U.S. Political Party System

¶ … Anti-Federalists and the Constitution in the Development of Political Parties The Development of Political Parties The Constitution and Political Parties The Changing Ideology of Political Parties Even before the adoption of the Constitution, political parties were beginning to form. Those who favored the Constitution were called Federalists, and were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Another group, led by Thomas Jefferson, opposed the adoption of the Constitution and was known as Antifederalists.

The Antifederalists broke up after the Constitution was ratified, but they set the stage for the development of other political parties, resulting in the two party system that we have today. The Development of Political Parties The debate over the Constitution split people into two groups. Those who favored ratification believed that a strong federal government that would dominate the individual states. Hamilton particularly argued that the future of the country depended on the development of a viable mercantile and manufacturing economy.

Such an economy would require a strong central government. Jefferson and the Antifederalists feared a strong central government because they believed that it would trample the rights of individuals. They favored states rights, decentralization, and an agrarian economy. Of course, the Federalists triumphed, but not before the Antifederalists forced the adoption of the Bill of Rights (Elkins and McKitrick 32, 59-61). After the Constitutional debate, the Antifederalists broke up while the Federalists gained most of the political power.

Jefferson was the lone nonfederalist in the Washington administration, but his influence was limited, and he left his post as Secretary of State. Regional interests began to drive politics, with the New England states supporting the Federalists. Southerners and former Antifederalists began to coalesce into the Democratic Republican Party, with Jefferson as its head. Essentially, their philosophy was the same as the Antifederalists. The wealthy tended to support the Federalists, and the common people supported the Democratic Republicans.

By the 1796 election, political parties were established in the United States and have existed ever since then. For the most part, there have been two major parties, although there have been brief periods in which one party has dominated nationally (Sharp 138-162). III. The Constitution and Political Parties The Constitution apparently does not envision political parties since it does not mention them anywhere.

However, while it is clear that some of the founders were surprised by the emergence of political parties, most of the founders were politically savvy, and at least some of them must have realized that the creation of political parties was inevitable. After all, they had the evidence of Great Britain, which saw the development of the Tory and Whig parties while America was still a colony. Furthermore, they had the experience of seeing two quasi-parties develop during the Constitutional debate.

One can only conclude that they felt that including references to parties in the Constitution was unnecessary, since their development was inevitable. This begs the question of whether the Constitution itself made the development of political parties inevitable or if their creation is more the result of the diversity of interests that exist in a large nation. The answer seems to be that both were contributing factors. The Constitution created a system that made parties necessary. Passage of legislation requires majorities.

This in turn leads to the formation of alliances within the legislatures. This in turn creates an impetus to elect groups of legislators who will work together and share the same views. Maybe this is why the founders felt that it was unnecessary to mention political parties explicitly. But, the other argument is valid as well. In a country with diverse interests, political parties are bound to form. Even before independence was achieved, there was a dichotomy of interests among the different regions.

The concerns of the South were different from those of New England and the Middle States. It was only natural for those with common views to work together, leading to the formation of political parties. Furthermore, personal ambition had to be a factor in the formation of parties. Many of the men who founded this country, such as Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams were ambitious and had large egos.

They could not all dominate one party, so it was inevitable that some of these men would form groups that they could dominate (Elkins and McKitrick 34-44, 54, 103-105). IV. The Changing Ideology of Political Parties Political parties realign their ideologies to meet changing times and sentiments. For example, the Antifederalists and their successors favored an agrarian economy and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. But, once Jefferson became President, he had to change his philosophy because the Louisiana Purchase could only be justified by a broad interpretation of the Constitution.

He also saw that the future of the country was tied to manufacturing and trade, so he dropped his opposition to these activities. Today, Democrats, who stated out as states rights advocates and who preferred limited federal power now generally favor bigger government, federal involvement, and social intervention. Republicans, who started out with a platform of social intervention and later took on big business under the Roosevelt and Taft administrations, now favor smaller government, big business, and large tax cuts.

A catalyst for changes in party ideology is the emergence of third parties. These parties usually are created to address a limited number of issues. If any of these issues resonate with the electorate, one or both of the dominant parties will adopt.