Throughout the course of history, there have been multiple times when bipartisanship has played an important role. However, one of the most noticeable times of a bipartisan coalition that lasted more than fifty years would be that of the conservative coalition. From the 1930s until the 1990s, the conservative coalition played a major role in determining the policies of Congress and the nation. It formed, partly, as a reaction to the progressive policies of then president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and other progressive members of the government (Patterson 1966, 757). After its extended reign in Congress, it eventually disappeared into history during the congressional revolutions of the 1980s and 1990s (. Therefore, Congress rose to power for a number of different reasons that led to a platform of issues but eventually morphed into the Republican Party of the mid-1990s. While some reasons may be mort important in the emergence of the conservative coalition, there are a wide variety of issues noted by researchers that are said to have contributed to the foundation of this bipartisan voting bloc. A Democrat Congressman from Missouri, Richard Bolling, believes that issues such as “civil rights, welfare, labor, education, and fiscal affairs” led to the separation of part of the Democratic Party to be combined with the conservative coalition (Shelley 1983, 12). Joel Margolis notes that the conservative coalition typically united on votes for “taxes, economic policy, health, education, welfare, and labor” (Shelley 1983, 13). These differing views begin to show some trends that encompass a varied list of issues can contribute to a better understanding of the foundation of the conservative coalition. It can be summed up best when stated... ... middle of paper ... ...e in Congress.” The American Political Science Review 95 (September): 673-687. Patterson, James T. 1966. “A Conservative Coalition Forms in Congress, 1933-1939.” The Journal of American History 52 (March): 757-772. Paulson, Arthur. 2007. Electoral Realignment and the Outlook for American Democracy. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Rohde, David W., Norman J. Ornstein, and Robert L. Peabody. 1984. “Political Change and Legislative Norms in the U.S. Senate, 1957-1974.” In Studies of Congress, ed. Glenn R. Parker. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Shelley II, Mack C. 1983. The Permanent Majority: The Conservative Coalition in the United States Congress. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, and Frances E. Lee. Congress and Its Members. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2009. Print.
Looking at the United States in 1965, it would seem that the future of the liberal consensus was well entrenched. The anti-war movement was in full swing, civil rights were moving forward, and Johnson's Great Society was working to alleviate the plight of the poor in America. Yet, by 1968 the liberal consensus had fallen apart, which led to the triumph of conservatism with the election of President Reagan in 1980. The question must be posed, how in the course of 15 years did liberal consensus fall apart and conservatism rise to the forefront? What were the decisive factors that caused the fracturing of what seemed to be such a powerful political force? In looking at the period from 1968 to the triumph of Reagan in 1980, America was shaken to the core by the Watergate scandal, the stalling of economic growth, gas shortages, and the Vietnam War. In an era that included the amount of turbulence that the 1970's did, it is not difficult to imagine that conservatism come to power. In this paper I will analyze how the liberal consensus went from one of its high points in 1965 to one of its lows in 1968. From there I will show how conservatism rose to power by the 1980 elections. In doing so, I will look at how factors within the American economy, civil rights issues, and political workings of the United States contributed to the fracturing of the liberal consensus and the rise of conservatism.
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
In the late 1940’s and the early 1960’s books written by liberal Democrats and aggravated members of the articulate tribe sought solutions to find structural reform in the constitutional separation of powers. However, in Congress-Bashing for Beginners by Nelson W. Polsby he says instead of reforms weakening Congress, what happened is we got a considerably strengthened presidency.
Presidential Influence in Congress." American Journal of Political Science 29.2 (1985): 183-96. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2014.
Theodore Rosenhof phrases realignment as a theory that suggests an overall shift in partisan dominance as a result of a shift in the way voters align themselves (2). Realignment can be centered around a critical election, in which the shift in power transpires rapidly over the course of one election (Thomas Ferguson, 407). However, realignment can also transpire slowly, occurring over a period of many elections. The realignment theory is comprised of various characteristics that determines whether an election is critical or not. It is important to note that although realignment is comprised of characteristics, some of these characteristics will be evident in one election but not in another. For a better understanding, of the characteristics that define realignment, this essay will firstly use a specific case study that emphasizes the attributes required for a critical election and secondly apply these characteristics to the current 2016 elections to determine whether a realigning election is being
TerBeek, Calvin. “’Swing’ voters are still partisan.” Chicago Turbine. N.p., 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. .
Following the elections of 1860, Radical Republicans began to develop a strong, powerful force in Congress, some becoming chairmen of important committees. In the ...
Congress and the nation: 1945-1964 A review of government and politics in the postwar years.
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
Starting during the 1970s, factions of American conservatives slowly came together to form a new and more radical dissenting conservative movement, the New Right. The New Right was just as radical as its liberal opposite, with agendas to increase government involvement beyond the established conservative view of government’s role. Although New Right politicians made admirable advances to dissemble New Deal economic policies, the movement as a whole counters conservativism and the ideologies that America was founded on. Although the New Right adopts conservative economic ideologies, its social agenda weakened the conservative movement by focusing public attention to social and cultural issues that have no place within the established Old Right platform.
Story, Ronald and Bruce Laurie. The Rise of Conservatism in America, 1945-2000: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Newell, Charldean. "Inflexibility, Traditionalism, and Partisanship: The Texas Response to New Federalism." Review. Annual Review of American Federalism 12 (1981 (1983): 185-95. Publius. Oxford University Press. Web. 23 Mar. 2011.
Ken Kollman, The American Political System, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2012), 25, 322-323, 330, 449.
Byrd, Robert C. The Senate, 1789-1989: Addresses on the History of the US Senate, Vol. 1. (New York: Bernan Associates, 1989).