political parties in the us essay

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

10.1 History of American Political Parties

Learning objectives.

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:

• What is a political party?
• What were James Madison’s fears about political factions?
• How did American political parties develop?
• How did political machines function?

Political parties are enduring organizations under whose labels candidates seek and hold elective offices (Epstein, 1986). Parties develop and implement rules governing elections. They help organize government leadership (Key Jr., 1964). Political parties have been likened to public utilities, such as water and power companies, because they provide vital services for a democracy.

The endurance and adaptability of American political parties is best understood by examining their colorful historical development. Parties evolved from factions in the eighteenth century to political machines in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, parties underwent waves of reform that some argue initiated a period of decline. The renewed parties of today are service-oriented organizations dispensing assistance and resources to candidates and politicians (Aldrich, 1995; Eldersveld & Walton Jr., 2000).

The Development of Political Parties

A timeline of the development of political parties can be accessed at http://www.edgate.com/elections/inactive/the_parties .

Fear of Faction

The founders of the Constitution were fearful of the rise of factions, groups in society that organize to advance a political agenda. They designed a government of checks and balances that would prevent any one group from becoming too influential. James Madison famously warned in Federalist No. 10 of the “mischiefs of faction,” particularly a large majority that could seize control of government (Publius, 2001). The suspicion of parties persisted among political leaders for more than a half century after the founding. President James Monroe opined in 1822, “Surely our government may go on and prosper without the existence of parties. I have always considered their existence as the curse of the country” (Hofstadter, 1969).

Figure 10.1

<<a href="/app/uploads/sites/193/2016/10/533c8686f8d280ce42699201aeb7f938.jpg">img src=”https://open.lib.umn.edu/app/uploads/sites/193/2016/10/533c8686f8d280ce42699201aeb7f938.jpg” width=”300″ alt=”A newspaper cartoon depicting conflicts that arose between the Federalists and Republicans, who sought to control the government.”/>

Newspaper cartoons depicted conflicts that arose between the Federalists and Republicans, who sought to control government.

Source: http://www.vermonthistory.org/freedom_and_unity/new_frontier/images/cartoon.gif .

Despite the ambiguous feelings expressed by the founders, the first modern political party, the Federalists, appeared in the United States in 1789, more than three decades before parties developed in Great Britain and other western nations (Chambers & Burnham, 1975). Since 1798, the United States has only experienced one brief period without national parties, from 1816 to 1827, when infighting following the War of 1812 tore apart the Federalists and the Republicans (Chambers, 1963).

Parties as Factions

The first American party system had its origins in the period following the Revolutionary War. Despite Madison’s warning in Federalist No. 10, the first parties began as political factions. Upon taking office in 1789, President George Washington sought to create an “enlightened administration” devoid of political parties (White & Shea, 2000). He appointed two political adversaries to his cabinet, Alexander Hamilton as treasury secretary and Thomas Jefferson as secretary of state, hoping that the two great minds could work together in the national interest. Washington’s vision of a government without parties, however, was short-lived.

Hamilton and Jefferson differed radically in their approaches to rectifying the economic crisis that threatened the new nation (Charles, 1956). Hamilton proposed a series of measures, including a controversial tax on whiskey and the establishment of a national bank. He aimed to have the federal government assume the entire burden of the debts incurred by the states during the Revolutionary War. Jefferson, a Virginian who sided with local farmers, fought this proposition. He believed that moneyed business interests in the New England states stood to benefit from Hamilton’s plan. Hamilton assembled a group of powerful supporters to promote his plan, a group that eventually became the Federalist Party (Hofstadter, 1969).

The Federalists and the Republicans

The Federalist Party originated at the national level but soon extended to the states, counties, and towns. Hamilton used business and military connections to build the party at the grassroots level, primarily in the Northeast. Because voting rights had been expanded during the Revolutionary War, the Federalists sought to attract voters to their party. They used their newfound organization for propagandizing and campaigning for candidates. They established several big-city newspapers to promote their cause, including the Gazette of the United States , the Columbian Centinel , and the American Minerva , which were supplemented by broadsheets in smaller locales. This partisan press initiated one of the key functions of political parties—articulating positions on issues and influencing public opinion (Chambers, 1963).

Figure 10.2 The Whiskey Rebellion

Farmers protested against a tax on whiskey imposed by the federal government. President George Washington established the power of the federal government to suppress rebellions by sending the militia to stop the uprising in western Pennsylvania. Washington himself led the troops to establish his presidential authority.

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WhiskeyRebellion.jpg .

Disillusioned with Washington’s administration, especially its foreign policy, Jefferson left the cabinet in 1794. Jefferson urged his friend James Madison to take on Hamilton in the press, stating, “For God’s sake, my Dear Sir, take up your pen, select your most striking heresies, and cut him to pieces in the face of the public” (Chambers, 1963). Madison did just that under the pen name of Helvidius. His writings helped fuel an anti-Federalist opposition movement, which provided the foundation for the Republican Party. This early Republican Party differs from the present-day party of the same name. Opposition newspapers, the National Gazette and the Aurora , communicated the Republicans’ views and actions, and inspired local groups and leaders to align themselves with the emerging party (Chambers, 1963). The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, staged by farmers angered by Hamilton’s tax on whiskey, reignited the founders’ fears that violent factions could overthrow the government (Schudson, 1998).

First Parties in a Presidential Election

Political parties were first evident in presidential elections in 1796, when Federalist John Adams was barely victorious over Republican Thomas Jefferson. During the election of 1800, Republican and Federalist members of Congress met formally to nominate presidential candidates, a practice that was a precursor to the nominating conventions used today. As the head of state and leader of the Republicans, Jefferson established the American tradition of political parties as grassroots organizations that band together smaller groups representing various interests, run slates of candidates for office, and present issue platforms (White & Shea, 2000).

The early Federalist and Republican parties consisted largely of political officeholders. The Federalists not only lacked a mass membership base but also were unable to expand their reach beyond the monied classes. As a result, the Federalists ceased to be a force after the 1816 presidential election, when they received few votes. The Republican Party, bolstered by successful presidential candidates Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, was the sole surviving national party by 1820. Infighting soon caused the Republicans to cleave into warring factions: the National Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans (Formisano, 1981).

Establishment of a Party System

A true political party system with two durable institutions associated with specific ideological positions and plans for running the government did not begin to develop until 1828. The Democratic-Republicans, which became the Democratic Party, elected their presidential candidate, Andrew Jackson. The Whig Party, an offshoot of the National Republicans, formed in opposition to the Democrats in 1834 (Holt, 2003).

The era of Jacksonian Democracy , which lasted until the outbreak of the Civil War, featured the rise of mass-based party politics. Both parties initiated the practice of grassroots campaigning, including door-to-door canvassing of voters and party-sponsored picnics and rallies. Citizens voted in record numbers, with turnouts as high as 96 percent in some states (Holt, 2003). Campaign buttons publically displaying partisan affiliation came into vogue. The spoils system , also known as patronage, where voters’ party loyalty was rewarded with jobs and favors dispensed by party elites, originated during this era.

The two-party system consisting of the Democrats and Republicans was in place by 1860. The Whig Party had disintegrated as a result of internal conflicts over patronage and disputes over the issue of slavery. The Democratic Party, while divided over slavery, remained basically intact (Holt, 2003). The Republican Party was formed in 1854 during a gathering of former Whigs, disillusioned Democrats, and members of the Free-Soil Party, a minor antislavery party. The Republicans came to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln.

Figure 10.3 Thomas Nast Cartoon of the Republican Elephant

The donkey and the elephant have been symbols of the two major parties since cartoonist Thomas Nast popularized these images in the 1860s.

Source: Photo courtesy of Harper’s Weekly , http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NastRepublicanElephant.jpg .

Parties as Machines

Parties were especially powerful in the post–Civil War period through the Great Depression, when more than 15 million people immigrated to the United States from Europe, many of whom resided in urban areas. Party machines , cohesive, authoritarian command structures headed by bosses who exacted loyalty and services from underlings in return for jobs and favors, dominated political life in cities. Machines helped immigrants obtain jobs, learn the laws of the land, gain citizenship, and take part in politics.

Machine politics was not based on ideology, but on loyalty and group identity. The Curley machine in Boston was made up largely of Irish constituents who sought to elect their own (White & Shea, 2000). Machines also brought different groups together. The tradition of parties as ideologically ambiguous umbrella organizations stems from Chicago-style machines that were run by the Daley family. The Chicago machine was described as a “hydra-headed monster” that “encompasses elements of every major political, economic, racial, ethnic, governmental, and paramilitary power group in the city” (Rakove, 1975). The idea of a “balanced ticket” consisting of representatives of different groups developed during the machine-politics era (Pomper, 1992).

Because party machines controlled the government, they were able to sponsor public works programs, such as roads, sewers, and construction projects, as well as social welfare initiatives, which endeared them to their followers. The ability of party bosses to organize voters made them a force to be reckoned with, even as their tactics were questionable and corruption was rampant (Riechley, 1992). Bosses such as William Tweed in New York were larger-than-life figures who used their powerful positions for personal gain. Tammany Hall boss George Washington Plunkitt describes what he called “honest graft”:

My party’s in power in the city, and its goin’ to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, that they’re going to lay out a new park at a certain place. I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes the plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before. Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft (Riordon, 1994).

Enduring Image

Boss Tweed Meets His Match

The lasting image of the political party boss as a corrupt and greedy fat cat was the product of a relentless campaign by American political cartoonist Thomas Nast in Harper’s Weekly from 1868 to 1871. Nast’s target was William “Boss” Tweed, leader of the New York Tammany Hall party machine, who controlled the local Democratic Party for nearly a decade.

Nast established the political cartoon as a powerful force in shaping public opinion and the press as a mechanism for “throwing the rascals” out of government. His cartoons ingrained themselves in American memories because they were among the rare printed images available to a wide audience in a period when photographs had not yet appeared in newspapers or magazines, and when literacy rates were much lower than today. Nast’s skill at capturing political messages in pictures presented a legacy not just for today’s cartoonists but for photographers and television journalists. His skill also led to the undoing of Boss Tweed.

Tweed and his gang of New York City politicians gained control of the local Democratic Party by utilizing the Society of Tammany (Tammany Hall), a fraternal organization, as a base. Through an extensive system of patronage whereby the city’s growing Irish immigrant population was assured employment in return for votes, the Tweed Ring was able to influence the outcome of elections and profit personally from contracts with the city. Tweed controlled all New York state and city Democratic Party nominations from 1860 to 1870. He used illegal means to force the election of a governor, a mayor, and the speaker of the assembly.

The New York Times , Harper’s Weekly , reform groups, and disgruntled Democrats campaigned vigorously against Tweed and his cronies in editorials and opinion pieces, but none was as successful as Nast’s cartoons in conveying the corrupt and greedy nature of the regime. Tweed reacted to Nast’s cartoon, “Who Stole the People’s Money,” by demanding of his supporters, “Stop them damned pictures. I don’t care what the papers write about me. My constituents can’t read. But, damn it, they can see pictures” (Kandall, 2011).

“Who Stole the People’s Money.” Thomas Nast’s cartoon, “Who Stole the People’s Money,” implicating the Tweed Ring appeared in Harper’s Weekly on August 19, 1871.

Source: Photo courtesy of Harper’s Weekly , http://www.harpweek.com/09cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon-Large.asp?Month=August&Date=19 .

The Tweed Ring was voted out in 1871, and Tweed was ultimately jailed for corruption. He escaped and was arrested in Spain by a customs official who didn’t read English, but who recognized him from the Harper’s Weekly political cartoons. He died in jail in New York.

Parties Reformed

Not everyone benefited from political machines. There were some problems that machines either could not or would not deal with. Industrialization and the rise of corporate giants created great disparities in wealth. Dangerous working conditions existed in urban factories and rural coal mines. Farmers faced falling prices for their products. Reformers blamed these conditions on party corruption and inefficiency. They alleged that party bosses were diverting funds that should be used to improve social conditions into their own pockets and keeping their incompetent friends in positions of power.

The Progressive Era

The mugwumps, reformers who declared their independence from political parties, banded together in the 1880s and provided the foundation for the Progressive Movement . The Progressives initiated reforms that lessened the parties’ hold over the electoral system. Voters had been required to cast color-coded ballots provided by the parties, which meant that their vote choice was not confidential. The Progressives succeeded by 1896 in having most states implement the secret ballot. The secret ballot is issued by the state and lists all parties and candidates. This system allows people to split their ticket when voting rather than requiring them to vote the party line. The Progressives also hoped to lessen machines’ control over the candidate selection process. They advocated a system of direct primary elections in which the public could participate rather than caucuses , or meetings of party elites. The direct primary had been instituted in only a small number of states, such as Wisconsin, by the early years of the twentieth century. The widespread use of direct primaries to select presidential candidates did not occur until the 1970s.

The Progressives sought to end party machine dominance by eliminating the patronage system. Instead, employment would be awarded on the basis of qualifications rather than party loyalty. The merit system, now called the civil service , was instituted in 1883 with the passage of the Pendleton Act. The merit system wounded political machines, although it did not eliminate them (Merriam & Gosnell, 1922).

Progressive reformers ran for president under party labels. Former president Theodore Roosevelt split from the Republicans and ran as the Bull Moose Party candidate in 1912, and Robert LaFollette ran as the Progressive Party candidate in 1924. Republican William Howard Taft defeated Roosevelt, and LaFollette lost to Republican Calvin Coolidge.

Figure 10.4 Progressive Reformers Political Cartoon

The Progressive Reformers’ goal of more open and representative parties resonate today.

Source: Photo courtesy of E W Kemble, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Theodore_Roosevelt_Progressive_Party_Cartoon,_1912_copy.jpg .

New Deal and Cold War Eras

Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal program for leading the United States out of the Great Depression in the 1930s had dramatic effects on political parties. The New Deal placed the federal government in the pivotal role of ensuring the economic welfare of citizens. Both major political parties recognized the importance of being close to the power center of government and established national headquarters in Washington, DC.

An era of executive-centered government also began in the 1930s, as the power of the president was expanded. Roosevelt became the symbolic leader of the Democratic Party (Riechley, 1992). Locating parties’ control centers in the national capital eventually weakened them organizationally, as the basis of their support was at the local grassroots level. National party leaders began to lose touch with their local affiliates and constituents. Executive-centered government weakened parties’ ability to control the policy agenda (White & Shea, 2000).

The Cold War period that began in the late 1940s was marked by concerns over the United States’ relations with Communist countries, especially the Soviet Union. Following in the footsteps of the extremely popular president Franklin Roosevelt, presidential candidates began to advertise their independence from parties and emphasized their own issue agendas even as they ran for office under the Democratic and Republican labels. Presidents, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, won elections based on personal, rather than partisan, appeals (Caeser, 1979).

Candidate-Centered Politics

Political parties instituted a series of reforms beginning in the late 1960s amid concerns that party elites were not responsive to the public and operated secretively in so-called smoke-filled rooms. The Democrats were the first to act, forming the McGovern-Fraser Commission to revamp the presidential nominating system. The commission’s reforms, adopted in 1972, allowed more average voters to serve as delegates to the national party nominating convention , where the presidential candidate is chosen. The result was that many state Democratic parties switched from caucuses, where convention delegates are selected primarily by party leaders, to primary elections, which make it easier for the public to take part. The Republican Party soon followed with its own reforms that resulted in states adopting primaries (Crotty, 1984).

Figure 10.5 Jimmy Carter Campaigning in the 1980 Presidential Campaign

Democrat Jimmy Carter, a little-known Georgia governor and party outsider, was one of the first presidential candidates to run a successful campaign by appealing to voters directly through the media. After Carter’s victory, candidate-centered presidential campaigns became the norm.

Source: Used with permission from AP Photo/Wilson.

The unintended consequence of reform was to diminish the influence of political parties in the electoral process and to promote the candidate-centered politics that exists today. Candidates build personal campaign organizations rather than rely on party support. The media have contributed to the rise of candidate-centered politics. Candidates can appeal directly to the public through television rather than working their way through the party apparatus when running for election (Owen, 1991). Candidates use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to connect with voters. Campaign professionals and media consultants assume many of the responsibilities previously held by parties, such as developing election strategies and getting voters to the polls.

Key Takeaways

Political parties are enduring organizations that run candidates for office. American parties developed quickly in the early years of the republic despite concerns about factions expressed by the founders. A true, enduring party system developed in 1828. The two-party system of Democrats and Republicans was in place before the election of President Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Party machines became powerful in the period following the Civil War when an influx of immigrants brought new constituents to the country. The Progressive Movement initiated reforms that fundamentally changed party operations. Party organizations were weakened during the period of executive-centered government that began during the New Deal.

Reforms of the party nominating system resulted in the rise of candidate-centered politics beginning in the 1970s. The media contributes to candidate-centered politics by allowing candidates to take their message to the public directly without the intervention of parties.

• What did James Madison mean by “the mischiefs of faction?” What is a faction? What are the dangers of factions in politics?
• What role do political parties play in the US political system? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the party system?
• How do contemporary political parties differ from parties during the era of machine politics? Why did they begin to change?

Aldrich, J. H., Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995)

Caeser, J. W., Presidential Selection (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979).

Chambers, W. N., Political Parties in a New Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963).

Chambers, W. N. and Walter Dean Burnham, The American Party Systems (New York, Oxford University Press, 1975).

Charles, J., The Origins of the American Party System (New York: Harper & Row, 1956).

Crotty, W., American Parties in Decline (Boston: Little, Brown, 1984).

Eldersveld, S. J. and Hanes Walton Jr., Political Parties in American Society , 2nd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000).

Epstein, L. D., Political Parties in the American Mold (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), 3.

Formisano, R. P., “Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes—System, No,” in The Evolution of the American Electoral Systems , ed. Paul Kleppner, Walter Dean Burnham, Ronald P. Formisano, Samuel P. Hays, Richard Jensen, and William G. Shade (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 37–76.

Hofstadter, R., The Idea of a Party System (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 200.

Holt, M. F., The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Kandall, J., “Boss,” Smithsonian Magazine , February 2002, accessed March 23, 2011, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/boss.html .

Key Jr., V. O., Politics, Parties, & Pressure Groups , 5th ed. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1964).

Merriam, C. and Harold F. Gosnell, The American Party System (New York: MacMillan, 1922).

Owen, D., Media Messages in American Presidential Elections (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991).

Pomper, G. M., Passions and Interests (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992).

Publius (James Madison), “The Federalist No. 10,” in The Federalist , ed. Robert Scigliano (New York: The Modern Library Classics, 2001), 53–61.

Rakove, M., Don’t Make No Waves, Don’t Back No Losers: An Insider’s Analysis of the Daley Machine (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975), 3.

Riechley, A. J., The Life of the Parties (New York: Free Press, 1992).

Riordon, W. L., Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (St. James, NY: Brandywine Press, 1994), 3.

Schudson, M., The Good Citizen (New York: Free Press, 1998).

White, J. K. and Daniel M. Shea, New Party Politics (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000).

American Government and Politics in the Information Age Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

American Political System

Exploring the american political system, institutions, processes, and challenges, introduction.

The American political system is a complex and multifaceted structure that plays a crucial role in shaping the nation’s governance and policies. Understanding this system is of paramount importance as it directly impacts the lives of every American citizen and influences global politics. This essay aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the American political system, delving into its historical foundations, institutional components, electoral processes, contemporary challenges, and potential reforms.

Historical Foundations

The roots of the American political system can be traced back to its colonial and revolutionary past. The early American colonists, heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideas, sought to establish a system that would protect their rights and provide a framework for self-governance.

The development of the United States Constitution in 1787 was a pivotal moment in American history. It laid the groundwork for the federal government and established the principles of separation of powers and federalism . The Constitution’s creation was not without controversy, leading to a spirited debate captured in the Federalist Papers, authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

During this period, early political parties, such as the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to emerge, reflecting differing ideologies and visions for the new nation. These parties played a significant role in shaping the political landscape of the United States.

The Three Branches of Government

The American political system is characterized by its tripartite structure, consisting of three co-equal branches of government: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. Each branch has distinct roles and responsibilities, ensuring a system of checks and balances that prevent any one branch from accumulating too much power.

The Executive Branch

The Executive Branch is headed by the President of the United States, who serves as both the head of state and the head of government. The President’s powers and duties include the execution of laws, foreign policy decisions, and the appointment of key government officials. Executive agencies and departments, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, carry out various government functions under the President’s direction. This branch plays a crucial role in shaping domestic and international policies.

The Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch, also known as Congress, is responsible for making and passing laws. It consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Members of the House of Representatives, known as Representatives, are elected based on population, while each state has two Senators. The legislative process involves the introduction, debate, and voting on bills, which, once approved by both chambers, become law. Committees within Congress play a vital role in examining and refining proposed legislation, and party dynamics influence the legislative agenda. Additionally, the power of impeachment, as outlined in the Constitution, gives Congress the authority to remove high-ranking government officials.

The Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch is responsible for interpreting and applying the law. The federal court system, with the Supreme Court at its apex, ensures the rule of law is upheld throughout the nation. The Supreme Court, comprised of nine justices, holds the final authority in legal matters and has the power of judicial review, enabling it to declare laws unconstitutional. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, have had a profound impact on American society and civil rights. The judicial branch’s role in safeguarding the Constitution and individual rights cannot be overstated.

The Electoral Process

The American electoral process is a cornerstone of the democratic system, providing citizens with the opportunity to choose their representatives and leaders. This section delves into the intricacies of elections, political parties, and the unique features that define American democracy.

Elections and Political Parties

At the heart of the electoral process are elections themselves, which serve as the mechanism through which citizens express their preferences. The United States has a two-party system dominated by the Democratic and Republican parties. These parties play a pivotal role in shaping the political landscape, with candidates from each party competing in various elections, from local offices to the presidency.

Primary elections and caucuses are key components of the American electoral process. These events determine each party’s nominee for major elections. They allow party members to participate in the selection of candidates who will represent their party in the general election.

Voter Participation and Demographics

Voter participation is a crucial aspect of any democracy. However, voter turnout in the United States varies across elections and demographics. Factors such as voter registration processes, election timing, and political engagement influence turnout rates.

Demographics also play a significant role in shaping elections. Understanding the demographics of voters and their voting behavior is essential for political campaigns and parties. Factors like age, race, gender, and socioeconomic status can impact voting choices and influence election outcomes.

Gerrymandering and Its Effects

Gerrymandering is a practice that involves manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party or group over another. This practice can distort the representation of citizens and undermine the principle of fair representation. Gerrymandering has been a contentious issue in American politics, with ongoing debates about how to address it and ensure fair and competitive elections.

Interest Groups and Political Movements

Interest groups and political movements are essential components of the American political system, serving as vehicles for citizens to voice their concerns, advocate for specific policies, and influence government decisions. This section explores the role of interest groups, lobbying efforts, grassroots movements, and the impact of money in politics.

Role and Influence of Interest Groups

Interest groups, often organized around specific issues or industries, seek to advance their agendas by influencing government policies and decisions. These groups can represent a wide range of interests, including labor unions, environmental organizations, and business associations. Their activities include lobbying, advocacy, and mobilizing their members to support or oppose legislation.

Lobbying and Advocacy

Lobbying is a common practice in American politics, where interest groups and their representatives engage with elected officials to persuade them to support their positions. Lobbyists use various strategies, including providing information, campaign contributions, and building relationships with lawmakers. While lobbying is a legitimate means of influencing the political process, concerns about the influence of money in politics and potential conflicts of interest have led to ongoing debates and calls for transparency and accountability.

Grassroots Movements and Their Impact

Grassroots movements are social and political movements driven by individuals and communities rather than established organizations. They often emerge in response to specific issues or perceived injustices. These movements have played a significant role in American history, from the civil rights movement of the 1960s to contemporary movements like Black Lives Matter and climate activism. Grassroots movements rely on public support, protests, and advocacy to bring about change and influence government policies.

Money in Politics and Campaign Finance

Money plays a central role in American politics, funding election campaigns, and shaping political discourse. Campaign finance laws and regulations govern the flow of money into elections and political activities. Super PACs, dark money contributions, and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision have raised questions about transparency, the influence of wealthy donors, and the potential for corruption in the political system. Reform efforts seek to address these concerns and ensure that the political process remains fair and accessible to all citizens.

Contemporary Challenges

The American political system faces a multitude of contemporary challenges that test its resilience and adaptability in an ever-changing world. This section explores some of the pressing issues and concerns that confront the system in the 21st century.

Polarization and Political Gridlock

One of the most significant challenges facing the American political landscape is the increasing polarization of political parties and the resulting political gridlock. Deep ideological divisions between Democrats and Republicans have made it increasingly difficult to find common ground and pass essential legislation. This polarization often leads to legislative standoffs and undermines the ability of government institutions to address pressing issues.

The Role of Media in Shaping Public Opinion

The media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and influencing political discourse. The rise of cable news, social media, and online news platforms has transformed the way information is disseminated and consumed. However, concerns about media bias, the spread of misinformation, and echo chambers that reinforce preexisting beliefs have raised questions about the media’s impact on political polarization and the quality of public discourse.

Issues of Representation and Minority Rights

Issues of representation and the protection of minority rights remain at the forefront of American politics. Questions about the fairness of electoral processes, voter suppression, and the representation of marginalized communities persist. Debates over voting rights, immigration policy, and civil rights continue to shape the political landscape and highlight the ongoing struggle for equal representation and justice.

The Impact of Globalization on American Politics

Globalization has significantly influenced American politics, with economic, cultural, and geopolitical forces reshaping the nation’s priorities and challenges. Trade agreements, international diplomacy, and global threats like climate change and pandemics require a coordinated and adaptive response. The American political system must navigate the complexities of a globalized world while balancing national interests and international responsibilities.

Future Prospects and Reform

As the American political system grapples with contemporary challenges, it also faces questions about its future prospects and the need for reform. This section examines potential paths forward and the possibilities for enhancing the system’s effectiveness and accountability.

Potential Reforms to Improve the Political System

Efforts to reform the American political system have been ongoing throughout its history. Various proposals have emerged to address issues such as campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, and the role of money in politics. Proponents of reform advocate for changes to make the political process more transparent, accessible, and responsive to the needs of citizens.

The Role of Civic Education and Engagement

Civic education and engagement play a crucial role in the future of the American political system. Encouraging citizens to become informed and active participants in the political process can help strengthen democracy. Civics education in schools, initiatives to increase voter participation, and programs that promote civic literacy all contribute to a more engaged and informed electorate.

Speculation on the Future of American Politics

Speculating about the future of American politics is a complex endeavor. Predicting how the system will evolve in response to changing demographics, technological advancements, and global challenges is a subject of ongoing debate. Some foresee a more inclusive and responsive political system, while others express concerns about further polarization and division. The future of American politics is shaped by the choices and actions of its citizens and leaders.

In conclusion, the American political system is a dynamic and intricate framework that has evolved over centuries, shaped by historical events, ideologies, and the efforts of countless individuals. It serves as a model for democratic governance globally, but it also faces significant challenges in the modern era.

From its historical foundations, with the creation of the Constitution and the birth of political parties, to the contemporary challenges of polarization, media influence, and minority rights, the American political system has demonstrated both resilience and adaptability. It continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s policies and direction.

While the system faces challenges such as political gridlock and the impact of globalization, there is hope for its future. Potential reforms, increased civic education and engagement, and ongoing efforts to address issues of representation and equality all offer paths forward. The future of American politics will ultimately depend on the collective will and actions of its citizens.

1. Madison, James, et al. “The Federalist Papers.” Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/federalist.html.

2. United States Constitution. National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution.

3. Katznelson, Ira. “Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time.” Liveright Publishing, 2014.

4. Smith, Adam. “The Wealth of Nations.” Penguin Classics, 1982.

5. Ginsburg, Tom, and Elkins, Zachary. “The American System of Government: Politics and Government in the United States.” Yale University Press, 2018.

Frequently Asked Questions about The American Political System

The American Political System is the framework of government and political processes that operate in the United States. It is characterized by its democratic principles and separation of powers among three branches: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The system is guided by the United States Constitution, which establishes the rules and principles governing the nation’s governance. It includes processes for electing representatives, making and enforcing laws, and resolving disputes. The American political system also incorporates the role of political parties, interest groups, and grassroots movements in shaping public policy.

The American Political System is built on several fundamental principles:

Democracy : The system is rooted in the idea that the power to govern is derived from the consent of the governed. Citizens have the right to participate in the political process through elections and civic engagement.

Separation of Powers : The system divides government authority among three branches, ensuring that no single branch becomes too powerful. This separation, as outlined in the Constitution, is designed to prevent abuses of power.

Checks and Balances : Each branch has the ability to check the actions of the other two, preventing any one branch from dominating the others. This system of checks and balances promotes accountability and oversight.

Federalism : The American system features both a federal government and state governments, with powers divided between them. States have their own governments and jurisdictions, while the federal government handles national and international matters.

Presidents in the United States are elected through a complex process. First, political parties hold primary elections and caucuses in each state to choose their candidates. The winners become the official nominees of their respective parties. Then, a general election is held on the first Tuesday in November, where citizens cast their votes for president.

However, the U.S. does not directly elect the president through popular vote. Instead, the Electoral College system is used. Each state has a set number of electoral votes based on its representation in Congress (the number of senators and representatives combined). When citizens vote in the general election, they are technically voting for a slate of electors chosen by their state’s political parties.

These electors then meet in their respective state capitals in December to cast their votes for president. To win the presidency, a candidate must secure a majority of the electoral votes, which is currently 270 out of 538. In some cases, this system can lead to a candidate winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, as seen in several U.S. presidential elections.

Check out our in-depth piece on  the US Presidency.

Political parties are central to the American Political System and serve as crucial intermediaries between citizens and government. They play several key roles:

Candidate Nomination : Political parties select and endorse candidates to run for public office, including the presidency, through primary elections and caucuses.

Policy Formulation : Parties develop and promote policy platforms that reflect their ideologies and priorities. This helps voters understand the positions and values of the candidates they support.

Mobilizing Voters : Parties engage in voter outreach, registration, and mobilization efforts to encourage citizens to participate in elections.

Representation : Elected officials from the same party often work together to advance their party’s agenda in government, promoting party unity and cooperation.

Opposition : Parties that are not in power play the role of the opposition, providing checks and balances by scrutinizing and challenging the policies and actions of the party in power.

Shaping Public Opinion : Parties, along with the media, contribute to shaping public opinion by framing political debates and issues.

Political parties are a fundamental part of the American political landscape and help organize and structure the political process in the country.

Check out our in-depth piece on  Political Parties .

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land and plays a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution and shaping American jurisprudence. Its primary functions include:

Judicial Review : The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, allowing it to examine laws and government actions to determine their constitutionality. This means the Court can strike down laws that it deems unconstitutional, shaping the legal landscape for the entire nation.

Interpreting the Constitution : The Court interprets the Constitution, settling disputes over its meaning and application. Landmark decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, have had profound impacts on civil rights and social policy.

Resolving Disputes : The Court hears cases involving conflicts between states, federal vs. state laws, and disagreements between branches of government. Its decisions provide legal clarity and finality to these disputes.

Setting Legal Precedent : Supreme Court decisions become legal precedent, guiding lower courts and future cases. This precedent influences how laws are applied and interpreted across the country.

Protecting Individual Rights : The Court plays a vital role in safeguarding individual rights and liberties. It has ruled on cases related to free speech, privacy, and due process, shaping the protection of civil rights in the United States.

Check out our in-depth review of the Supreme Court and the Judiciary of the US .

Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party over another. It can have significant impacts on the American political system:

Unfair Representation : Gerrymandering can lead to distorted representation, where the party in power redraws districts to secure more seats than their share of the popular vote would warrant, undermining the principle of fair representation.

Political Polarization : Gerrymandered districts often produce extreme partisan outcomes, as they are designed to be safe for one party. This can contribute to political polarization and discourage cooperation between parties.

Incumbent Protection : Gerrymandering can protect incumbents, making it difficult for challengers to unseat sitting politicians. This can reduce competition in elections and limit voters’ choices.

Undermining Trust : When voters perceive that their districts have been gerrymandered, it can erode trust in the electoral process and discourage civic engagement.

Efforts to address gerrymandering include calls for independent redistricting commissions and legal challenges to redraw district maps more fairly.

Voter participation in the United States faces several challenges:

Voter Registration : Complex voter registration processes and strict ID requirements can create barriers to voter participation, particularly for marginalized communities.

Voter Suppression : Efforts to restrict voting access, such as limiting early voting and closing polling places, disproportionately affect certain demographics and can discourage participation.

Disengagement : Apathy and disillusionment with the political process can lead to voter disengagement, where individuals feel that their vote won’t make a difference.

Gerrymandering : Gerrymandered districts can lead to uncompetitive elections, reducing the incentive for voters to participate when outcomes are predetermined.

Accessibility : Accessibility issues, such as inadequate accommodations for voters with disabilities, can hinder participation.

Efforts to improve voter participation include expanding access to early voting, implementing automatic voter registration, and promoting civic education.

Read more about  Elections and Campaigns in the US .

Issues of minority rights and representation have been central to the American political system’s development. Key aspects include:

Civil Rights Legislation : Historic legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to end racial discrimination and protect minority voting rights.

Affirmative Action : Affirmative action policies have been implemented to promote diversity and address historical discrimination in education and employment.

Voting Rights : Efforts have been made to protect minority voting rights, including the prevention of voter suppression and ensuring language assistance for non-English-speaking voters.

Representation : Minority communities have made strides in political representation, with increasing numbers of minority individuals serving in government at various levels.

Despite progress, challenges persist, and ongoing efforts are required to protect and expand minority rights and representation in the American political system.

The media plays a vital role in American politics by serving as a conduit of information between government, political actors, and the public. Its functions include:

Informing the Public : The media provides information about government actions, policies, and events, helping citizens stay informed about political developments.

Setting the Agenda : Media outlets can influence public discourse by highlighting specific issues or events, shaping the national agenda and political priorities.

Monitoring Government : Investigative journalism holds government officials accountable for their actions, exposing corruption and abuses of power.

Providing a Platform : The media offers a platform for political candidates and officials to communicate with the public, share their views, and engage in debates.

Framing Political Debates : Media outlets frame political debates by emphasizing certain aspects of an issue, influencing public perception and opinion.

Opinion Formation : Political commentators and analysts contribute to opinion formation, offering interpretations and insights on political matters.

However, concerns about media bias, misinformation, and the concentration of media ownership have raised questions about the media’s impact on the political process.

Make sure to check out our in-depth piece on Politics and the Media .

The American political system manages international relations through a combination of diplomatic, legislative, and executive actions:

Executive Branch : The President, as the nation’s chief diplomat, negotiates treaties and agreements with foreign governments. The State Department oversees diplomatic relations and embassies.

Congress : The Senate has the power to ratify treaties, while both chambers of Congress play a role in shaping foreign policy through legislation, budget approval, and oversight.

International Organizations : The United States is a member of international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO, participating in global diplomacy and security efforts.

Executive Orders : Presidents can use executive orders to implement foreign policy decisions, although these actions are subject to judicial and congressional review.

Military Power : The President, as Commander-in-Chief, can deploy military forces overseas, often requiring congressional approval for extended conflicts.

Trade and Economic Policy : Trade agreements and economic policies can have significant international implications, with Congress playing a key role in trade negotiations.

U.S. foreign policy reflects a balance of national interests, alliances, and global responsibilities.

Campaign finance and money in politics are complex issues addressed through a combination of legislation, regulations, and legal decisions:

Campaign Finance Laws : Federal and state campaign finance laws regulate the raising and spending of money in elections, including contribution limits and disclosure requirements.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) : The FEC enforces campaign finance laws at the federal level, overseeing campaign contributions, expenditures, and reporting.

Supreme Court Decisions : The Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 and subsequent rulings have shaped campaign finance, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds in elections.

Super PACs : Super Political Action Committees (PACs) can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates, but they are prohibited from coordinating with candidates’ campaigns.

Public Financing : Some states and localities offer public financing options to reduce the influence of private money in elections.

Campaign finance reform remains a topic of debate, with calls for increased transparency, contribution limits, and public financing to reduce the influence of money in politics.

Interest groups and political movements influence government policy through a variety of strategies:

Lobbying : Interest groups hire lobbyists to advocate for their positions to lawmakers, providing information, conducting research, and proposing policy changes.

Advocacy Campaigns : Groups engage in advocacy campaigns to mobilize their members and the public, using grassroots efforts, social media, and advertising to promote their causes.

Campaign Contributions : Interest groups often make campaign contributions to candidates and parties to gain access and support for their policy agendas.

Litigation : Some groups use the legal system to challenge government actions or policies they oppose, leading to court decisions that can shape policy.

Public Opinion : Influencing public opinion through education and awareness campaigns can lead to increased support for specific policies, putting pressure on elected officials.

Direct Action : Political movements and advocacy groups may engage in protests, demonstrations, and civil disobedience to draw attention to their causes.

Interest groups and political movements play a vital role in the democratic process, representing diverse perspectives and ensuring that a wide range of voices is heard in policymaking.

Check out our in-depth piece of Political Interest Groups .

Library of Congress

Exhibitions.

• Ask a Librarian
• Digital Collections
• Library Catalogs

• Exhibitions Home
• Current Exhibitions
• All Exhibitions
• Loan Procedures for Institutions
• Special Presentations

Creating the United States Formation of Political Parties

Return to Creating the Bill of Rights List   Previous Section: Demand for a Bill of Rights  |  Next Section: Election of 1800

Political factions or parties began to form during the struggle over ratification of the federal Constitution of 1787. Friction between them increased as attention shifted from the creation of a new federal government to the question of how powerful that federal government would be. The Federalists, led by Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, wanted a strong central government, while the Anti-Federalists, led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, advocated states’ rights instead of centralized power.  Federalists coalesced around the commercial sector of the country while their opponents drew their strength from those favoring an agrarian society. The ensuing partisan battles led George Washington to warn of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his Farewell Address as president of United States.

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

James Madison, Father of the Constitution

James Madison (1751–1838), an Orange County, Virginia, planter shown in this portrait by Charles Willson Peale (1741–1827), was a strong proponent of a strong central government to replace the Articles of Confederation. Often credited with being the Father of the Constitution of 1787, Madison established the Jeffersonian-Republican Party with Thomas Jefferson and in 1809 succeeded him as president of the United States.

Charles Willson Peale. James Madison , 1783. Miniature portrait on ivory. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (107.00.00) [Digital ID# us0107]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj27

Development of Political Factions and Parties

Opponents (Anti-Federalists) and supporters (Federalists) of the new constitution began to coalesce into political factions. In Virginia, Anti-Federalists led by Patrick Henry (1736–1799) defeated James Madisons election to the Senate and forced him into a campaign for the House of Representatives against a strong Anti-Federalist, James Monroe (1758–1831), later the fifth president. The rapid evolution of political parties from factions was an inventive American response to political conflict.

Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, December 8, 1788. Manuscript. Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (88.00.00) [Digital ID# us0088]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj10

Madison Calls for Amending the Constitution

Although James Madison had opposed early amendments to the Federal Constitution, he hoped to derail the growing political demand for major constitutional changes by offering a bill of rights as a diversion of a tub for a whale, a reference to a story by Jonathan Swift in which a tub is tossed to a whale to keep it from wrecking a boat. In his June 8, 1789, speech Madison favored inserting amending phrases into the body of the Constitution.

James Madison, Speech in Congress, June 8, 1789, in New York Daily Advertiser , June 12, 1789. Serial and Government Publications Division Library of Congress (83.01.00) [Digital ID# us_int0001]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj7

Amending the Constitution

Roger Sherman (1721–1793), a congressman from Connecticut, argued in a special congressional committee appointed on July 21, 1789, that any amendments should be appended to the Constitution. On August 19, 1789, the House of Representatives finally adopted Shermans argument that to insert them into the text would be too confusing and voted instead to add the amendments by way of a supplement.

This list of proposed amendments in Shermans writing is probably a draft of a report by a committee on which he served. It differs markedly from the amendments finally proposed and sent to the states. As such, it provides valuable insights into the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Roger Sherman. Draft Report of a Special Committee of Congress, ca. July 21, 1789. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (81.00.01) [Digital ID#s us0081_1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0081_725.Jpeg ">us0081 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj2

Support for Amendments as Political Diversion

Despite North Carolinas refusal to ratify the Constitution without the addition of amendments, the states governor, Samuel Johnston (1733–1816), opposed any material Alterations to the Constitution but advocated for a Flourish & Dressing . . . such as a pompous Declaration of Rights. Johnston was one of the many Federalists who supported amendments for personal liberties only as a political tactic to fend off more substantive changes in federal powers.

Letter from Samuel Johnston to James Madison, July 8, 1789. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (81.01.00) [Digital ID# us0081_01p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj3

Back to Top

Amending the Body of the Constitution

A committee of the House of Representatives appointed by James Madison originally envisioned that amendments on individual rights would be incorporated into the body of the Constitution, not appended as a supplement. This July 28, 1789, committee report presented by John Vining (1758–1802) of Delaware clearly shows the incorporation plan with the rights scattered throughout the Constitution.

Congress of the United States, in the House of Representatives, . . . [Report] from the Committee of Eleven. New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1789. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (82.00.01) [Digital ID#s us0082_1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0082_725.Jpeg ">us0082 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj4

Warning of Prematurely Amending Constitution

Richard Peters (1743–1828), a Pennsylvania assemblyman and former delegate to the Continental Congress, warned James Madison about offering Amendments to the Machine before it is known whether it wants any. Peters, like many supporters of the Constitution, continued to oppose the adoption of a federal bill of rights.

Letter from Richard Peters to James Madison, July 5, 1789. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (82.01.00) [Digital ID# us0082_01p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj5

Senate Treats Amendments Contemptuously

Many strong supporters of the federal Constitution saw no need to add a bill of rights, arguing that individual rights were already protected by the Constitution, common law, and state constitutions. William Maclay (1737–1804), a senator from Pennsylvania reported that the proposed amendments were treated contemptuously by senators, but nevertheless the Senate agreed to consider them.

William Maclay. Journal, August 25, 1789. Manuscript. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (83.00.00) [Digital ID# us0083, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0083_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0083_1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0083_2_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0083_2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0083_3_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0083_3 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0083_4_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0083_4 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/v.jpg ">us0083_5 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj6

Locating the National Capital

In this letter to the former French minister to the United States, Marquis de la Luzerne (1741–1791), George Washington reported that despite the “good deal of warmth” that marked the Congressional debates over funding the Revolutionary War debt and the location of the national capital, a compromise had been reached. The federal government would assume all state and federal debts and, after a ten-year stay in Philadelphia, the capital would be located on the Potomac River near Washington’s home at Mount Vernon.

Letter from George Washington to Marquis de La Luzerne, August 10, 1790. Letter book. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (088.04.00) [Digital ID # us0088_04]

Read the transcript

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj35

Location of Capital Spurs Partisan Bickering

In July 1790, Congress decided to move the capital of the federal government from New York to a new city to be built in the District of Columbia (created from parts of Maryland and Virginia) on the Potomac River, with a ten-year interim in Philadelphia. The location of the capital was part of a critical compromise over funding of national and state debts. The Compromise of 1790 became a focal point for the emerging Federalist and Republican parties. This print satires the profit opportunities presented by the traveling capital.

Con-g-ss Embark'd on board the Ship Constitution of America Bound to Conogocheque by way of Philadelphia . [New York, 1790] Etching. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (90.01.00) [Digital ID# ppmsca-19165]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj14

Back to top

Capital Location Negotiated

Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay (1737–1804) reported that Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) offered to place the permanent national capital in Philadelphia in exchange for Pennsylvania’s vote to approve the federal assumption of state debts from the Revolutionary War. According to Maclay, the Pennsylvania delegation turned down this offer. As a result Hamilton consummated a deal with Virginia that led to the national capital being located on the Potomac River.

William Maclay. Diary, 1789–1790. Manuscript. William Maclay Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (081.02.00) [Digital ID # us0081_02]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj29

Survey of the Site for the Federal City of Washington

“An Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States,” was signed into law on July 16, 1790. After giving cursory consideration to other locations, George Washington selected a site for the seat of government with which he was very familiar—the banks of the Potomac River at the confluence of its Eastern Branch, just above his home at Mount Vernon. Andrew Ellicott (1754–1820), federal surveyor of the District of Columbia, prepared this plan in 1792 of what would become the District of Columbia. The outline of the city’s grid system and the location of the Capitol, the President’s House, and the mall are clearly visible.

Andrew Ellicott. Plan of the City of Washington in the Territory of Columbia: Ceded by the States of Virginia and Maryland to the United States of America, and by Them Established as the seat of their Government, after the Year MDCC . Boston: Sam’l Hill, [1792]. Engraved map. Geography and Map Division , Library of Congress (134.00.00) [Digital ID # ct002488]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj38

Georgetown: Suburb of the New Federal City

Within a decade of deciding to move the new federal capital to the banks of the Potomac River, what became known as “Washington, District of Columbia” began to emerge out of partisan politics and a tidal marsh. The federal city had just begun to take shape when the government moved here in 1800. This engraving provides a view of the waterfront at Georgetown, then a suburb of Washington.

George Isham Parkyns. (ca.1750–ca.1820) View of the Suburbs of the City of Washington , [ca. 1795]. Aquatint. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (098.03.00) [Digital ID # ppmsca-23666]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj31

First Bank of the United States

Created by a twenty-year federal charter on February 25, 1791, the Bank of the United States was a private corporation funded by stock sold to the federal government and individuals. The same bank bill also established a mint for issuing uniform currency. The Bank of the United States remained a contentious constitutional and political issue for decades, because opponents feared the centralized power of a national bank and opposed federal corporations.

William Birch & Son. “Bank of the United States with a View of Third St. Philadelphia” from The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, North America, As It Appeared in the Year 1800. . . . Hand-colored engraving. Springland, Pennsylvania: William Birch and Son, 1800. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (54.00.04) [Digital ID# us0054_04]

William Birch & Son. Bank of the United States with a View of Third St. Philadelphia, from The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, North America, As it Appeared in the Year 1800. . . . Hand-colored engraving. Springland, Pennsylvania: William Birch and Son, 1800. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (54.00.03) [Digital ID# us0054_06]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj1

Partisan Clash over Creating National Bank

One of the early critical differences between Federalists and Republicans was a disagreement on the implied powers of the Constitution to allow for creation of a national bank. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson advocated a narrow construction of the Constitution that would have prohibited a national bank. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton supported the bank with a broad interpretation of the Constitutions implied powers under the general welfare clause. President Washington sided with Hamilton.

Alexander Hamilton. “Draft Report on the Constitutionality of a National Bank,” February 23, 1791. Manuscript. Alexander Hamilton Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (089.01.02) [Digital ID # us0089_01p4, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0089_01p1_enlarge.jpg ">us0089_01p1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0089_01p2_enlarge.jpg ">us0089_01p2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0089_01p3_enlarge.jpg ">us0089_01p3 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj12

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton played major roles in the creation of the United States. He was an aide-de-camp to George Washington during the Revolution, a member of the Continental Congress in 1782, 1783, and 1788 and the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the first secretary of the treasury. In 1804 Aaron Burr killed Hamilton in a duel arising from ill-will after Federalist leader Hamilton supported Thomas Jefferson instead of Burr in the disputed election of 1801.

William G. Jackman. Alexander Hamilton . Engraving after a painting by L.W. Gibbs. New York: D. Appleton, 1857. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (100.02.00) [Digital ID# cph.3b03321]

Alexander Hamilton , ca. 1896. Chromolithograph. New York: The Knapp Co., ca. 1896. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (100.01.00) [Digital ID# LC-DIG-ppmsca-17523]

Alonzo Chappel. A. Hamilton from the Original Painting by Chappel, in the Possession of the Publishers . New York: Johnson, Fry, 1861. Engraving. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (100) [Digital ID# ppmsca-17799]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj25

Washington Tries to Pacify the Parties

As party lines were drawn in the new federal government, President George Washington tried to pacify the parties by addressing the chief protagonists—Alexander Hamilton, his secretary of the treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, his secretary of state. Although both Hamilton and Jefferson promised to work together, the struggle between the Federalist and Republican parties continued unabated.

Letter from George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, August 26, 1792. Manuscript. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (095.03.00) [Digital ID # us0095_03]

Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, August 23, 1792. Manuscript.Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (088.03.00) [Digital ID # us0088_03a]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj40

Republican Party Christened by James Madison

In September 1792, James Madison coined the term Republican Party in an essay, A Candid State of Parties, published in the National Gazette of Philadelphia. Although the Jeffersonian-Republican Party drew strength from the Anti-Federalists, no one had more claim to the authorship of the federal Constitution than did Madison, one of the founders of the Jeffersonian-Republican Party.

[James Madison]. A Candid State of Politics. National Gazette (Philadelphia), September 22, 1792. Serial and Government Publications Division Library of Congress (90.00.00) [Digital ID# us0090]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj13

Jay’s Treaty

Faced with British refusal to vacate western frontier forts as well as honor neutral shipping rights, President George Washington sent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay (1745–1829) to London in 1794. The resulting treaty, which failed to resolve the issues but prevented a war with Great Britain, was extremely unpopular with the Jeffersonian Republicans. The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation was quickly labeled “Jay’s Treaty” and became a lightening rod for the political parties and a point of contention between the president and Congress over funds for its implementation.

Letter from Pierce Butler to James Madison, June 26, 1795. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (091.06.00) [Digital ID # us0091_06]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj32

John Jay (1745–1829), a prominent New York nationalist and former president of the Continental Congress, was among the first to call for a National Convention to replace or revise the Articles of Confederation. Jay was an outspoken advocate for the new Constitution and authored several of the Federalist essays. He served as first chief justice of the United States, 1789–1795. President Washington sent Jay to England in 1794 to negotiate a treaty, which became known as “Jay’s Treaty.”

“His Excellency John Jay, President of Congress & Minister Plenipotentiary from Congress at Madrid” in Portraits of Generals, Ministers, Magistrates, Members of Congress and Others, Who Have Rendered Themselves Illustrious in the Revolution of the United States of North America. London: R. Wilkinson and J. Debret, May 1783. Engraving after drawing by Pierre E. DuSimitièrre. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (092.02.00) [Digital ID # us0092_02]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj33

A Champion to Challenge Alexander Hamilton

In this letter, Thomas Jefferson challenged James Madison to enter the pamphlet wars against his political rival Federalist Alexander Hamilton whom he asserted is really a colossus to the anti-republican party. There is nobody but yourself who can meet him, urged Jefferson.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, September 21, 1795. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (88.01.00) [Digital ID#s us0088_01p1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0088_01p2tiff_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0088_01p2 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj11

Factional Fighting after Washington's Farewell

Despite George Washington's warning about the dangers of political factions or parties in his Farewell Address to the nation in 1796, the lack of a consensus candidate to assume the presidency only intensified party struggles. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson led partisan political factions or parties into the national elections of 1796. Washington even sought advice from two opposing partisan leaders, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.  Displayed here is a draft of Washington's Farewell Address, which Hamilton helped write.

Alexander Hamilton. Draft of George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796. Manuscript. Alexander Hamilton Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (087.00.04) [Digital ID # us0087p4, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0087_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0087 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0087_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0087_1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0087p2_enlarge.jpg ">us0087p2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0087p3_enlarge.jpg ">us0087p3 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj9

Congress at Odds

This print captures the heated partisan debates in Congress between Vermont’s Jeffersonian Republican representative, Matthew Lyon (1749–1822), and Connecticut’s Federalist representative, Roger Griswold (1762–1812). They attacked each other with a cane and fireplace tongs on the floor of the House of Representatives on February 15, 1798. Griswold had accused Lyon of cowardice during the American Revolution and Lyon responded by spitting tobacco juice in Griswold’s face.

Congressional Pugilists. Congress Hall, in Philadelphia , February 15, 1798. [Philadelphia], 1798. Etching. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (098.04.00) [Digital ID # ppmsca.19356]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj30

George Washington, Commander in Chief

George Washington (1732–1799), a Virginia planter and veteran of America's frontier wars, was revolutionary America's only commander of all military forces throughout the eight-year war for independence. His leadership during the Revolution led to his election as the first president of the United States (1789–1797).

Charles Balthazar Julien Fevret de Saint-Mémin. George Washington . Charcoal on tinted paper, ca. 1800. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (021.01.00) [Digital ID# LC-DIG-ppmsca-11597]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj0

Seeking Women's Rights

American women, such as Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren, hoped the American Revolution would lead to more legal and political rights for women. During the post- Revolutionary period, periodicals aimed directly at women emerged. The best known was The Lady's Magazine and Repository of Entertaining Knowledge, founded in Philadelphia in 1792. In this engraving, a copy of A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), the cornerstone feminist document, by Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) is presented to Lady Liberty.

James Thackera and John Vallance. Liberty. Frontispiece in The Lady's Magazine, and Repository of Entertaining Knowledge . Philadelphia: W. Gibbons, 1792–1793. Marian S. Carson Collection, Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (92.01.00) [Digital ID# us0092_01]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj17

Political Rights of Women Asserted

In a letter to her sister, Elizabeth Smith Shaw Peabody (1750–1815) of Aktinson, New Hampshire, Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, asserted the rights of women to judge the conduct of government, even if a woman does not hold the Reigns of government.

Letter from Abigail Adams to Elizabeth Smith Shaw Peabody, July 19, 1799. Manuscript. Shaw Family Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (95.01.00) [Digital ID#s us0095_01p1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0095_01p2_725.Jpeg ">us0095_01p2 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj23

Abigail Adams

Abigail Smith Adams (1744–1818) was an outspoken supporter of women's political, educational, and marital rights and a sage and savvy political advisor to her husband, John Adams, revolutionary leader and second president of the United States. She was the mother of six children and managed the family farm and investments while serving as her husbands chief supporter and advisor.

A. Adams . Engraving, after a painting by Gilbert Stuart. New York: Johnson, Wilson & Co. , [between 1830 and 1860]. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (128.01.00) [Digital ID# cph.3a12454]

Mrs. Adams , from a portrait by Gilbert Stuart, ca. 1830–1860. Engraving. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (128.00.00) [Digital ID# LC-USZC4-5767]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj28

Abigail Adams Sees Adams-Jefferson Administration as Sign of Unity

The usually politically astute Abigail Adams mistakenly believed that the election of Thomas Jefferson as John Adams’s vice-president would serve as a bond of union between the States and Mr. Jefferson I have no doubt will support the president. However, their rival political parties continued to clash throughout Adams’s administration. The rivalry of Adams and Jefferson fully emerged in the bitterly partisan campaign of 1800.

Letter from Abigail Adams to Elizabeth Smith Shaw Peabody, February 10, 1797. Manuscript. Shaw Family Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (95.02.01) [Digital ID#s us0095_02p1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0095_02p2_enlarge.jpg ">us0095_02p2 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj24

Political Infighting and a War with France

Abigail Adams (1744–1818), wife of President John Adams, feared that political infighting was endangering the United States, which was engaged in an undeclared naval war with France. Jeffersonian Republicans strongly opposed this “quasi-war” with France, arguing that it strengthened commercial interests in Federalist strongholds. In this letter to her nephew William Shaw (1778–1826), Adams saw hope in the response of the House of Representatives to the president’s address to Congress.

Letter from Abigail Adams to William Shaw, December 23, 1798. Manuscript. Shaw Family Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (092.03.00) [Digital ID# us0092_03p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj37

Ongoing, Undeclared Naval War

During the administration of President John Adams, the United States was engaged in an ongoing, undeclared naval war with France over neutral shipping rights. French naval vessels and privateers seized hundreds of American vessels, like the frigate Philadelphia pictured here, while the United States struggled to build a navy capable of defending its commerce.

William Birch & Son. “Preparation of War to Defend Commerce” from The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, North America, As it Appeared in the Year 1800. . . . Hand-colored engraving. Springland, Pennsylvania: William Birch and Son, 1800. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (54.00.05) [Digital ID# us0054p5]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj36

Linking Jeffersonian Republicans to the French Revolution

In 1792, political pamphleteer William Cobbett settled in Philadelphia and began writing pro-English and anti-Republican articles under the pseudonym “Peter Porcupine.” Cobbett once described Thomas Jefferson as a deist, “a Frenchman in politics and morality” and “a man as much qualified to be president as I am to be an Archbishop!”

“Stop the Wheels of Government,” illustration in [William Cobbett] Peter Porcupine’s Political Censor or Monthly Review of the Most Interesting Political Occurrences Relative to the United States of America. Philadelphia: William Cobbett, April 1796. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (090.05.00) [Digital ID# us0090_05]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj34

William Cobbett Satirized

William Cobbett (1763–1835), English soldier turned political pamphleteer, fled London for the United States in 1792. Always a lightning rod for political passion, Cobbett returned to England in 1800 after being successfully sued for journalistic slander and libel in the states. In this later British cartoon series chronicling the colorful life of Cobbett, artist James Gillray depicts the pamphleteer surrounded by hand-written pages, engulfed in flames, and beset by ghosts.

James Gillray. The Life of William Cobbett, Written by Himself. No. 8 . London: Published by Hannah Humphrey, 27 ST. James’s Street, September 29, 1809. Hand-colored engraved print. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (094.04.00) [Digital ID# ppmsca.24337]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj42

Congressman Declares Acts Unconstitutional

Virginia Congressman John Dawson (1762–1814) declared the Alien and Sedition Act an open violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress as America prepared for possible war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts limited free speech by declaring public criticism of government officials to be seditious libel, punishable by imprisonment and fines. Dawson urged citizens to rely first on the Courts to declare it unconstitutional, as well as to prepare to seek its repeal.

Letter from John Dawson to his Constituents, Philadelphia, July 19, 1798. Printed broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (94.01.00) [Digital ID# us0094_01]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj20

Right of States to Judge Constitutionality of Federal Laws

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly drafted the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions to counter a perceived threat to individual liberties from the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson and Madison were particularly concerned with charges of sedition brought against Republican critics of the federal government. These resolutions asserted the rights of states to judge the constitutionality of federal laws.

Thomas Jefferson. Draft of Kentucky Resolutions, November 16, 1798. Manuscript. Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (093.00.03) [Digital ID # us0093p4, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0093_00p3a_enlarge.jpg ">us0093_00p3a , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0093_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0093 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0093_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0093_1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/Assets/us0093p2_enlarge.jpg ">us0093p2 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj18

Opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts

The Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted by Federalists fearful of a violent overthrow of the government as French refugees fled to the United States from revolutions in France and Haiti. The acts restricted immigration and made strong criticism of public officials illegal. Several newspaper publishers and writers were imprisoned for seditious writings. Many Americans opposed a federal sedition law, arguing that it violated the Constitution and also unconstitutionally infringed on the right of states to regular free speech through slander laws. This petition to the United States Congress was part of a Republican Party effort to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts.

To the Senate and Representatives of the United States, in Congress Assembled. Poughkeepsie, New York: Nicholas Power, 1798. Broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division . Library of Congress (90.03.00) [Digital ID# us0090_03p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj15

The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted immigration and made strong criticism of public officials illegal. Several newspaper publishers and writers were imprisoned for “seditious” writings. Many Americans opposed a federal sedition law arguing that it violated the Constitution and infringed on the right of states to regulate free speech through slander laws. This petition to the United States Congress was part of a Republican Party effort to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. We whose names are hereunto subscribed being citizens of the county of Albemarle in the state of Virginia. Albemarle County, Virginia: 1798. Broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (090.04.00) [Digital ID # us0090_04]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj16

Virginia Resolutions Oppose Alien and Sedition Laws

The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted immigration and made strong criticism of public officials illegal. Several newspaper publishers and writers were imprisoned for “seditious” writings. Many Americans opposed a federal sedition law arguing that it violated the Constitution and infringed on the rights of states to regulate free speech through slander laws. The Virginia House of Delegates adopted these resolutions drafted by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to protest the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Virginia to Wit. In the House of Delegates Friday, December 21st, 1798. Resolved that the General Assembly of Virginia doth unequivocally express a firm resolution . . . . Richmond, 1798. Leaflet. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (091.07.00) [Digital ID# us0091_07]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj39

Vindication of the Constitutionality of Alien and Sedition Laws

A large minority in the Virginia legislature opposed the passage of the Virginia Resolutions asserting a states right to declare a federal law unconstitutional and specifically declaring the Alien and Sedition Laws unconstitutional. That group of state legislators published this statement as a vindication of the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Laws.

The Awful Crisis which has arrived Must be felt by us all. . . . [Richmond]: T. Nicholson, 1799. Pamphlet. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (94.02.00) [Digital ID# us0094_02]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj21

Libel Trial of Thomas Cooper

After attacking the administration of Federalist President John Adams in print, Thomas Cooper (1759–1839), political writer and ardent Republican, was tried for seditious libel against Adams before Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (1741–1811) in April 1800. Cooper was found guilty, fined, and imprisoned. Republican political leaders strongly criticized Justice Chase, and he was eventually impeached (though not convicted) in 1804, after the Republicans won control of the government.

Thomas Cooper. An Account of the Trial of Thomas Cooper of Northumberland: on a Charge of Libel against the President of the United States. . . . Philadelphia: John Bios, April 1800. Rare Book and Special Collections Division . Library of Congress (94.00.00) [Digital ID# us0094]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj19

Virginia Slave Rebellion Increases Election-Year Turmoil

In the midst of the high tensions surrounding a climactic presidential election, Virginia slaves led by Gabriel Prosser (1775–1800) marched on Richmond, Virginia. Governor James Monroe notified Vice President and presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson that the most serious and formidable conspiracy of slaves had been clearly proved. Gabriel’s insurrection led to harsh reprisals, including executions, deportations, and sales of slaves accused of rebellion.

Letter from James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson, September 15, 1800. Manuscript. Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (101.00.00) [Digital ID# us0101]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj26

Honoring George Washington at his death

Political harmony suffered a serious blow with the death of the nation’s father figure, George Washington, on December 14, 1799. Residents of Ulster County, New York, were provided a detailed account of Washington’s death and the many events eulogizing America’s fallen leader in this January 4, 1800, edition, one of only two copies in existence. This newspaper includes John Marshall’s eulogy delivered before the House of Representatives. Marshall concluded his remarks with the now famous phrase, “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

Ulster County Gazette, January 4, 1800. Kingston, New York: Samuel S. Freer & Son. Newspaper. Serial and Government Publications Division Library of Congress (83.02.00) [Digital ID# us0083_02p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj8

Celebrating The First Great Western Empire

This patriotic broadside celebrates the accomplishments of the United States from the adoption of the Federal Constitution through the presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. The Temple of Freedom or the Federal Edifice is supported by pillars of agriculture and commerce, while it boasts of the population of the seventeen states in the union.

R. Packard. The First Great Western Empire; or, the United States of America . Albany, New York, 1812. Wood engraving. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (95.00.00) [Digital ID# us0095]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html#obj22

Connect with the Library

All ways to connect

Subscribe & Comment

• RSS & E-Mail

Download & Play

• iTunesU (external link)

About | Press | Jobs | Donate Inspector General | Legal | Accessibility | External Link Disclaimer | USA.gov

Essay: Political Parties

From the Founding to the present, Americans have always expressed a distrust of political parties. Hardly a day passes without someone’s—the president, a Senator, a Representative—attacking politics in Washington for the spirit of partisanship. If only elected officials, they sigh, would set aside their parochial, partisan interests, Washington could get down to the important business of doing what is best for America. For instance, in 2011 President Barack Obama said that Washington D.C. suffered from the “worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock.” Of course President Obama and others make these complaints as members and leaders of their own parties. This complaint assumes that parties are powerful forces exercising immense influence over the behavior of those we elect to govern on our behalf. The reality is somewhat different. Complaining about partisanship is always good politics, but it is not clear that parties are as powerful as we think they are or that we could or would want to live in a world without political parties.

The Founders, as many complaints about partisanship point out, hoped for a nonpartisan system where candidates would be elected based on their individual merit.

Parties, the Founders feared, would either try to undermine the Constitution or foment unnecessary political animosities by “agitating in the community.” Parties could undermine presidential and congressional functions. A president might sacrifice his independent judgment to appease his party. And congressional deliberation could be undermined by representatives voting based on a party platform rather than the public good.

Despite these misgivings, party competition developed early in America. In George Washington’s own presidency, party competition developed between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. In fact even as he decried the “baneful spirit of party” Washington was lending his support to the Federalist Party. With Jefferson’s victory in 1800 the Federalist Party declined and became largely ineffectual after 1816 which led to a nonpartisan period known as the “Era of Good Feelings” (1817-1824). This superficial political comity masked problems that the election of 1824 exposed. Without parties nominating candidates, four major contenders, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, and Henry Clay, sought the presidency, but none could win a majority in the Electoral College. Adams received 84 votes, Jackson 99, Crawford 41, and Clay 37. This sent the election to the House of Representatives since the Constitution mandates that when no one receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College the House selects the president with each state delegation receiving one vote. After going to the House, John Quincy Adams “won”—only to be accused of making a corrupt bargain by Andrew Jackson.

The constitutional dangers exposed by that election led Martin Van Buren to propose an argument for a two-party system which changed America’s attitude towards parties and led to the establishment of permanent two-party competition. Van Buren argued that our constitutional system actually required party competition in order to function effectively and fulfill the aims of the founders. With two-party competition elections would not be decided by the House since one candidate would always win a majority in the Electoral College. Having a winner decided by the Electoral College would in turn ameliorate concerns about the legitimacy of the election and therefore the legitimacy of the president. Parties would also help control political ambition. In a non-partisan system, demagogues would have an advantage over statesmen. The Founders hoped to prevent practitioners of the low and “vicious arts” of politics, even though they could be vicious themselves, from being elected. Without political parties regulating nominations it paid to practice those vicious arts. Van Buren argued that fulfilling the Founders’ vision required parties to serve as a mediating institution to limit the effect of demagogic appeals.

Political parties also perform an educational function. It is impossible to expect to know how every candidate stands on every issue. When parties are organized around distinct governing philosophies, voters can get a general sense of candidates’ positions based on their partisan affiliation. And out of self-interest and concern for the common good political parties try to convince voters to support their candidates. To do that they must give voters information about why their agenda is better than the opposing party’s.  As a result, voters become better informed.

Parties thus inject intelligence into the voting process. This educational function is so important that some political scientists question whether mass democracy could function without political parties.

One very important controversial feature of party competition in the United States is that it has always been two-party competition. In fact, since the 1850s it has been the same two parties, the Democratic party and Republican party. Other western industrialized democracies typically have multi-party competition. Some critics, often disappointed third-party candidates such as Ralph Nader, have argued that the two major parties have conspired to prevent third parties from winning. The reality is not so dramatic.

The American system simply lends itself to two-party competition because of single-member districts and “first-past-the-post” elections. This means only one-person wins House and Senate races and that person is the one who receives the most votes.

A third-party candidate could receive twenty percent of the vote but would win zero percent of the power. This creates powerful incentives for candidates to seek election through one the two major competitive parties. In contrast, in parliamentary systems seats are allocated based on the proportion of votes a party receives. If a party receives twenty percent of the vote, it will receive approximately twenty percent of the seats in parliament. This allows third parties to potentially wield substantial power. Often no party receives a majority of the vote and forming a government requires creating a coalition among parties. Minor parties could be crucial for forming a majority coalition, which would allow them to extract significant concessions and cabinet positions.

In the United States, the major political parties have an incentive to reach out to third-party voters. Historically when third parties have formed and received substantial support, both major parties have attempted to draw their voters. But that is not a conspiracy; it is just self-interest. American parties, compared to parties in parliamentary systems, are diffuse and less ideologically pure.  Historically American parties have been “big tents” which have included a variety of factions and ideological interests. Thus they have been willing to bring more groups into their fold. Ross Perot’s Reform Party attracted a large number of voters in the 1996. Both parties made overtures to those voters and by the 2000 election the Reform Party ceased to be a serious force.  Subsequent research showed that most of the party’s voters moved to the Republican party.

One area of American political life that sometimes seems free of party competition is local politics.

As the result of early twentieth-century progressive reform movements many local jurisdictions made their elections officially non-partisan. Of course, it is often quite easy to identify the partisan leanings of candidates even when their party identification is not listed on the ballot. More fundamentally, local issues sometimes cut across or even bypass partisan and ideological lines. Basic quality of life issues such as law enforcement, education, transportation, and sanitation that are often the focus of local policymaking do not always seem to lend themselves to partisanship. Where to put a new sanitation treatment facility, for instance, is not necessarily an issue that one could expect guidance from in a national party platform. That does not mean that local politics is free of rancor. It can be just as contentious as state and national political politics, but the contentiousness is not traceable to parties.

Political parties have seen their power decline over the course of the twentieth century.  Changes to the nomination system and campaign finance regulations have made it increasingly difficult for parties to control their message. Moving from a convention to a primary based nomination system opened up the process to self-selected candidates.  That allowed insurgent candidates outside a party’s mainstream to secure nomination and were, thus, less beholden to their political party when in power. Now candidates often completely bypass their party and form their own independent campaign organizations when running for president. Campaign finance regulations also made it more difficult for parties to raise money. This undermined their ability to engage in party-building activities and to support their candidates. The effect here has actually been to strengthen interest groups at the expense of parties. Since donors are limited in how much they can donate to parties, they have created independent groups to support candidates and issues. MoveOn on the left and American Crossroads on the right are two of the more significant organizations that have formed in response to these restrictions.

While returning to the system prior to political primaries and campaign-finance reform is not possible, it is worth considering how political parties have helped our system to function and how that role could be strengthened.

Political parties historically helped forge ties across institutions and levels of government while not undermining separation of powers and federalism. Parties then allowed for cooperation and coordination. With the decline of parties our institutions have become even more divided leading to even more complaints about gridlock, which allegedly is caused by rampant partisanship. Thus while politicians decry partisanship, the measures they take to weaken parties actually exacerbates the problems they claim are caused by partisanship. Returning some control to parties over nominating candidates and funding campaigns could very well have salutary effects.

Related Content

Political Parties

From the Founding to the present, Americans have always expressed a distrust of political parties. Hardly a day passes without someone’s—the president, a Senator, a Representative—attacking politics in Washington for the spirit of partisanship.

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 all citizens have the ability to determine for themselves whether one of the two parties meets their 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.

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-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/9-1-what-are-parties-and-how-did-they-form

© Jul 18, 2024 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.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Republican Party — Political Parties in the US: History of the Democratic Party

Political Parties in The Us: History of The Democratic Party

• Categories: Republican Party

About this sample

Words: 1509 |

Published: Mar 14, 2019

Words: 1509 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, party politics in the u.s, the history of democratic party.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 608 words

1 pages / 516 words

1 pages / 429 words

2 pages / 819 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Republican Party

I’d be lying if I said my parents didn’t influence my political ideology. I believe any young man or woman our age would be lying if they said that their parents didn’t have any sort of influence on their political ideologies. [...]

To properly compare the Democratic and Republican party platforms, I am going to pick three political issues that have popped up in this year’s election and review the party’s opinions and plans and highlight their similarities [...]

Federalist or Democratic-Republican? The Democratic - Republican Party was the start of our two political parties today. Although our more modern republican and democratic parties were founded because of the Democratic - [...]

The question of the reform of the UNSC is as old as the UN itself. Member States have consistently voiced concerns over permanent representation on the Council and the power of the veto, especially since the end of the Cold War, [...]

Corruption. No matter how much we try to make something fair or serve justice, corruption always eases its way through it all. It is simply in the world around us, in our justice system, and in every government existed. People [...]

In the wake of Citizens United, the landmark 2010 Supreme Court case that loosened restrictions on political expenditures, campaign financing has gone through the roof. Super PACs and the country’s wealthiest of the wealthy [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

READ: The four election stages between now and Inauguration Day

• Link to twitter
• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to instagram

Why do we need political parties?

• Shaping the Democracy of Tomorrow
• Research & Analysis
• April 19, 2024

Jennifer Dresden

The unpopular but necessary building blocks of democracy.

Key Highlights:

• Scholars and empirical evidence make clear that democracy is “unthinkable” without political parties.
• Attempts to weaken parties often backfire—either by failing outright or creating shadowy entities that are less transparent than political parties.
• Political parties engage in critical activities that, when done well, make our democracy more representative and responsive—including helping communities win political representation; engaging and informing voters; and enforcing democratic norms.
• The solution is more political parties that are better connected to the supporters they claim to represent.

Americans dislike and distrust our political parties; a mere 11% of Americans express high confidence in them when compared to many other institutions, reflecting their well-deserved reputation as a vulnerability to American democratic stability. And yet, parties are essential organizing institutions in any modern democracy. The size and complexity of the multiple levels of government in the United States and the diverse and distributed nature of the electorate necessitate organizations that can serve as the connective tissue of our politics and promote a multiracial, pluralistic democracy. Accordingly, “modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.”

Yet, there is a natural impulse to view the parties as the problem and seek to further weaken or even try to eliminate them from our politics completely. Despite the understandable frustration with our political parties and a historical context that includes their intentional exclusion from the Constitution, a variety of reforms that weakened parties over time have served only to exacerbate the problems we have today.

For a healthy democracy to function effectively, it needs political parties.

Political parties can and should stabilize democracy by organizing politics and facilitating political participation. Where they do so responsibly, voters can identify the party that most closely matches their political beliefs and values and find ways to be engaged in democratic life.

While there are many ways in which political parties contribute to stabilizing and bolstering democracy , the following are vital to sustaining a system that is representative, responsive, and resistant to authoritarian takeover.

The main goal of political parties is to win elections. In a democracy as large and diverse as the United States, they can only do that by being attractive spaces where groups of voters with different interests can coalesce into blocs large enough to succeed at the polls. In the best of circumstances, this means that political parties are the institutions where various interest groups negotiate their differences in order to cooperate on election day and beyond. Thus, parties can provide a critical platform to a diverse set of voices within the electorate.

Political parties have an essential role in explaining the stakes of policy issues to their supporters, as well as in mobilizing them during and between elections. Parties work to “get out the vote” and boost participation in elections. Between elections, they provide a vehicle for people to participate in politics. Where parties establish and maintain a reasonably coherent set of policy views, the party label itself offers important information to voters on election day. Americans vote more often and for more offices than almost any other democracy, and the average voter would find it nearly impossible to research every candidate in every race. Where parties are well-connected to society and have a meaningful platform, party labels can give voters a shortcut for identifying the candidates most likely to support their interests and those of their communities.

Prior to election day, parties have a critical role to play in elevating candidates for office who are capable of doing the job and likely to appeal to voters. At local levels, this often involves encouraging talented individuals to run for office in the first place, an important part of bolstering political participation. At state and national levels, parties are responsible for narrowing the field of potential candidates. Healthy, pro-democracy parties also assess a candidates’ commitment to democratic norms during this recruitment and selection process. Where demagogues or would-be authoritarians try to pursue elected office, political parties are the crucial first institutional barrier to those efforts.

Imagine a political system in which there were no stable coalitions, governors or presidents had to work with legislatures that had little meaningful leadership, and every piece of proposed legislation required securing support one member at a time. Governing would happen at a snail’s pace (if at all) and responding quickly to important issues would be next to impossible. Political parties provide the organized “teams” that are needed for elected officials to cooperate productively .

In short, political parties can and should stabilize democracy by organizing politics and facilitating political participation. Where they do so responsibly, voters can identify the party that most closely matches their political beliefs and values and find ways to be engaged in democratic life. Office holders can rely on parties to help them cooperate with one another and govern. This engagement and efficacy helps citizens feel represented and reinforces support for democracy itself, particularly where parties uphold democratic norms among their members and leaders.

The problem isn’t political parties — it’s political party weakness

The history of American democracy and democratic reform is full of well-intentioned efforts with unintended consequences; reformers often tinker with some element of our political system (election rules) without always addressing or accounting for another key element of our democratic system (political organizing). The adoption of partisan primaries provides a powerful example. Primaries were meant to empower voters rather than corrupt party bosses in the selection of candidates, an attempt to increase “ voters’ confidence and shor[e] up democratic responsiveness ” as many current reforms seek to do. However, in effect they also disregarded the organizing and connecting role political parties played. Over time, primaries have also hampered the functionality of government by weakening party leaders’ ability to meaningfully vet candidates for office—leading to fewer candidates with experience and “ posturing over legislating .” Similar patterns have played out in areas such as campaign finance reform. 

These dynamics have accumulated over time and chipped away at some of the key characteristics of healthy parties. Today, we have professional, campaign-oriented parties that are less responsive, less representative, and less capable of the “ mobilization functions they once performed .” Reformers today should not repeat the mistakes of the past: sidelining parties as institutions has harmful long-term effects on our democracy. And ultimately it will do very little to reduce extremism or combat corruption.

When political parties don’t do their jobs, democracy suffers

While healthy, responsible parties meet these needs in a responsive and representative democracy, America’s two-party system too often does not. Our winner-take-all electoral system, which relies on primaries to select candidates, weakens parties and our democracy. More recent changes in campaign finance regulations and the media environment further undermine parties’ representativeness, accountability, and transparency. 

When parties are weakened in this way, one of two things happens. In some cases, the quality of our democracy simply suffers. Voters become apathetic, governing runs up against gridlock, and candidate quality plummets. In other cases, quasi-institutions of non-representative, unaccountable groups begin to fulfill traditional party functions while being beholden to their own interests (e.g., Super-PACs with minimal disclosure requirements). Indeed, history has shown that efforts to exclude parties either fail (to great consequence for electoral innovation) or lead to “ party-weakened alternatives that . . . are often worse than what existed before .”

Political parties are a necessary feature of democratic life. No other institutions in our political system have the same opportunity to either enforce democratic norms or threaten the entire democratic system.

Can we expect parties to self-correct out of electoral self-interest? While we might expect voters to hold parties who abandon their responsibilities accountable at the ballot box, electoral results do not bear this out. Despite the fact that people have such a low regard for parties, partisan identity remains strong , leading voters to often support whomever their party nominates over the nominee of an opposing party. This dynamic of weak parties incapable of establishing and enforcing democratic norms and strong partisanship leads to seeming endorsement of unrepresentative and authoritarian factions by voters who share the same partisan identity. These factors leave parties open to influence and takeover by motivated, undemocratic forces while well-funded, less transparent, minoritarian institutions outside of party organizations fundraise, set policy agendas, and influence elected officials without accountability and input from the voting public.

Political parties are a necessary feature of democratic life

Political parties are a necessary feature of democratic life. No other institutions in our political system have the same opportunity to either enforce democratic norms or threaten the entire democratic system. No other institutions have the same abilities to link voters to elected leaders and to incentivize cooperation over narrow, individual self-interest. So as much as Americans may be disappointed with their track record in our two-party system, getting rid of political parties is not an option. But, neither is blindly handing more centralized power to political parties. Instead, we need reforms to political parties and our electoral system that incentivize and enable parties to be more representative of their voters, responsive to their varied interests, and resistant to takeover by authoritarian factions. We need healthier parties, and we need more parties. A Democ racy of Tomorrow that is “ more inclusive, more equitable, and more just will require reasserting and repurposing parties, rather than rejecting or displacing them .” The right approach to reforming parties can bring that future a bit closer.

About the Authors

Policy strategist.

Jennifer Dresden is a Policy Strategist at Protect Democracy, where she helps teams leverage leading social science research to inform their work in defense of democracy.

Learn more about Jennifer Dresden

Impact Specialist

Chris Parr supports Protect Demoracy’s efforts to make our democratic institutions and electoral systems more representative, responsive, and resistant to authoritarian capture.

Learn more about Chris Parr

Related Content

Understanding the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022

• Protecting Elections

 How to reform domestic deployment authorities

• Defending the Rule of Law
• Legislation & Policy

Noncitizen voting lies, explained

Arizona voter rolls: A fact sheet for 2024

It can happen here. we can stop it..

Defeating authoritarianism is going to take all of us. Everyone and every institution has a role to play. Together, we can protect democracy.

Sign Up for Updates Sign Up for Updates

Explore Careers Explore Careers

How to Protect Democracy How to Protect Democracy

Mobile Menu Overlay

Political Parties in the Modern America Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Works cited.

Modern political life of any country impossible imagines without political parties. Political parties introduce the political life of the country through the ideas and considerations which are put in the basis of these parties and are the main differential features, which make the opposite. American political life is fulfilled with the political parties which make up the government of the country and should function of the benefit of the whole society.

The history of the modern American parties is very long, and its role on the democracy of the country is significant. It is not the secret that every party should be responsible before the nation for its actions. Responsible Parties Model may be characterized according to the following features: (1) the politics and promises of the parties should be specific, (2) the specific promises should be acted on and carried on by the parties, when they are in the office, (3) parties should be in constant opposition, and those who are out of power should search for the alternatives to the decisions made by the parties with power, (4) the difference between the ideological considerations of the parties should be significant (LeLoup 11).

A Responsible Party Model: characteristic and discussion

Considering the usage of the Responsible Parties Model in the modern America, it can be mentioned that it failed to be provided. The reasons for this may be numerous, the promises cannot be absolutely specific as people in one society search for the improvement in their lives in the same spheres. Moreover, in the condition of present separation of power, it is impossible to follow and to act on all issues, which are mentioned in the model. The current crisis makes political parties in power provide the changes and the reforms of the economical life of people with the aim to improve their economic position and do not have time to care about the political changes which were promised by them.

Except the political parties, there are a lot of other issues and concepts which can be considered as the various forms of political participation. Having provided some researches it was concluded that there are a lot of other forms of political participation. The types of the political participation are (1) voting in national elections and on referendum, (2) different campaigns which occur during the elections, (3) different pressure groups, demonstrations, some industrial strikes (the aim of which is political), and other political activities which objectives are to change the public policy, (4) different social policies, different forms of disobedience, which have civil or political nature, and (5) different social organizations and political parties, which are created by the society in order to provide their opinion to the government (Axford and Huggins 123).

Various forms of political participation

Having considered different forms of political participation, it is possible to mention that democracy is impossible without political participation and that government cares about the rights of those who take in such participation. The information between government and society is mostly provided through the political participants and, furthermore, people are involved in the political life of the country by means of the political participation (Inoguchi and Marsh 196).

In conclusion, political parties of the modern society are the main political participants of the political life, which should tend to follow the Responsible Parties Model. In the modern conditions this model fails to be provided but in future it may be implemented. Parties are not the only participants of the political life in the country and which can be influential and deliver the information of the political life of the country.

Axford, Barrie and Huggins, Richard. Politics: an introduction. Oxford: Routledge, 2002.

Inoguchi, Takashi and Marsh, Ian. Globalisation, public opinion and the state: Western Europe and East and Southeast Asia. Oxford: Routledge, 2008.

LeLoup, Lance T. Parties, rules, and the evolution of congressional budgeting. Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2005.

• Political Culture Theory and Classification
• The No Child Left Behind Act Review
• War on Drugs and Terror and American Promise
• Democracy and Its Types
• Citizen Participation and Political Process
• Michael Mann’s Genocide Argument and Rothschild’s Security Analysis
• Americanization of Canadian Political Culture
• Hobbes on Sovereignty: Political and Legal Validity
• Tasers: Effective Non-Lethal Weapon for Law Enforcement
• Cyprus: Political Culture Analysis
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 12). Political Parties in the Modern America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/political-parties-in-the-modern-america/

"Political Parties in the Modern America." IvyPanda , 12 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/political-parties-in-the-modern-america/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Political Parties in the Modern America'. 12 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Political Parties in the Modern America." November 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/political-parties-in-the-modern-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Political Parties in the Modern America." November 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/political-parties-in-the-modern-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Political Parties in the Modern America." November 12, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/political-parties-in-the-modern-america/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart

By: Sarah Pruitt

Updated: September 29, 2023 | Original: November 6, 2018

Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century . Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”

George Washington ’s family had fled England precisely to avoid the civil wars there, while Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison , who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”

But Thomas Jefferson , who was serving a diplomatic post in France during the Constitutional Convention, believed it was a mistake not to provide for different political parties in the new government. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties,’’ he would write in 1824 .

In fact, when Washington ran unopposed to win the first presidential election in the nation’s history, in 1789, he chose Jefferson for his Cabinet so it would be inclusive of differing political viewpoints. “I think he had been warned if he didn't have Jefferson in it, then Jefferson might oppose his government,” Randall says.

With Jefferson as secretary of state and Hamilton as Treasury secretary, two competing visions for America developed into the nation’s first two political parties. Supporters of Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government—many of whom were Northern businessmen, bankers and merchants who leaned toward England when it came to foreign affairs—would become known as the Federalists. Jefferson, on the other hand, favored limited federal government and keeping power in state and local hands. His supporters tended to be small farmers, artisans and Southern planters who traded with the French, and were sympathetic to France.

Though he had sided with Hamilton in their defense of the Constitution, Madison strongly opposed Hamilton’s ambitious financial programs, which he saw as concentrating too much power in the hands of the federal government. In 1791, Madison and Jefferson joined forces in forming what would become the Democratic-Republican Party (forerunner of today’s Democratic Party ) largely in response to Hamilton’s programs, including the federal government’s assumption of states’ debt and the establishment of a national banking system.

By the mid 1790s, Jefferson and Hamilton had both quit Washington’s Cabinet. Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans and Federalists spent much of the first president’s second term bitterly attacking each other in competing newspapers over their opinions of his administration’s policies.

When Washington stepped aside as president in 1796, he memorably warned in his farewell address of the divisive influence of factions on the workings of democracy: “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

“He had stayed on for a second term only to keep these two parties from warring with each other,” Randall says of Washington. “He was afraid of what he called ‘disunion.’ That if the parties flourished, and they kept fighting each other, that the Union would break up.”

By that time, however, the damage had been done. After the highly contentious election of 1796, when John Adams narrowly defeated Jefferson, the new president moved to squash opposition by making it a federal crime to criticize the president or his administration’s policies . Jefferson struck back in spades after toppling the unpopular Adams four years later, when Democratic-Republicans won control of both Congress and the presidency. “He fired half of all federal employees—the top half,” Randall explains. “He kept only the clerks and the customs agents, destroying the Federalist Party and making it impossible to rebuild.”

While the Federalists would never win another presidential election, and disappeared for good after the War of 1812, the two-party system revived itself with the rise of Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party by the 1830s and firmly solidified in the 1850s, after the founding of the Republican Party . Though the parties’ identities and regional identifications would shift greatly over time, the two-party system we know today had fallen into place by 1860—even as the nation stood poised on the brink of the very civil war that Washington and the other Founding Fathers had desperately wanted to avoid.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Image credit: Claire Scully

As Americans head to the polls this year, a growing number of voters are disgruntled by national politics and their elected officials . Survey after survey has found that Americans are increasingly falling out of favor with the country’s two political parties – a trend likely to continue in what Stanford political scientist Didi Kuo is describing as a “brutal” campaign season.

“Americans are already exhausted by it, even though it has barely begun,” said Kuo, a center fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).

Like other democratic institutions, political parties are reckoning with a crisis of public confidence .

“Political parties remain critical to organizing democracy but they are beleaguered,” said Kuo.

Stanford Report sat down with Kuo to learn more about the discord between political parties, candidates, and voters and what these fissures may mean for the 2024 election.

No longer gatekeepers

Kuo sees several factors that have led to political parties’ waning support among the American public, including reforms made in the early 1970s.

Until then, political parties used to have more power in selecting the party nomination for presidency.

But after Hubert Humphrey secured the Democratic Party nomination in 1968 for president of the United States without ever taking part in any of the country’s primary races, changes to the presidential nomination process were made to give voters more power in deciding who will represent the party at the general election.

“Political parties used to be gatekeepers in politics. Now, voters have a much bigger say in determining who’s going to be the presidential candidate,” said Kuo.

Those changes made it possible for Donald Trump, an insurgent candidate who had neither formal membership in the Republican Party nor any previous military or government experience to secure the nomination.

Over recent years, incumbents have faced challengers in primary elections who often tout their lack of government experience as a strength rather than a weakness.

“The party seems to have very little leverage determining who gets to run under its party label,” Kuo said.

This makes the party vulnerable to outsiders and radical candidates, and also undermines the party’s ability to choose candidates who share the party’s priorities. The party has few ways to manage factional conflict or vet candidates for office when it cannot serve as a gatekeeper in politics.

More susceptible to outside influences

Another change Kuo sees as transformative to the current political landscape was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 – also known as the McCain-Feingold Act – that limited financial contributions people can make to political parties and campaigns.

“That had the consequence of expanding the type of financing that donors would pursue outside of the party through 501(c)(4)s or super PACs,” Kuo said.

In addition, the ruling by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case equating corporate, political communication to that of an individual has also accelerated new ways for political power to take shape.

“What we see is a world not just of parties trying to vie for seats in the legislature or candidates, but also of these external party organizations that sometimes are connected to the party and sometimes not,” Kuo said. “These groups can run their own ads, drum up support for their own issues, and collect a lot of money, sometimes undisclosed, on behalf of specific candidates and parties.”

Kuo thinks these party-like organizations will be particularly important in 2024. “Many groups are mobilizing voters around specific issues, such as abortion rights, while others may mobilize for and against specific candidates, like the faction of ‘Never-Trumpers’ from 2020,” Kuo said.

A growing appeal of populist candidates

Another issue Kuo is paying attention to is the rise of populist, extremist candidates, a trend occurring both in the U.S. and across the globe.

Kuo, alongside her colleagues at FSI, have examined how after the financial crisis of 2008, an increasing number of voters on both the left and right have become frustrated – aggrieved, even – by their democratic and economic institutions.

“One of the things people were turning toward were populist candidates who claimed that the entire system was rigged,” Kuo said.

Kuo added: “2024 is going to be a really difficult year for Congress. It’ll be a real test of whether or not extremists can still outperform moderate Republicans.”

New ways to mobilize

The advent of digital and social media has had a transformative effect on how political parties and candidates can rally their base. In addition, data analytics afforded by these new tools has also helped candidates build targeted and effective communication strategies – all without the backing of a political party.

An example of that is Stacey Abrams, who led a galvanizing campaign to flip her home state of Georgia from Republican to Democrat in the 2020 election.

“Stacey Abrams had a massive organizational, multiyear effort in Georgia because she was convinced that you could turn the state blue, but the party was not behind those efforts ,” Kuo said. “It was driven at a local level.”

Meanwhile, the same tools that have helped candidates reach people at the local level are also being used to find support beyond their precincts.

“There’s empirical evidence showing that new candidates who come into the political process to challenge an incumbent often have a lot of support from outside their district,” said Kuo. “It’s easier now for people to find candidates they support and circumvent a traditional party approach to cultivating a candidate.”

No longer reflecting what voters want or believe

When Americans are surveyed about how they feel on different policy issues, they are actually not that divided. Rather, it is the political class that has become more polarized , leading voters to feel alienated from their party.

“People feel distant from parties more and more,” Kuo said.

Increasingly, people are shunning a party label entirely and identifying as independent . Here too, political scientists see changes among how independents behave as well.

The conventional wisdom was that independent voters were people who didn’t like labels but were still solidly Democrats or Republicans, Kuo explained.

“Now, there is new evidence showing that people who call themselves ‘independent’ are turned off by the party system and see both parties as corrupt. They are very cynical about the role of special interests,” she added. “They don’t think their vote matters. When people develop this attitude, that’s more of a rejection of the party system. Many voters may feel unenthusiastic about another Biden-Trump contest and disillusioned with both parties. However, there was record turnout in 2020, and hopefully cynicism will not keep people away from the polls when the stakes of the race are so high.”

Political parties have gotten weaker

Overall, these changes have culminated in political parties becoming weaker.

“Parties have always had this tension between being run by a set of leaders who make decisions and also being democratic,” said Kuo.

Over the year to come, Kuo expects tensions to continue – not only among political parties but with other democratic institutions as well.

“I think there will continue to be a big tension between what the Supreme Court rules on things like democracy and rights and what people actually want,” Kuo said, adding how this has already been seen at the state level where voters have taken a collective stand against issues like restrictive abortion measures.

“Hopefully, there’s some way in which democracy can serve as a corrective to some policy areas where people feel as if a majority opinion is not represented.”

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

Even in a polarized era, deep divisions in both partisan coalitions

Table of contents.

• 1. The Republican coalition
• 2. The Democratic coalition
• 3. Faith and Flag Conservatives
• 4. Committed Conservatives
• 5. Populist Right
• 6. Ambivalent Right
• 7. Stressed Sideliners
• 8. Outsider Left
• 9. Democratic Mainstays
• 10. Establishment Liberals
• 11. Progressive Left
• 12. Political engagement among typology groups
• 13. How the political typology groups view major issues
• 14. Demographics and lifestyle differences among typology groups
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix A: Survey methodology
• Appendix B: Typology group creation and analysis

Pew Research Center conducted this study to learn more about the complexity of the current political environment. While partisanship remains the dominant factor in politics, we sought to identify the fissures within both partisan coalitions. We did this by creating a political typology, which classifies the public into nine distinct groups based on their political values and attitudes. To learn more about the political typology, including its history and the statistical methods used to create the typology, see “ Behind Pew Research Center’s 2021 Political Typology .”

The study is primarily based on a survey of 10,221 adults conducted on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel (ATP) from July 8-18, 2021; it also draws from several additional interviews with these respondents conducted since January 2020 (for more on the surveys used for analysis, see Appendix B and the detailed tables .

Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the ATP, an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used in the main typology survey , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Partisan polarization remains the dominant, seemingly unalterable condition of American politics. Republicans and Democrats agree on very little – and when they do, it often is in the shared belief that they have little in common .

Yet the gulf that separates Republicans and Democrats sometimes obscures the divisions and diversity of views that exist within both partisan coalitions – and the fact that many Americans do not fit easily into either one.

Republicans are divided on some principles long associated with the GOP: an affinity for businesses and corporations, support for low taxes and opposition to abortion. Democrats face substantial internal differences as well – some that are long-standing, such as on the importance of religion in society, others more recent. For example, while Democrats widely share the goal of combating racial inequality in the United States, they differ on whether systemic change is required to achieve that goal.

These intraparty disagreements present multiple challenges for both parties: They complicate the already difficult task of governing in a divided nation. In addition, to succeed politically, the parties must maintain the loyalty of highly politically engaged, more ideological voters, while also attracting support among less engaged voters – many of them younger – with weaker partisan ties.

Pew Research Center’s new political typology provides a road map to today’s fractured political landscape. It segments the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. The study is primarily based on a survey of 10,221 adults conducted July 8-18, 2021; it also draws from several additional interviews with these respondents conducted since January 2020.

This is the Center’s eighth political typology since 1987 , but it differs from earlier such studies in several important ways. It is the first typology conducted on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel , which provides the benefit of a large sample size and the ability to include a wealth of other political data for the analysis, including the Center’s validated voter study .

The four Democratic-oriented typology groups highlight the party’s racial and ethnic diversity, as well as the unwieldy nature of the current Democratic coalition. ( For complete descriptions of all nine typology groups see Chapters 3-11 ; for profiles of the Democratic and Republican coalitions see Chapters 1 and 2 of this report.)

They include two very different groups of liberal Democrats: Progressive Left and Establishment Liberals . Progressive Left, the only majority White, non-Hispanic group of Democrats, have very liberal views on virtually every issue and support far-reaching changes to address racial injustice and expand the social safety net. Establishment Liberals, while just as liberal in many ways as Progressive Left, are far less persuaded of the need for sweeping change.

Two other Democratic-aligned groups could not be more different from each other, both demographically and in their relationship to the party. Democratic Mainstays , the largest Democratic-oriented group, as well as the oldest on average, are unshakeable Democratic loyalists and have a moderate tilt on some issues. Outsider Left , the youngest typology group, voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden a year ago and are very liberal in most of their views, but they are deeply frustrated with the political system – including the Democratic Party and its leaders.

The four Republican-oriented groups include three groups of conservatives: Faith and Flag Conservatives are intensely conservative in all realms; they are far more likely than all other typology groups to say government policies should support religious values and that compromise in politics is just “selling out on what you believe in.” Committed Conservatives also express conservative views across the board, but with a somewhat softer edge, particularly on issues of immigration and America’s place in the world. Populist Right , who have less formal education than most other typology groups and are among the most likely to live in rural areas, are highly critical of both immigrants and major U.S. corporations.

Ambivalent Right , the youngest and least conservative GOP-aligned group, hold conservative views about the size of government, the economic system and issues of race and gender. But they are the only group on the political right in which majorities favor legal abortion and say marijuana should be legal for recreational and medical use. They are also distinct in their views about Donald Trump – while a majority voted for him in 2020, most say they would prefer he not continue to be a major political figure.

The only typology group without a clear partisan orientation – Stressed Sideliners – also is the group with the lowest level of political engagement. Stressed Sideliners, who make up 15% of the public but constituted just 10% of voters in 2020, have a mix of conservative and liberal views but are largely defined by their minimal interest in politics.

Here are the main findings from the new political typology:

Racial injustice remains a dividing line in U.S. politics. Perhaps no issue is more divisive than racial injustice in the U.S. Among the four Republican-oriented typology groups, no more than about a quarter say a lot more needs to be done to ensure equal rights for all Americans regardless of their racial or ethnic background; by comparison, no fewer than about three-quarters of any Democratic group say a lot more needs to be done to achieve this goal. However, Democrats differ over whether the changes to ensure equal rights for all can be achieved by working within the current system, or whether most laws and institutions need to be completely rebuilt. Progressive Left and Outsider Left are far more likely than the two other Democratic groups to say systemic change is needed to combat racial bias.

Democrats prefer bigger government – but how big? There are much bigger divides between parties than within them on opinions about the size of government. Democratic-aligned groups overwhelmingly prefer a bigger government providing more services; GOP groups, by similar margins, favor smaller government. But when asked if government services should be greatly expanded from current levels, Democrats are divided: A clear majority of Progressive Left (63%) favor greatly expanding government services, compared with about a third in other Democratic-oriented groups.

Economic policy – including taxes – divides the GOP. As noted, Populist Right diverge sharply from traditional GOP positions with their very negative views of corporations; just 17% say most corporations make a fair profit, which places this conservative group much closer to Democratic groups than to their Republican counterparts. And a majority of Populist Right (56%) favor raising taxes on household incomes above $400,000, as do 42% of Ambivalent Right (and substantial majorities in all Democratic-aligned groups).

Republicans’ complicated views of Trump. The Republican-oriented typology groups each supported Trump by wide margins in 2020. Yet the survey shows substantial differences among GOP groups over Trump’s future political role. In two of the four groups – Faith and Flag Conservatives and Populist Right – majorities want Trump to remain a major political figure and run for president again in 2024 . And only among Populist Right does a clear plurality view Trump as the best president of the past 40 years. Among other Republican-aligned groups, more either view Ronald Reagan as the best recent president (Committed Conservatives, Ambivalent Right), or are divided between Reagan and Trump (Faith and Flag Conservatives).

Stark differences among typology groups on U.S. global standing. When asked whether the U.S. is superior to all other countries, it is among the greatest countries, or there are other countries that are better, there is relative agreement across six of nine typology groups: About half or more in this very ideologically mixed set of groups – including Establishment Liberals and Populist Right – say the U.S. is among the greatest countries in the world. Faith and Flag Conservatives are the only group in which a majority (69%) says the U.S. stands above all other countries. Conversely, Progressive Left (75%) and Outsider Left (63%) are the only typology groups in which majorities say there are other countries better than the U.S.

Is there a ‘middle’ in politics today? Surveys by Pew Research Center and other national polling organizations have found broad support, in principle, for a third major political party. Yet the typology study finds that the three groups with the largest shares of self-identified independents (most of whom lean toward a party) – Stressed Sideliners, Outsider Left and Ambivalent Right – have very little in common politically. Stressed Sideliners hold mixed views; Ambivalent Right are conservative on many economic issues, while moderate on some social issues; and Outsider Left are very liberal on most issues, especially on race and the social safety net. What these groups do have in common is relatively low interest in politics: They had the lowest rates of voting in the 2020 presidential election and are less likely than other groups to follow government and public affairs most of the time.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Political Issues
• Political Parties
• Political Polarization
• Political Typology

Key facts about Americans and guns

Americans see little bipartisan common ground, but more on foreign policy than on abortion, guns, little change in americans’ views of trump over the past year.

• How the political typology groups compare

Worldwide Optimism About Future of Gender Equality, Even as Many See Advantages for Men

Most popular, report materials.

• Political Typology Quiz
• 2021 Typology Detailed Tables

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center