Another thought-provoking post, Bill. I will most definitely be using this with my Government students next year when we discuss political parties & partisanship. I might even give it to my U.S. History students next year when we start discussing Jefferson & the emergence of political parties in the early 1800s.
An editing note: You said “But by the beginning of the 20th century, the middle had vanished.” Did you mean to say that the middle had vanished by the beginning of the 21st century?
I understand the factors you outline driving partisanship, but you (like much of the press and punditry) give the misleading impression that it’s been basically symmetrical on both sides. Yet, on the Democratic side, the partisans have often lost out, with more centrist contenders like Carter, Clinton and Biden beating more progressive rivals, while the Republicans meanwhile have gone off the absolute, looney-tunes deep end.
You make a good point about the Democratic nominees. But you could say much the same thing about Republicans before Trump. Or I guess I could have said the same thing. In some ways, the presidency has been less affected by partisanship than other offices.
Fair point considering Romney, McCain, etc. Partisanship has certainly been the worst in the House (thank you to gerrymandering and the urban/rural split), less strong in the Senate, governorships and presidency. But on the Republican side, it’s going bananas on pretty much all fronts right now...
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. I will most definitely be using this with my Government students next year when we discuss political parties & partisanship. I might even give it to my U.S. History students next year when we start discussing Jefferson & the emergence of political parties in the early 1800s.
An editing note: You said “But by the beginning of the 20th century, the middle had vanished.” Did you mean to say that the middle had vanished by the beginning of the 21st century?
Thanks for the catch, Jake. Now fixed.
I understand the factors you outline driving partisanship, but you (like much of the press and punditry) give the misleading impression that it’s been basically symmetrical on both sides. Yet, on the Democratic side, the partisans have often lost out, with more centrist contenders like Carter, Clinton and Biden beating more progressive rivals, while the Republicans meanwhile have gone off the absolute, looney-tunes deep end.
You make a good point about the Democratic nominees. But you could say much the same thing about Republicans before Trump. Or I guess I could have said the same thing. In some ways, the presidency has been less affected by partisanship than other offices.
Fair point considering Romney, McCain, etc. Partisanship has certainly been the worst in the House (thank you to gerrymandering and the urban/rural split), less strong in the Senate, governorships and presidency. But on the Republican side, it’s going bananas on pretty much all fronts right now...
I was not aware that the New Deal programs were unpopular amongst poor, Southern whites. Interesting
Poor whites in the South were happy for all the help they could get. It was the rich folks who didn't like the New Deal.