|
The Rise of Southern Republicans In 1940, 98% of southern voters were for segregation. Nearly all were voting democratic at that time. That was the party that protected the white power base. The Republican Party at that time was still the party of Lincoln in 1940. Battlefield sectionalism still governed the south's political leanings. By that time, it had also become the party of Herbert Hoover, who had protected the big oil and industrialists just prior to the Great Depression. The white, rural working man in the south hated the Republicans. The Democratic Party controlled all of the south at both state and national elected politics. Republican senator Trent Lott said that when he was a young man in Mississippi, he did not know, nor had he ever met a republican . Truman was the first president to change the platform of the Democratic Party to include civil rights. He did this by supporting the elimination of poll taxes and desegregating the U.S. Army. Up until that time, the southern white majority was content staying with the democratic platform. Southern democrats had been able to pressure northern democrats to stay out of civil rights issues even during the Roosevelt presidency. Once that platform change was accomplished in 1946, however, it was the stepping stone for the southern drift to the GOP. It would take another 40 years before the southerners could complete a total shift to the Republican Party. During those 40 years, the south witnessed Strom Thurmond run for president in 1948 after changing to a "States Right Democrat" which split from the Democratic Party after Truman desegregated the U.S. Army. Thurmond actually carried four southern states and would vote Republican in the next election. The alarm bells went off. The South then witnessed Barry Goldwater take a stand against the Civil Rights movement in 1964 (in which the southern white majority approved). They witnessed Democrat Lyndon Johnson make an effort on behalf of Civil Rights (which they did not approve), they witnessed Civil Rights activist Jimmy Carter fail their particular region in terms of policy, and they witnessed Ronald Reagan successfully represent the southern white working class. It was Reagan's presidency which completed the shift ideologically speaking and brought them to the polls under a different political party. By 1996, entrenched elected Democrats that had been voted in prior to the 1980s had largely moved with southern voters to the GOP. Several congressional members like Texas senator Phil Gramm had switched parties, and new republicans running for office has absorbed parts of the old democratic social agenda. There were other reasons why the parties flip-flopped - mostly reasons of labor and expanding government, but none were nearly as important as the race issue in defining southern politics. The southern demographics were white and rural well into the 1990s. Although several deep south states had large black populations, only a small percentage voted regularly. The Obama presidency represents another shift in southern demographics, but I haven't seen a good summary of those shifts, only some blogs and political websites. One important political shift was the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. At that time northern democrats saw fit NOT to involve themselves with southern democrats in filibustering either legislative act. Filibustering had been a way of life for southern democrats since the 1930s. The Democrats loss of power in overturning the two acts during the Johnson administration would permanently shift civil rights advocacy to the democratic platform... and this coupled with Barry Goldwater's republican position of opposing the Civil Rights Bill would forever change how the southern democrats would perceive their party's position on state's rights. It would be the Republicans who would begin to own the state's rights issue. Before Barry Goldwater in 1964, the Republican Party had not carried a Deep South state in 88 years. Goldwater made significant inroads that year. In 1968, four years later, George Wallace, who was running as an Independent, carried 63% of the white vote in the Deep South. In the words of Merle Black in his book, The Rise of Southern Republicans, "Only the least astute could fail to understand that Wallace hoped to nationalize the politics of race." Review of The Rise of Southern Republicans BY MEGAN CORLEY Also a reference to "Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996" by John Gerring Earl and Merle Black’s work is a vital resource that fully explains the transformation of the Democrat and Republican Parties since the Civil War. Both parties have changed as a response to historical events, legislation, and the changing demography of the electorate, which the Black’s outline and discuss meticulously. One of the main ideas of the composition is the Democrats’ strong grip on Southern Politics for so long after the Civil War. The authors address this quite clearly throughout the first half of the book. They begin their identification of reasons for the Democratic stronghold of the South with the aftermath of the Civil war. What the authors state as “battlefield sectionalism[1]” is one of the reasons the South was, for so long, Democratic. The Republican Party had not only clearly been against Southern secession, but had also been unsympathetic to the goals of Southern Democrats.[2] This rivalry continued into reconstruction and thereafter. In short, Northern [Republican] and Southern [Democratic] politicians began fighting in politics what they had originally been fighting on the battlefield.[3] One major reason of the Democratic grip on the south after the Civil War that the authors did fail to mention was the compromise of 1877. After what was thought by many to be the corrupt election of 1876, giving Republican Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency, a deal was struck with the south in order for them to concede their Democratic candidate Tildon[4]. In this compromise, the north agreed to initiate infrastructure (some of which was destroyed or damaged during the war), agreed to allow a southerner in the President’s Cabinet, and, most importantly, would remove federal troops. Northern Republicans would live to regret this item of the compromise for over 50 years because of the power it gave Democrats in the south. With the removal of federal troops, southern racist Democrats were left to conduct elections without the supervision of federal authority. Because of this, former slaves, who had been enfranchised by the 15th amendment, were refused the right to vote indirectly by such things as literacy tests, poll taxes, and the Grandfather Law, stating that one’s grandfather had to vote in the election of 1864 in order to vote presently. Together, these three devices prevented former slaves from voting without ever the word “slave” or “race” being mentioned. The compromise of 1877 was the only variable contributing to Democratic domination of the south not mentioned by the Black brothers in their book; however, it is a quite important one that explains the continued disenfranchisement of blacks after the Civil War and the continued success of the Democratic Party. Among the next variables mentioned for Democratic domination by the Black brothers is the south’s mistrust of Republican presidents and their agendas. The Hoover administration of 1928-1932 is the first to be cited by the Blacks. Hoover, because of various reasons, became the first of several Republican presidents to embitter the South, thus giving the Democrats and even larger edge in political battles. They used this in campaigning against local or state Republicans saying that their republican opponents would only do the will of the present Republican presidential administration. The first and most obvious reason for the southern dislike of Hoover would be his seeming responsibility for the Great Depression, which left the already poor south in shambles. The second reason for the south to dislike him was because of the more immediate effects of the depression, including widespread unemployment, with which Hoover was unwilling to deal.[5] He is quoted as saying “Prosperity is just around the corner,” revealing a laissez-faire view of economics and “hands-off” government stance.[6] As opposed to Hoover, Roosevelt gave the south hope for infrastructure, jobs, and welfare programs to bring the region to its feet[7]. Moreover, the period gave southern democratic congressman the chance to pull in funds for their constituents needing the money most. More importantly, most southerners were too poor to pay income taxes at the time, so the funding for these programs was coming from the North.[8] This gave southerners another reason to like and trust Democrats—they got them the pork for free. For this reason they not only voted in Roosevelt another three times but also kept their own Democratic incumbents in office. According to Black, Republicans could no longer attack the Democrats as the party of “rebellion and white supremacy” as they had in the past five decades. The Democrats were now identified with a Democratic president of social welfare programs of the New Deal, which further put the Republicans at a disadvantage in the south since they had little appeal to white southerners.[9] After the four term presidency of Roosevelt, a military hero was nominated on the Republican ticket. Dwight Eisenhower was a moderate conservative who leaned toward states’ rights, thus capturing some of the southern vote.[10] However, the south soon lost touch with this seemingly outsider, especially after his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, who then ruled in favor of integration in Brown v. Board of Topeka.[11] Furthermore, in 1957, he sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas in order to enforce desegregation at a high school there.[12] The south viewed these two extreme actions on the part of Eisenhower as the Republicans forcing racial changes on a region quite content with the status quo. Eisenhower, like Hoover, further distanced the Republican Party from southern voters and lessened the chances of their party gaining any ground in the south. Republicans two times around clearly had demonstrated their inability to identify with southerners’ agenda and goals, thus strengthening the grip of the Democrats on the region. The final cause of Democratic domination of southern politics discussed thoroughly by the Black brothers had to do with the house and senate elections of that region. The Democrats, who held the incumbent advantage in southern congressional elections, increasingly prevented Republicans from securing seats because incumbent elections were and are substantially more difficult to win than open seat elections.[13] However, the Republicans proved weak in open seat elections also. They failed to put up candidates and organize in an effective manner. Furthermore, many seats were simply conceded to the Democratic candidate. According to the Black brothers, “The easiest way to keep a party small is to fail to put up candidates.”[14] Furthermore, the Black brothers emphasize that since little separated the platform of southern Republicans from southern Democrats and since Democrats were the congressional majority holding much power, it made more sense to vote for powerful Democrats rather than powerless Republicans.[15] Furthermore, after federal intervention on segregation and the Voting Rights Act, Democrats had begun forming biracial coalitions, pulling in the vote of the newly enfranchised southern blacks[16]. The increased electorate for the Democrats had the reverse effect on their Republican opponents—it added further burden to their cause of mobilizing voters and running effective campaigns[17]. Thus, the Republican Party, with few candidates higher than those of local offices and with the Democrats pulling in a supermajority of the black vote, would have little ground in the south until vigorous and energetic campaigning took place to achieve higher offices and political appeal to a wider range of the electorate. The authors conclude that the Democrats held the south for over a century after the Civil War because of battlefield sectionalism, the southern mistrust of Republican presidents and their national agenda (as opposed to Democratic presidents who seemed more sympathetic to the Southern cause), and finally, the lack of grassroots support for Republicans and their inability to contest congressional elections against the ever powerful Democrats in that region. Appropriately, another main idea of the work is how the Republicans overcame the strength of the Democrats and the contributing factors to the rise of Republicanism in the South. The two main reasons discussed by the Black brothers in their explanation of southern Republicanism are the appeal of Reagan to many southern conservatives as well as the increasing discontent of traditional southern Democratic voters with their congressional representatives. Southerners were first wooed by the Republican Party in a presidential election in 1952 when they nominated Eisenhower. However, as stated before, Ike lost touch with southern political goals when he appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court and later enforced integration in an Arkansas high school. Though he failed to de-align many conservatives from the Democratic Party in the south, the support the south initially gave him demonstrated a small victory for the Republicans who had tried for nearly 30 years to present an appealing candidate to that region of the country[18]. Eisenhower first had the support of southern Republicans and a small number of conservative independents and Democrats.[19] The real de-alignment of southern conservative Democrats that ultimately provided the party with the strength and electorate it needed came in 1980. Beforehand, many southerners of the Deep South disgusted with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave support to Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who campaigned against the act, saying that it took power away from the states.[20] After the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 by the Johnson administration, many southerners began to question the Democratic Party and its objectives. Some felt it was out of line to pass such legislation and many traditional southern Democrats, strict to their belief of white supremacy, joined the Republicans. Prominent southern Democratic senators, such as Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott switched to the Republican Party as the Democrats strayed more and more away from their traditional conservatism.[21] United under Goldwater, the Republicans, at least nationally, stood more conservatively than did the Democrats. For this reason, they gradually began appealing to the southern voter. Republicans from 1964 on began speaking in a conservative voice. Since the Democrats became the champions of equal rights with the Civil Rights era legislation and LBJ’s Great Society, they could no longer play the conservative card, not even in the South. Southern Democratic congressmen were forced to vote with their party on these critical issues; therefore, their approval at home declined and Republicans were able to use this against them in elections years.[22] Though the Democrats continued to organize biracial coalitions, the white electorate of the south was slowly being appealed to by the Republicans. In 1980, the de-alignment of the southern Democrats took place with the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[23] According to the Black brothers: Reagan attracted a majority of white conservatives into the Republican Party and persuaded many other conservatives to think of themselves as ‘independents’ rather than as Democrats. The Republican President had a different impact on southern white moderates. He eroded their traditional attachment to the Democratic Party and increased their Republican ties, thereby neutralizing a huge, longstanding Democratic advantage among this critically important segment of the southern electorate.[24] This unification made the Republican Party more competitive with its Democratic opponents in the south and allowed for more Republicans to take office there. The shift of the electorate, according to the Black brothers, occurred exactly when it should have. “The south finally experienced a Republican president with whom they could proudly identify.”[25] Reagan effectively appealed the Republican Party to white southerners as the party best able to accomplish their political goals.[26] As well as emphasizing their more conservative message, the Republicans began appealing to another segment of the southern electorate—the religious right[27]. Reagan’s message of pro-life and emphasis on family values resonated strongly with the religious right. These major parts pf the Republican platform still pull in 40 percent of the southern electorate today.[28] The gradual move of the National Democratic Party to a less conservative stance on issues forced southern Democrats to either change party in order to stand firm with their conservative beliefs or be voted out of office. This allowed for Republicans, who had had no ground to criticize the Democrats for years, to easily play the conservative card in southern elections, since it was clear that the Democrats were not the true conservatives. After federal intervention on segregation, the Democrats began taking up the voice of the oppressed African American during the Civil Rights era. Though this enabled them to organize biracial coalitions during elections, it angered many traditional southern Democrats who were true to their belief of white supremacy. Goldwater initially organized Republicans into what we know them today; however, Reagan’s presidency was the moving force causing white southern Democrats to switch to the Republican Party[29]. All these variables together strengthened the Republican Party in the south making it a force to be reckoned with in election years. The Democrats, whose party became increasingly liberal on domestic issues such as civil rights and the economy, lost touch with the Southern cause. For many years before the brawl over the civil rights issue in 1964, there was a constant trade-off in existence between the Democrats of the north and Democrats of the south. In the north, senators “did not openly espouse white supremacy nor did they denounce efforts to improve the position of blacks.”[30] Instead, they protected the southern senators’ right to filibuster. By the 1950s, however, long suppressed racial matters were brought up, putting into question the southern Democrats, who were instrumental in their suppression. The Black brothers explain, “As time passed, liberal northern Democrats were less inclined to put up with the powerful southern conservatives. […] It was one thing for conservative southerners to chair committees before national legislation reshaped southern race relations; it was something else to permit southern conservatives to continue using their institutional power to undermine or dilute the northerners’ liberal policy objectives.”[31] Many ranking southern Democrats were able to keep office after federal intervention by chairing powerful committees and voting with their national party only when they had to[32]. However, many congressmen, who had voted with their party up until federal intervention and the civil rights era, began distancing themselves or even abandoning the party. Therefore, the tradeoff between the northern and southern Democrats only occurred up until the early 1950s because of the rebellion within the Democratic Party caused by federal intervention.[33] The Civil Rights era brought on much opposition to equal rights for minorities. This era was the breaking point (for the most part) for the South from the Democratic Party as stated before. The National Democrats, who had become liberal on domestic issues (the Great Society) and civil rights (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act), were thought to be out of touch with Southern political attitudes. However, as the north and majority of the country passed this legislation, the South continued to be embittered by the progressive movement in which the Democrats were taking the government. The Black brothers state that just as the Republicans had taken up the voice of the African American in the 1800s, so did the Democrats in the 1900s. It was what destroyed the Republicans in the south in the nineteenth century and it was bound to destroy the Democrats in the south in the twentieth century.[34] Civil Rights legislation was first brought to light by Harry Truman and the southern Democrats were the first to speak against it. Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn promised his constituencies that he would vote against every bill attacking southern segregation laws.[35] From this, it can be determined that starting in the late 1940s, the South’s agenda became incongruent with that of the Democrats, who began taking more a liberal stance on civil rights. Democrats of the north who wanted to pass economic and racially liberal programs angered southern Democrats, who then filibustered to prevent their passage[36]. Later, Democrats backed labor unions, further angering the southerners, who were anti-union with a passion.[37] Because of the increasingly liberal attitude of the Democrats, the south felt incongruent with their national agenda and was forced to put faith in the Republicans. The south’s switch to the Republican Party in the 1990s was a monumental change in southern politics with the south going overwhelmingly republican. For over a century after the Civil War, the South had been overwhelmingly democrat. The change occurred because of a flip-flop of the two parties in that region with the Republicans becoming like the earlier Democrats and the Democrats becoming like the earlier Republicans. The Republicans traditionally had been the party to defend the rights of the African American. Additionally, they had been the advocates of internal improvements (i.e. domestic programs), especially under Lincoln. However, FDR changed the latter with his New Deal programs, giving not the Republicans but the Democrats this label—the party of domestic policy.[38] Democrats became even more liberally positioned by Truman’s administration, when Truman attempted to pass the first civil rights bill. It was filibustered by southern Democrats to prevent passing at all costs. Six years later, Johnson reattempted legislation and it successful passed with a coalition of northern Democrats and northern Republicans.[39] After the civil rights era, the Democrats had not only transformed into the party of domestic reform but of social reform as well. Because of this new liberal attitude of the south’s own party, it was forced to reconsider the platform of the Republicans, who emerged as the true party of the conservatives after the 1960s. The Republican Party, who seemed to voice the same anti-civil rights attitudes of the south, became more appealing to southerners. By the time of Reagan’s presidency, many southerner s had aligned into the Republican Party because of Goldwater[40]. The largest alignment of conservative southerners took place during and after Reagan. Reagan convinced southerners that the Republicans were the party best suited to meet their needs. Since the Democrats seemed to all but abandon a conservative agenda, the south switched. By the 1990s, there was a majority of Republicans from the south in both the house and the senate.[41] Thus, the Republicans effectively appealed to the south while the Democrats moved further away from their southern constituents, allowing for the flip flop of the two parties in the south. The switch of the two parties in ideology and attitude affects each one differently. The republican appeal to more conservative white groups has attracted the vote of upper income males, middle class families, and, more recently, the religious right. The republican switch to appealing to such groups as the religious right has proved extremely beneficial in election years (the past presidential election is an example). However, emphasizing social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage instead of affirmative action and women’s rights has historically cost the Republicans the vote of the minority. The Democrats in this area have picked up that advantage. Carrying the labels associated with the civil rights era and the new deal, the Democrats have the support of minorities, most women, and lower classes.[42] For this reason, the Democrats will be better off in the long run than will the Republicans. Stressing issues such as domestic programs (healthcare, social security, education) rather than moral issues are far more beneficial when looking at the success of the parties. Democrats have been the champions of domestic reform and have the physical evidence to prove that the country improved under their progressive administrations. The Republicans, who have become gradually more conservative, have little to show for their own administrations. In the future, this new conservative attitude will be detrimental to the Republicans.
Party Ideologies in America 1828-1996 Traditionally, mainstream scholarship on the study of American Political Parties emphasized that they are non-ideological and rather form their attitudes as new issues arise. Gerring states, however, that American political parties have historically been based upon ideology and have had consistent ideological differences. He bases his thesis on party platforms as they have evolved over time and the changing appeal of presidential speeches. Gerring and the Black brothers’ conclusions about party behavior in America are both similar and different. Gerring’s thesis and conclusions, as opposed to the Blacks, are more based on the entire party’s rhetoric and actions. The Blacks, however, state their thesis and conclusions about the parties, especially the Democrats, as acting differently among the north and south. The Blacks, also, conclude that the actions of both parties had to do more with national events and legislation than actual shifts in ideology, as Gerring suggests. Gerring and the Black brothers are similar in their discussion of party strategy. Gerring suggests that it was ideological shifting that was used to pull in more of the electorate. The Blacks also suggest shifting (and later a total flip flop of the two parties), however their shift is one the of party’s attitudes toward legislation to attract a larger electorate. Gerring claims that the two parties have shifted position in ideological thinking, rather than doing a total flip flop as suggested by the Black brothers. He traces their ideological thinking from the 1820s and divides the parties’ ideological eras in to three epochs for the Democrats and two epochs for the whig/Republicans. The first part of the book traces the ideological movements of the Republicans through their two epochs in American history, the National Epoch and the Neoliberal Epoch. The National epoch states exactly what the message of the party was—concern for the national issues it deemed most important. In this period of history, from 1828-1924, the Republicans incorporated labor into their party’s message. They pushed for the Morrill tariff, and the Homestead Act, which together created a better condition for the worker.[43] Along with labor, they emphasized neomercantilism as their economic policy. Republicans’ philosophy was strictly legal (as opposed to the Democrats’ moral stance) when it came to the “trustbusting” associated with the late 1800s. They believed organizations should be kept within the limits of law.[44] For this reason, the judicial system they believed was an ally.[45] An additional part of their ideology was statism. They believed the power of the state should never come into question. Additionally, they defended loose construction of the constitution and often associated themselves with the earlier Federalists.[46] The last two parts of the republican ideology discussed by Gerring in the period 1828-1924 had to do with society. Social order (order versus anarchy) was emphasized in order for Republicans to place restraints on individual freedoms.[47] Moral order of Yankee Protestantism was used to justify the Republican stance on immigration in that, the United States did not want someone coming to the country that was not good enough for their own country.[48] The National Epoch meant just what it said, meaning the Republican ideology was one that reflected the national interests of the country. By the 1920s, the Republicans had shifted ideology in many respects. They had gone from support of laborers to support of small business and personal success. They aimed to appeal their ideology to the middle class professional worker and the individual consumer, rather than the blue collar worker the party had supported before[49]. Also, it initiated the Republicans’ [of today] opposition to organized labor, which was seen as a hindrance of personal success.[50] The Republicans additionally shifted their original favor of social order to individual freedom. By the end of the 1920s, the Republicans had morphed into “avid libertarians,” according to Gerring, who felt intervention in personal affairs should be strictly regulated.[51] Their statist view during the national epoch was abandoned totally as the Republicans gradually turned against the state. This third shift in their ideology is best described by Gerring: Whereas the National Republican Party engineered a wide variety of neomercantilist policies to encourage the growth of native industries, the later Republican Party eschewed all governmental involvement in economic affairs, except where necessary to preserve competition. [52] Though the statism to antistatism shift seems like the latter is the opposite of the former ideology, the change was not a flip flop. Because the change occurred over a period of time and the new ideology was adopted more gradually, it was more a change and not a total flip flop of the party. Also, when looking at all aspects of the party’s ideology, it can be seen that only three were shifted—not all. The Democrats experienced similar shifts in their own ideology throughout the three in which Gerring divides their political ideological history. In the first epoch, the Jeffersonian epoch, the Democrats incorporated racism into their ideology. Especially before, during, and after the civil war, white supremacy rhetoric was heard time and again from Democrats, especially southerners protecting the interests of the white man. According to Gerring, “Virtually every aspect of the Democratic Party’s rhetorical program and agenda supported the cause of white supremacy.”[53] Corresponding to their desire for the government not to intervene in racial matters was their ideology of limited government. Not only did they want the government out of social issues but they opposed to national bank and the tariff.[54] Additionally, Democrats opposed the Bank of the United States, and used this as an election issue in the 1820s and 30s.[55] Instead of a powerful federal government, they instead wanted more power given to the states (states’ rights).[56] The last three ideologies held by the Democrats in this epoch had to do with preservation, the first being the pre-industrial economy. Democrats believed in the economic policy of laissez-faire—that people knew what best suited them without government intervention. This was thought by Democrats to best preserve the economy.[57] Along with preserving the economy, Democrats’ second preservation ideology was to preserve the republic. This ideal actually held little substance and in short it meant that Democrats wanted to prevent tyranny while not exactly accomplishing much else toward this goal, as stated by Gerring.[58] The last idea to be preserved by Democrats in their ideology was liberty. Democrats throughout the elections of the 1800s preached the greatness of the Bill of Rights and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.[59] For this reason, they became the champions of civil rights also (for whites). In doing so they attracted the waves of immigrants coming to the United States in the late 1800s.[60] Thus, the Jeffersonian Epoch saw the Democrats championing racism, limited government, and the preservation of the pre-industrial economy, the republic, as well as liberty. As the Democrats moved into the Populist Epoch (1896-1948), their ideology shifted gears in three areas. They first moved from a limited government philosophy to a power of the people approach to government. Limited government, before in the Jeffersonian Epoch, had meant “not the rule of the people, but simply preserving the rights of the people against the degradations of the state.”[61] This being said, their shift to rule of the people was quite substantial in the Populist Epoch. The Democrats moved toward opposition of many state institutions, especially the courts, which were seen as obstacles in the fight for workers’ rights. Populist Democracy was distinguished from the previous epoch because of the Democrats’ implicit class orientation, especially the lower classes.[62] Accordingly, the Democrats shifted their stance on race and concentrated more on the issue of labor. Civil rights legislation has all bust disappeared by the late 1800s; therefore, there was no need to take unnecessary stances on the matter. Instead the Democrats backed labor, especially unions, which appealed to, once again, the lower classes and the immigrant.[63] As the Democrats moved into the populist epoch, the last area in which they shifted was their view of government. They took on a new ideology of rehabilitating government, seemingly abandoning many of their older Jeffersonian beliefs in doing so. Whereas equality in the previous epoch meant political issues, equality in the Populist Epoch was in terms of economic issues.[64] For this and following reasons, their previous laissez-faire ideology had evolved into one of government action. They shifted from advocating excise taxes to income taxes. Additionally, and most importantly, they shifted from states’ rights to federalism. The final epoch, spanning from 1952-1992 was called the Universalist Epoch by Gerring. In this new era, the Democrats made two important shifts in their message to the public. The 1950s saw the Democrats move from an emphasis on labor to one of economics as a whole. For this reason, the Democrats began embracing all parts of the economy, including that which it had deemed evil during the previous two epochs, business.[65] They gradually shifted away from a total labor stance to one that embraced labor and tolerated business. The last shift made in the final epoch was the evolving from a majority rule stance to a minority rights stance as well as one of inclusion. These new ideologies both were changes from the previous epochs. The earlier Democrats had stressed rule by the majority. In the last half of the twentieth century, civil rights were instead adopted. Anti-poverty legislation was backed, as a part of LBJ’s Great Society.[66] This new ideology added to the later included ideology were two more devices in the Democratic rhetoric to appeal to the common man. Together, the new economic and minority rights policies significantly departed from the Democrats’ views of the previous epoch. Gerring concludes that the parties over time have merely shifted ideology, adjusting to the changing electorate and situation of the country. In the 1800s, the Democrats and Republicans voiced messages of either government or anti-government, moral or legal philosophy, and restraint versus anarchy. In the 1900s, the two parties adjusted to include to include the roll of African Americans, labor, and industry, all of which caused a shift in their ideology. The two books are good resources for further in-depth reading on American political parties. They contain information not otherwise available to the general public. By analyzing the data displayed in each, conclusions about party ideologies and behavior can be drawn. More importantly, conclusions about the parties’ future behavior may be drawn by looking at their pasts. Undecided or independent voters may benefit greatly by reading these books. Understanding the history of parties is a vital tool in understanding their present agendas. |