Why Can'T America Make Up Its Mind, Already?

In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.

Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a faction as such: "By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community." (Federalist 73) Ultimately, the Federalists did not necessarily envision these factions as organized parties. They did fear, however, that their involvement in politics would lead to a "tyranny of the majority," in which the rights of Americans could be infringed upon by the will of a faction or majority. Therefore, a Federalist government would have to be removed or distant from the populace.

The Federalists never foresaw that a strict two-party system would develop. Instead, they envisioned that members of government (even representative democracy was a novel idea) would come from different regions, and thus have vastly different interests. While some passions might prevail at times, no faction would be able to abuse power or infringe upon Constitutional rights due to the checks and balances placed within the system. Congressman would be elected by the people and Senators would be chosen by local government; this was how the government and society would forge a relationship.

But even as the Federalist system was implemented and George Washington became the first President of the United States, a semblance of the first party would arise. Arguing that a Federal government could simply not protect local interests, and could even fall victim to demagoguery or dictatorship, Thomas Jefferson's Republican party would form, serving as foil to the Federalists even in those early days. But even the Republicans would become ineffective and splintered as the Federalists diminished. Amid this mess, John Quincy Adams was elected President. "The spectacle of a fragmented and apathetic electorate allowing the House to select the neo-Federalist Adams as president revealed the need to establish political parties as permanent institutions." (Milkis 24) Government was not adapting to political realties; America had become indifferent.

The Jacksonian system corrected this, stressing partisanship as a means towards motivating and energizing the electorate. Because Federalists derived their power from government structure and not popular support, they had become out of touch with their constituency. With Andrew Jackson's election in 1828, the emphasis was shifted towards local government. Jackson had been influenced by Jeffersonian ideals, but instead maintained that parties should be a permanent tool connecting government and electorate. Presidential candidates would be selected at conventions dominated by local government. Ultimately, Federal government would be subordinate to the states. Accordingly, Jackson would dismantle much of government bureaucracy during his tenure in office, greatly decentralizing sources of power in the United States.

Eventually this system would not be enough. Come the turn of the century, it became clear that some form of national policy was needed. A decentralized government could simply not uphold the rights of a nation. Local government had usurped many of the constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government; the Progressive party sought to rectify this. "Like the Populists of the late nineteenth century, the Progressives invoked the preamble of the Constitution to assert their purpose of making 'We the People' effective in strengthening the federal government's authority to regulate the society and economy." (Milkis 43) The US had become more connected economically; political connectivity was necessary.

The Progressives would gain 27% of the vote in the election of 1912. They did not triumph, but they had left the impression that change was imminent and necessary. Still, 1912 was very much the first "modern" election. Arthur Link and Richard McCormick write: "The use of direct primaries, the challenge to traditional party loyalties, the candidates' issue orientation, and the prevalence of interest-group political-activities all make the election of 1912 look more like 1980 than that of 1896." (Milkis 44) Woodrow Wilson's Democrats recognized this, and would present a tempered form of Progressivism in the following years. Ostensibly, Wilson would provide a balance between party-centric politics and strong, centralized government. It was during this time that Wilson established dual roles for the President - as a party leader and as a director of national policy. Wilson felt that a party system would balance any tendency to abuse on the part of a large government. While a two-party system was flawed - he argued - parties were necessary to a "progressive democracy."

Unfortunately, the Wilsonian system was simply not compatible with history. Because of a split between the southern and progressive wings of the Democrat party, Wilson's system would become ineffective. With the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,