The American Bipolarchy: A Sketch.

The main reason why something seems fishy about the persistence of the current two-party system is that it has persisted much longer than its predecessors. While there has never been a three-or-more-party system in American history, there have been periods when different parties struggled for power.

Party politics began with the emergence of an opposition to George Washington's administration. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that Alexander Hamilton was using his power as Treasury Secretary to favor banks and financial speculators. After Washington won two terms without opposition, the first contested election was in 1796. Under the original constitutional rules, Jefferson became John Adams's vice president by finishing second to Adams in the Electoral College, even though Adams was a Federalist, one of Hamilton's party. Jefferson defeated Adams in 1800 and the Federalists never won another presidential election. They were discredited by their opposition to the War of 1812 and ceased to exist as a national party by 1820. In that year James Monroe ran unopposed. His reelection marked the "Era of Good Feeling" that ended four years later.

Jefferson's party chose its presidential candidates through a Congressional caucus. In 1824 the rank and file resisted the caucus's choice. Four different candidates received electoral votes that year. None got a majority in the Electoral College, forcing the House of Representatives to choose the President. While Andrew Jackson got the most popular votes, the House chose John Quincy Adams. Jackson got his revenge on Adams in 1828. During Jackson's two terms, an opposition began to coalesce, first calling themselves National Republicans, later labeling themselves Whigs. They won the Presidency in 1840 and 1848. Jackson's party became the Democratic Party that exists today.

By 1856 the Whig Party had disintegrated. The Democrats were immediately challenged by the anti-Catholic American (aka Know-Nothing) Party and the free-soil Republicans. After finishing second in 1856, the Republicans took the White House in 1860 after a four-party race. From that point on, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have finished worse than second, with the exception of 1912, when ex-President and ex-Republican Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent, relegating Republican incumbent William Howard Taft to third place.

To sum up, the first party period (Jeffersonians vs. Federalists) lasted roughly from 1796 to 1816, while the second (Democrats vs. Whigs) lasted roughly from 1832 to 1856. That's less than a quarter-century apiece. The current period (Democrats vs. Republicans) has lasted since 1864 -- 143 years and counting.

There were moments when the current system could have failed. The Democratic Party could well have been discredited for being the party of Southern secessionists and "copperhead" defeatists during the Civil War. The Democrats in fact went 24 years, from 1860 until 1884, without winning the Presidency, but the party survived. The Republicans might have collapsed after their humiliation in 1912, and barely survived their identification with Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. Instead, it kept coming back, even after Barry Goldwater was crushed in 1964, even as the Democrats bounced back from similar landslide losses in 1972 and 1984. These were all worse defeats than the Whigs ever suffered, yet the two parties survive today. For some reason, people keep coming back to one or the other.

Have voters lost imagination, or courage, or even a sense of risk, since 1824 or 1856? Or have the two parties proved so accommodating that there's never been a reason to abandon either of them? Some people might say the adaptability of the two parties is a good thing, but what should we make of the fact that each party now affirms policies nearly the opposite of those it espoused 100 years ago? Once upon a time the Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism and white supremacy, and the Republicans championed civil rights and protectionism. Is it a good thing that these institutions, rich from perpetual fundraising and certainly self-interested, can change positions to keep in power? Or does that show that both parties are "democratic" entities, responsive to the will of the grass roots, mere instruments to be used by mass movements as they arise? That only begs the question: why didn't any of these mass movements form their own parties? Why did they prefer to take over the existing parties, when by comparison no one thought to take over the Whig Party? Why are the two parties seen as prizes to be captured rather than relics to be buried?

These are rhetorical questions, some of which readers should be able to answer themselves, but in future installments I want to look into what actually happened to give these two parties their unnatural strength. Money will be a factor, as anyone can guess, but I think the growing power of the Presidency is another, since the one obvious reason to have a national party is to elect the one official who claims to represent the entire nation. Whatever we find, let's not take the existence of the two-party system for granted as the best of all possible worlds, or in Churchill's phrase, the worst form of government except for all the others. Look at American politics today and you should know better automatically.