Birth of a New Political Party

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 4 September 2009 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

by John Armor (BB 670, Even, 4 Sept, 707 words)

The last time a new American political party came into being, one strong enough to elect a President, was in 1854. As you have guessed, that was the Republican Party. Its first elected President was Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Many third party and independent campaigns have been mounted since then. The Progressive Party around 1900 managed to elect Governors and majorities in the legislature of several states. Their high water mark was in 1912, when former President Teddy Roosevelt chose that Party as his vehicle to run again when the Republicans declined to nominate him, again. (No, there never was a “Bull Moose Party.” Don’t send letters and postcards claiming that there was.)

What’s the relevance of this ancient history to the off-year, congressional election in 2010? Well, take a look at that history and see what seems familiar.

The Republican Party began with a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854. Present were members of the Free Soil Party (favoring continued homesteading rights) and Conscience Whigs (northern Whigs separated from their southern members over slavery). The meeting was led by a disgruntled Democrat (who also split with his Party on slavery).

Remember this point. The new Party was created by people who had been elected under other party labels, but became dissatisfied with their current parties’ stands on key issues. The current two major parties are both fractured over key issues, including taxes, public debt, growth of government regulations, and respect for the Constitution.

All new party efforts since 1854 have failed at the national level. The reason for that unbroken history of failure is because all those new party efforts sought to reinvent the wheel and create parties from scratch. All successful efforts up to 1854 followed a different path. In the successful examples, elected officials changed their party labels, and later captured the support of voters who’d made the same shifts.

In 1856 the Republican candidate, John Fremont, won a third of the votes though his Party wasn’t one of the two strongest parties, going into that election. By 1858, the Republicans held a majority in Congress, not because they had elected a majority of the Senators and Representatives. They elected many. But the Members who put them over the top had been elected under other party labels, but switched to the Republicans.

All right, what is the situation of the current major parties? The Democrats are split into three groups, the hard left, the center, and the moderate right. There is no love lost between the right and left wings of that Party. Votes coming up in Congress will probably demonstrate that the wings of the Democrats hate each other enough so they will refuse to vote together.

The Republican Party is also fractured, into the hard right, and the squishy moderates. The hatred within the Party may be less, but the refusal to hold together for votes in Congress will be equally apparent.

And where do the American people stand? They have contempt for both the Republican and Democrat Parties. On the issues, public opinion is more against the Democrats than Republicans. Experts on both sides of the aisle expect the Democrats to lose seats in both Houses of Congress in 2010. But because the Republicans are also disrespected, they will probably will not win a majority in either House.

Some Republicans talk of “rebranding the Party.” Such efforts will fail. Just because the cat has kittens in the oven, doesn’t make them biscuits. However, if a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats all support these four issues -- obey the Constitution, cut taxes, reduce government control of lives of Americans, and support term limits – as a group they will dominate the elections and control both Houses of Congress.

What label will they adopt? The Tea Party Party is too casual. They will dump the current leaders of both Houses of Congress, assuming that Senator Reid has not already been dumped by his Nevada constituents, a preliminary shock heralding the coming earthquake.

No pundits are currently talking about this new party possibility. It is a long shot. But those who ignore the political history of American parties do not even realize this has happened several times before, and can happen again.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu His latest book, on Thomas Paine, is available here: www.TheseAreTheTimes.us (Note the suffix, .us)

- 30 -

[Beamreach]

Billy, i can see where this could happen. if each state takes its tea parties and other grass roots infrastructure and began to work on voting in only those that they feel are real consertives “and only giving money to the canidates election machine” (and not the rnc), the rnc could be left in the cold with no money. Not exactly sure how the whole thing would work, but keep the money out of the rnc’s hands........maybe we could come up with a new party, just maybe.......

[Impy]

No pundits are currently talking about this new party possibility. It is a long shot.

In the extreme. I will hit the lotto first.

Retaking the Republican party from the RINO scum is the only hope for the American right.

[dcwusmc]

If by “socially conservative” you mean using government to prohibit folks from doing things of which YOU disapprove, a la the Left, then, no, you’d NOT be welcome.

[ansel12]

I mean socially conservative like the people that created this nation and kept it so socially conservative until the 1960s.

The way that the voters that are the core and the heart of conservatism mean it and that have been fighting the left and the none social conservative voters that vote for the left.

[Sherman Logan]

the tiny electorate was all white males and almost all protestant

In 1854, the US had, for all practical purposes, universal white male suffrage. Blacks weren't allowed to vote except in an occasional place, but all white men could.

[ansel12]

Yeah, I didn’t say anything that contradicts that.

[Sherman Logan]

Not a bad analysis. A few historical thoughts.

1. The “second party” from the 1830s on, the Whigs, began disintegrating as a result of the reintroduction of the slavery compromise into national politics due to the Compromise of 1850 and was more or less gone by 1852. The foundation of the Republican Party was thus not a third-party movement at all, it was a new party formed after the second party fell apart.

2. The Republicans also incorporated a bunch of members from the American or Know-Nothing party.

3. The Republicans of 1854 had the immense advantage that a single issue dominated American politics. Support for slavery, to varying degrees, was inherently linked to the Democratic party, but was opposed by a majority of Americans. This was an issue that by its very nature could not in the long run be compromised. I don’t see any such single-issue opening in America today. Your four-point program is interesting, but you must admit it’s a whole lot more vague “oppose the expansion of slavery.”

[nutmeg]

A viable 3rd party candidate running in 2012 is the only way in the world the zero could be reelected.

Don't fall for this.

Reforming and redirecting the republican party needs to be our focus. We will accomplish nothing excepting the reelection of the zero with a 3rd party.

I totally agree, Texas Freeper.

[Man50D]

Many people are under the false presumption we have a two party system. The Republican party has moved over the years incrementally far enough to the socialist left over the years to expand the voter base that it has melded with the Democrats to form one big socialist Republicrat party. There were no choices in the 2008 elections for this very reason.

The formation of another party founded on strong conservative principles will restore the two party system.

[Jim Noble]

In the shrinking parts of the country where the GOP still exists, it's hard for FReepers to see it.

It the parts of the country where the GOP has ceased to exist for all practical purposes, nothing is more clear than the need for a new party.

[Grizzled Bear]

It’s dead, Shaka.

[Jim Noble]

Strategically, I don’t believe that we have any choice but to re-take the Republican party as our first line of attack against the treasonous left.

The problem is that the Republican party is poison in states with greater than 270 EVs, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

The macro problem is that the "Reagan Democrats", who are the key to revival, hate the socons with such a passion that they won't even breathe the same air.

To have a successful coalition (all winning national parties are coalitions), this conflict has to be reconciled, somehow.

[EBH]

... support these four issues -- obey the Constitution, cut taxes, reduce government control of lives of Americans, and support term limits

How do social conservatives fit into the new party?

Gosh, I am going to sound like a troll on this...

But it seems to me that the left injected the social agenda into the government system. They did this by challenging God in both our culture and Deity in our government system.

We should not inject social conservatism into a party platform. We should accept our great mission to restore God to His rightful place in America. We have sent missionaries to far lands to bring the word of God, so too we need to return those Words to our own people. When God returns to Americans the chafe will fall away. The Holy Spirit must first move the hearts of Americans before successful change can happen.

[jla]

Failure to vote for a RINO does not imply affirmatively voting for a Rat.

I will strongly consider voting for Palin if she runs.

No disrespect intended, rabscuttle, but these two statements are incongruous.
Now, they wouldn't be if you had stated, 'failure to vote for a RINO does not imply affirmatively voting for a Rat, therefore if Sarah Palin is the GOP nominee in '12 I will of course vote for this grand lady'.

[jla]

This has happened before. It can happen again.

Since the evolution of the Republican & Democrat Parties there has been no sustainable third party. I am the type who says, 'never say never', but at this point in time I do not see a viable third party on the horizon and Sarah Palin has voiced no intent of herself initiating or joining one.
So this leaves conservatives with the Grand Ol' Party, but with a leader who has the ability to transform it into an organization that is indeed beholden to not only its members but more importantly to the United States Constitution.

An American Tradition...

...continues

Aside: It is an historical myth, and fallacy, that Thomas Jefferson was the 'father of the modern day Democrat Party. Though he may not have been the patriarch of the GOP, he definitely was not that of the Democrats.

[Clintonfatigued]

McCain run again? Not likely at his age. It’s also very unlikely that Giuliani will run again.

[Congressman Billybob]

The failure of third parties since 1854 is, I think, a matter of tactics, not opportunity.

There are two ways to storm the castle. One is to charge up the hill with torches and pitchfolks. That way fails. The other way is to persuade a majority of those holding the castle to change sides and open the gate. That method has often succeeded.

If we take over most of the Republican Party, plus a small part of the Democrats, as a combination, it will be a “third party” effort, but it will be a major party result. New thinking is needed.

John / Billybob

[jla]

The other way is to persuade a majority of those holding the castle to change sides and open the gate.

I agree that this is feasible, though could it transpire in less than a generation's time?

In the interim, I'll stick with a Palin-led GOP.

[zeugma]

I say we make the first requirement for a Republican candidate for office to be able to describe exactly what a republic is, and demonstrate an understanding of the meaning of the word "sovereign".

And that candidate should never call this country a democracy. Ever. 

[PIF]

Right. But unless Maine voters suddenly see the light - highly unlikely - we will be stuck with Snow and Collins until they die or retire.