsago.Partiestakedifferentformsinthetwentyfirstcenturythantheydidinthepartyperiod,buttheyarenolessconsequential.Thenationalpartyorganizations
aremoreactivetheneverbefore.Groupsscholarsoncesawasrivalstopartieshavebeenintegratedinthem.
Party-linkedinterestgroupshavetakenonfunctionsthattheoldpatronage-basedorganizationsonceperformed.
Othertaskshavebeenoutsourcedtoconsultantsentrenchedinpartynetworks.Congressisaspolarizedalong
partylinesasitwasinthelatenineteenthcentury.Thedurabilityofthe“redandbluemap”revealsthatparties
havestablecoalitionsintheelectorateaswell.
Partiesprovidecuesforvotersandpartycompetitionincreasesturnout.Yetgiventhegreaterimportanceofthe
stateinmodernlife,theroutinepartisanobstructionandgridlockstrongpartiesmayproduceismoredisruptive
todaythanintheequallypolarizedGildedAge.Forbetterandforworse,partiesareresilient.Despitethehopesof
thefoundersandthebesteffortsofgenerationsofreformers,partieshavenotonlyendured,theyhaveprevailed.
References
Adams,J.,Green,J.,andMilazzo,C.2012.‘HastheBritishpublicdepolarizedalongwithPoliticalElites?An
AmericanPerspectiveonBritishPublicOpinion.’ComparativePoliticalStudies45:4,507–530.
Aldrich,J.H.1995.WhyParties?TheOriginandTransformationofPartiesinAmerica.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Ansolabehere,S.,Snyder,J.M.Jr.,andStewart,C.,III.2001.‘CandidatePositioninginU.S.HouseElections.’
AmericanJournalofPoliticalScience45:1,136–159.
Page 10 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
Bartels,L.M.2000.‘PartisanshipandVotingBehavior,1952-1996.’AmericanJournalofPoliticalScience44:1,35–
50.
Bartels,L.M.1988.PresidentialPrimariesandtheDynamicsofPublicChoice.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Bawn,K.,Cohen,M.,Karol,D.,Masket,S.,Noel,H.,andZaller,J.2012.‘ATheoryofPoliticalParties:Groups,Policy
DemandsandNominationsinAmericanPolitics.’PerspectivesonPolitics10:3,571–597.
Bernstein,J.,andDominguez,C.B.K.2003.‘CandidatesandCandidaciesintheExpandedParty’PS:Political
ScienceandPolitics36:2,165–169.
Bryce,J.1891.TheAmericanCommonwealth.Volume2.Chicago:Sergel.
Bryce,J.1914.TheAmericanCommonwealth.Volume1.NewYork:MacmillanCompany.
Burnham,W.D.1967.‘PartySystemsandPoliticalProcess’inW.N.ChambersandW.D.Burnham,eds.,The
AmericanPartySystems:StagesofPoliticalDevelopment.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,277–307.
Carpenter,D.P.2001.TheForgingofBureaucraticAutonomy:Networks,ReputationsandPolicyInnovationin
ExecutiveAgencies,1862-1928.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Ceasar,J.W.1979.PresidentialSelection:TheoryandDevelopment.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Clemens,E.1997.ThePeople’sLobby:OrganizationalInnovationandtheRiseofInterestGroupPoliticsin
America,1890-1925.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Cohen,M.,Karol,D.,Noel,H.,andZaller,J.2008.ThePartyDecides:PresidentialNominationsbeforeandafter
Reform.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Coleman,J.C.1996.PartyDeclineinAmerica:Policy,PoliticsandtheFiscalState.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Cotter,C.C.andHennessy,B.C.1964.PoliticswithoutPower.TheNationalPartyCommittees.1964.NewYork.
Atherton.
Cotter,C.C.,Gibson,J.L.,Bibby,J.F.,andHuckshorn,R.J.1984.PartyOrganizationsinAmericanPolitics.
Praeger:Westport.
DiSalvo,D.2012.EnginesofChange,PartyFactionsinAmericanPolitics,1868-2010.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Duverger,M.1954.PoliticalParties.London:Methuen.
Ellis,R.J.1998,‘AcceptingtheNomination:FromMartinVanBurentoFranklinDelanoRoosevelt,’inR.J.Ellis,ed.,
SpeakingtothePeople:TheRhetoricalPresidencyinHistoricalPerspective.Amherst:Universityof
MassachusettsPress.
Epstein,L.1986.PoliticalPartiesintheAmericanMold.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.
Ford,H.J.1898.TheRiseandGrowthofAmericanPolitics.NewYork:Macmillan.
Formisano,R.P.1999.‘The‘PartyPeriod’Revisited.’JournalofAmericanHistory86:1,93–112.
Gamm,G.,andSmith,S.S.2002.‘EmergenceofSenatePartyLeadership,’inB.I.Oppenheimer,ed.,U.S.Senate
Exceptionalism.Columbus:TheOhioStateUniversityPress.
Gottschalk,M.2000.TheShadowWelfareState:Labor,BusinessandthePoliticsofHealthCareintheU.S.
Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
Greene,J.1998.PureandSimplePolitics:TheAmericanFederationofLaborandPoliticalActivism,1881-1917.
Page 11 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hansen,J.Mark.1990.GainingAccess:CongressandtheFarmLobby,1919-1981.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Hazan,R.Y.andRahat,G.2010.DemocracywithinParties:CandidateSelectionMethodsandtheirPolitical
Consequences.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Heithusen,V.2011.‘PartyLeadersintheUnitedStatesCongress,1789-2011.’Washington,DC:Congressional
ResearchService.
Herrnson,P.S.1994.‘Congress’sOtherFarmTeam:CongressionalStaff.’Polity27:1,137–156.
Herrnson,P.S.2013.‘NationalPartiesinthe21stCentury,’inMarkD.BrewerandL.SandyMaisel,eds.,The
PartiesRespond:ChangesinAmericanPartiesandCampaigns,5thed.Boulder:WestviewPress.
Hirano,S.,andSnyder,J.M.2007.‘TheDeclineofThird-PartyVotingintheUnitedStates.’JournalofPolitics69:1,
1–16.
Hofstadter,R.1955.TheAgeofReform.Knopf:NewYork.
Hofstadter,R.1969.TheIdeaofaPartySystem:TheRiseofLegitimateOppositionintheUnitedStates,17801840.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Issacharoff,S.,andPildes,R.H.1998.‘PoliticsAsMarkets:PartisanLockupsoftheDemocraticProcess.’Stanford
LawReview50:3,643–717.
Jacobson,G.2013.‘HowtheEconomyandPartisanshipShapedthe2012PresidentialandCongressionalElections.’
PoliticalScienceQuarterly128:1,1–38.
Jenkins,J.A.andStewart,C.II.2012.FightingfortheSpeakership:TheHouseandtheRiseofPartyGovernment.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Karol,D.2000.‘DividedGovernmentandU.S.TradePolicy:MuchadoaboutNothing?’InternationalOrganization
54:4,825–844.
Karol,D.2009.PartyPositionChangeinAmericanPolitics:CoalitionManagement.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Karol,D.2014‘PartiesRevisedandRevived:DemocratsandRepublicansintheAgeofReagan,1980-2000,’inM.
Hershey,ed.,CQGuidetoU.S.PoliticalParties.Washington,DC:CQPress.
Katznelson,I.,Geiger,K.,andKryder,D.1993.‘LimitingLiberalism:TheSouthernVetoinCongress,1933-1950.’
PoliticalScienceQuarterly108:2,283-306.
Kernell,S.1977.‘TowardUnderstanding19thCenturyCareers:Ambition,CompetitionandRotation.’American
JournalofPoliticalScience21:4,669–693.
Kernell,S.1986.GoingPublic:NewStrategiesofPresidentialLeadership.Washington,DC:CQPress
Key,V.O.1952.Politics,PartiesandPressureGroups.NewYork:Crowell.
Key,V.O.1955.‘ATheoryofCriticalElections.’JournalofPolitics17:1,3–18.
Key,V.O.1959.‘SecularRealignmentandthePartySystem.’JournalofPolitics21,198–210.
Klinghard,D.2010.TheNationalizationofAmericanPoliticalParties,1880-1896.CambridgeUniversityPress:
NewYork.
Kolodny,R.1998.PursuingMajorities:CongressionalCampaignCommitteesinAmericanPolitics.Norman:
UniversityofOklahomaPress.
Page 12 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
Kolodny,R.2000.‘ElectoralPartnerships:PoliticalConsultantsandPoliticalParties,’inJ.A.ThurberandC.J.Nelson,
eds.,CampaignWarriors:PoliticalConsultantsinElections.BrookingsInstitutionPress:Washington.
Lee,F.E.2009.BeyondIdeology:Politics,PrinciplesandPartisanshipintheU.S.Senate.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Levendusky,M.2013.HowPartisanMediaPolarizeAmerica.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Lowenstein,D.H.2006.‘LegalRegulationandProtectionofAmericanParties,’W.J.CrottyandR.S.Katz,eds.,
HandbookofPartyPolitics.ThousandOaks:Sage.
Lowi,T.J.1985.ThePersonalPresident:PowerInvested,PromiseUnfulfilled.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
Malbin,M.J.1980.UnelectedRepresentatives:CongressionalStaffandtheFutureofRepresentative
Government.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Mayhew,D.R.1974.Congress:TheElectoralConnection.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Mayhew,D.R.1986.PlacingPartiesinAmericanPolitics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Mayhew,D.R.2002.ElectoralRealignments:ACritiqueofanAmericanGenre.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
McCormick,R.L.1979.‘ThePartyPeriodandPublicPolicy:AnExplanatoryHypothesis.’JournalofAmerican
History66:2,279–298.
McCormickR.P.1982.ThePresidentialGame:TheOriginsofPresidentialPolitics.NewYork:OxfordUniversity.
McGerr,M.1986.TheDeclineofPopularPolitics:TheAmericanNorth,1865-1928.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Menefee-Libey,D.2000.TheTriumphofCandidate-CenteredPolitics.Chatham,NJ:ChathamHouse.
Milkis,S.M.1993.ThePresidentandtheParties:TheTransformationoftheAmericanPartySystemsincethe
NewDeal.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Miroff,B.2007.TheLiberals’Moment:TheMcGovernInsurgencyandtheIdentityCrisisoftheDemocraticParty.
Lawrence:UniversityofKansasPress.
Neustadt,R.1960.PresidentialPower.NewYork:Wiley.
Norrander,B.2010.TheImperfectPrimary:Oddities,BiasesandStrengthsofU.S.PresidentialNomination
Politics.NewYork:Routledge.
Orren,K.,andSkowronek,S.2004.TheSearchforAmericanPoliticalDevelopment.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Peltason,J.W.1998.‘ConstitutionalLawforPoliticalParties,’inN.W.PolsbyandR.E.Wolfinger,eds.,OnParties:
EssaysHonoringAustinRanney.Berkeley:InstituteofGovernmentalStudiesPress.
Petersen,R.,Parker,E.,Reynolds,H.,andWilhelm,A.H.2010.HouseofRepresentativesandSenateStaffLevels
inMember,Committee,Leadership,andotherOffices.Washington,DC:CongressionalResearchService.
Polsby,N.W.1983ConsequencesofPartyReform.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Polsby,N.W.1968‘TheInstitutionalizationoftheU.S.HouseofRepresentatives.’AmericanPoliticalScience
Review62:1,144–168.
Pontius,J.S.,andBullock,F.M.2003.‘CongressionalStaff:DutiesandFunctions’CRSReportforCongress.
Washington,DC:CongressionalResearchService.
Poole,K.T.,andRosenthal,H.L.2007.IdeologyandCongress.Piscataway:TransactionPublishers.
Page 13 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
Rae,N.S.2013.‘TheDiminishingOddnessofAmericanPoliticalParties,’inM.D.BrewerandL.S.Maisel,eds.,The
PartiesRespond:ChangesinAmericanPartiesandCampaigns,5thed.Boulder:WestviewPress.
Reynolds,J.F.2006.TheDemiseoftheAmericanConventionSystem,1880-1911.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Ripley,R.B.1964.‘ThePartyWhipOrganizationsintheUnitedStatesHouseofRepresentatives.’American
PoliticalScienceReview58:3,561–576.
Rohde,D.W.1991.PartiesandLeadersinthePostreformHouse.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Salisbury,R.H.,andShepsle,K.A.1981.‘U.S.CongressmenasEnterprise.’LegislativeStudiesQuarterly6:4,
559–576.
Scarrow,H.A.1986.‘Duverger’sLawFusionandtheDeclineofAmerican‘Third’Parties.’WesternPolitical
Quarterly39:4,634–647.
Schattschneider,E.E.1942.PartyGovernment.NewYork:FarrarandRinehart,Inc.
Schattschneider,E.E.1960.TheSemisovereignPeople:ARealist’sViewofDemocracyinAmerica.NewYork:
Holt,RinehartandWinston.
Schlesinger,J.1984‘OntheTheoryofPartyOrganization.’JournalofPolitics46:2,369–400.
Schudson,M.1978.DiscoveringtheNews:ASocialHistoryofAmericanNewspapers.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Schwartz,M.1990.ThePartyNetwork:TheRobustOrganizationofIllinoisRepublicans.Madison:Universityof
WisconsinPress.
Shefter,M.1994.PoliticalPartiesandtheState:TheAmericanHistoricalExperience.Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
Sheingate,A.D.n.d.BuildingaBusinessofPolitics:TheOriginsandDevelopmentsofPoliticalConsultinginthe
UnitedStates,unpublishedms.,JohnsHopkinsUniversity.
Silbey,J.H.1991.TheAmericanPoliticalNation,1838-1893.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Silbey,J.H.2009.‘AmericanPoliticalParties:History,Voters,CriticalElectionsandPartySystems,inTheOxford
UniversityHandbookofAmericanPoliticalPartiesandInterestGroups.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sinclair,B.1998.Legislators,LeadersandLawmaking:TheUnitedStatesHouseofRepresentativesinthe
PostreformEra.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsPress.
Sinclair,B.2006.PartyWars:PolarizationandthePoliticsofNationalPolicyMaking.Norman:Universityof
OklahomaPress.
Skinner,R.2006.MorethanMoney:InterestGroupActioninCongressionalElections.Lanham,MD:Rowman&
Littlefield.
Skinner,R.2012.‘BarackObamaandthePartisanPresidency:FourMoreYears?’Society,423-429.June.
Skowronek,S.1982.BuildingaNewAmericanState:theExpansionofNationalAdministrativeCapacities,18771920.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Stonecash,J.M.,andBrewer,M.2009.TheDynamicsofAmericanPoliticalParties.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Sundquist,J.L.1983.DynamicsofthePartySystem:AlignmentandRealignmentofPoliticalPartiesintheUnited
States.Washington:BrookingsInstitution.
Troy,G.1996.SeeHowTheyRan:TheChangingRoleofthePresidentialCandidate.Cambridge:Harvard
Page 14 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014
Political Parties in American Political Development
UniversityPress.
Tulis,J.K.1988.TheRhetoricalPresidency.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Valelly,R.M.1989.RadicalismintheStates:TheMinnesotaFarmer-LaborPartyandtheAmericanPolitical
Economy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Ware,A.2002.TheAmericanDirectPrimary:PartyInstitutionalizationandTransformationintheNorth.New
York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Ware,A.2006.‘AmericanExceptionalism,’inW.J.CrottyandR.S.Katz,eds.,HandbookofPartyPolitics.
ThousandOaks:Sage.
Winkler,A.2000.‘Voters’RightsandParties’Wrongs:EarlyPoliticalPartyRegulationintheStateCourts,18861915.’ColumbiaLawReview100:3,873–900.
Wolfinger,R.E.,andHeifetz,J.1965.‘SafeSeats,SeniorityandPowerinCongress.’AmericanPoliticalScience
Review59:2,337–349.
Notes:
(1)BenjaminFranklinwasaleaderofthe“QuakerParty”inthePennsylvanialegislatureduringthe1750s
(Zimmerman1960).PartieswerealsopresentincolonialNewYork(Becker1908.)
(2 )Federalist68.
(3 )Senatecampaigncommitteeswereestablishedin1916whendirectelectionofSenatorsbegan(Herrnson2013,
134.)
(4 )SomefindearlyevidencePresidentsbehavinginthe“modern”mannerinsomerespectsasearlyasWilson
(Tulis1988)orevenCleveland(Klinghard2010).
(5)Theabsenceananti-fusionlawinNewYorkhaspermittedthesurvivalofminorpartiesthere,althoughthey
haverarelycapturedamajoroffice(Shefter1994).
DavidKarol
DavidKarolisanassociateprofessorofpoliticsattheUniversityofMaryland.
Page 15 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 06 October 2014