Since the establishment of the two-party political system, both Republicans and Democrats have evolved to reflect the times. Factionalism in politics is not a new idea, but recent years have seen multiple subgroups in both parties emerge. In the 2016 Presidential Primary, the subgroups within each political party are omnipresent. With the primaries under way, the Democrats have two disparate candidates in Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton is the front-runner and apart of the establishment while Bernie Sanders seems to be the new progressive leader. Although factionalism can be beneficial because it allows all viewpoints to have representation, it also affects the electorate and the political system.
Formed in 1792, the Democratic Party gained the major support of people who were against Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party. “The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated" (Wormer). The Democrats split into two factions in the 1800’s, which created the Northern and Southern Democrats. Their defining differences being their ideology around slavery. Both factions regrouped
…show more content…
after the Civil War. Modern day Democrats can cite their beginnings with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal; his supporters became known as liberals. The 2016 Presidential Primary continues the history of internal factionalism within the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders represent two different factions. Clinton represents the Liberal faction, which is the largest group within the Democratic Party. Typically, Liberals are in favor of universal health care, legalization of same-sex marriage, and gun control. Bernie Sanders represents the Progressive faction, whose platform includes economic and social justice, global warming, and ending mass incarceration. Their differences in ideology spawned a Primary race that is closer than expected. Hillary Clinton has a long history in law and politics. She graduated from Yale Law School and started her career as a congressional legal counsel. During that time, she helped to investigate President Nixon. In 1975, she married Bill Clinton, who later secured his seat as Governor of Arkansas. Hillary served as First Lady from 1979-1981 and 1983-1992. Bill Clinton began his Presidency in 1992, and Hillary served as First Lady until 2000. As First Lady, Hillary helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provided insurance for more than 8-million children. The beginning of her political career began in 2000 when she won New York’s Senate seat. During her tenure as Senator, Clinton created initiatives that supported local farmers and small businesses. In 2008, she entered the race for President; unfortunately, she did not secure the Democratic nomination. Later that year President Obama nominated Clinton for Secretary of State, where she served until 2013. As a private citizen, Hillary continued her philanthropic efforts with the Clinton Foundation that focused on early childhood development. In April 2015, Hillary officially announced her candidacy for President. Although she is the front-runner for securing the Democratic nomination, she has a formidable opponent in Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders’ career started with activism while attending the University of Chicago.
He was active in the Civil Rights Movement as a student organizer and attended the March on Washington in 1963. He continued his activism throughout the 60’s and 70’s by supporting various social groups and unions. After college, Bernie worked many odd jobs after moving to Vermont. He began his political career in 1981 as the Mayor of Birmingham. As Mayor, Sanders lobbied for affordable housing and environmental protection. In 1991, Sanders won a seat in the House of Representatives and served until 2007, when he won a seat in the Senate. In April 2015, Sanders announced his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Although considered the underdog, Sanders successfully reignited the grassroots
movement. The factionalism in the 2016 Democratic primary reared its head early on. There is a massive divide between Clinton’s supporters and Sanders’. Sanders’ supporters view Clinton as “wedded to Wall Street money, allowing her to sound progressive while holding contrary alliances” (Lenchner 62). Clinton’s infamous name and long history in politics may be doing her a disservice; people view her as a part of the establishment. On the other hand, some view Sanders’ entrance into the race “provides an opening for grassroots energy again…The campaign offers a chance for entrepreneurial organizers who lack institutional power to push forward” (Lenchner). This grassroots movement is similar to the one that catapulted Barack Obama into Presidency in 2008. Over the last decade, social media’s importance during an election has increased. Over the years, social media became its own news network that reaches millions of people in a simple tweet or Facebook update. “The rise of social media and inexpensive organizing tools make it more possible than ever for people to successfully stand up to monetary power” (Lenchner). Successful candidates utilize social media to their advantage by promoting the use of hashtags and engaging with their constituents. Both Clinton and Sanders have active social media accounts and successfully engage with their electorate. With hashtags like #WereWithHer and #FeelTheBern, there is no mistaking that we are in the midst of campaign season. Social media allows individuals to discuss politics in a neutral environment by sharing thoughts and ideas, but also to call out the candidates they do not support. On the contrary, there is the possibility of misinformation that can lead to online bullying of those who share conflicting views. The online bullying and disagreements makes discussing politics even more contentious and perpetuates the factionalism within the party. Some believe the dissension between the Democratic nominees will cause the losing candidate’s electorate to vote Republican. Unfortunately, there is no support to validate this claim. Typically, Democrats will continue to vote Democrat and should not cause an issue for a Democrat seeking the Presidency. While the Democratic Party deals with internal factions, it is significantly less than those of the Republican Party. The factions allowed room for Donald Trump, the unexpected front-runner, to gain momentum. He has been able to incite and engage millions of people while creating a pathway to secure the Republican nomination. While this may not be ideal for some Republicans, it can work in favor of the Democrats seeking a third term in the White House. If the Republicans do not support Donald Trump, it will leave millions of votes on the table for either the Democratic or a 3rd Party Nominee. Factionalism in a Democracy is important because it allows even the smallest minority groups an opportunity to express their views and vote for their candidates. While some factions may seem radical, even those are good for Democracy. It is a catalyst to discuss change and perhaps the expansion of different thought processes. The factionalism within the Democratic Primary gave the minority group a voice. It forced more established candidates, like Hillary Clinton, to change the way they speak and engage with the constituency while also thinking more progressively.
The Democrats traced their roots back to Thomas Jefferson and called themselves the “party of the fathers”. This group consisted mostly of Catholics and Jews (508). After the end of reconstruction, most white voters in the former confederate states remained loyal to the Democrats. This created
The Jeffersonian-Republicans (also known as the Democratic-Republicans) were opposed to the Federalists from before 1801-1817. Leaders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison created the party in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French, whereas the Federalists supported the British. Each party had its set of views. The Federalists supported a loose interpretation of the Constitution, a strong central government, high tariffs, a navy, military spending, a national debt, and a national bank (all ideas of the Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton). The Democratic-Republicans opposed all of the said ideas and fought for states' rights and the citizens to govern the nation. Originally, each of these parties stuck to their own views and ideas, but eventually would accept eachother's views and use them as their own.
There are two ways to get rid of the causes of factions, or political parties. The first way of removing these causes is to destroy the liberty essential to their existence. The second way to get rid of the causes is to give everyone the exact same o...
As stated above, the party’s doctrine was based on more than three ideologies. The Democratic-Republicans called for extensive radicalism and nationalism. They dreamt about the country made of people with radical views who knew their rights. Their procedures are very democratic, fair, and transparent.
...eadership of the democrats, believed in popular sovereignty ie the population of a state choosing for itself on the matter of slavery. The other member also aiming to rule the democrats was Breckinbridge, who believed in slavery being permitted in all states. The democrat party split into the northern and southern democrats. Because of the split Lincoln was able to win the election, upon which the southern states succeeded from the union.
In the 1790s, soon after the ratification of the Constitution, political parties were nonexistent in the USA because President Washington feared they would drive the country apart. However, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, with their rivalling mental models, could not help but spark the division of the United States into the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties. These parties, the Democratic-Republican wanting a small, local government system and the Federalist wanting a strong, powerful government system, turned citizens against one another and eventually led to the inimical Democratic and Republican parties of today. Hence, the formation of the original political parties in the United States is very significant. Political
Partisanship is a natural phenomenon for Human beings; we seek out, long for, and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through these people, we polish our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our viewpoint. Factions give breadth, depth, and volume to our individual voice. James Madison, the author of the Federalist #10 underlined the causes of factions, the dangers factions can pose, and solutions to the problem.
In today's day in age, the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be completely diverse. These two parties have completely opposing views on topics ranging from social issues, health care, tax policy, labor and free trade, foreign policy, crime and capital punishment, energy and environmental issues, and even education. Once upon a time however, these two groups were not as polarized as they have become. Both were once a single party known as the Democratic-Republican Party, formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791. This sole party favored the idea of a decentralized, democratic government. They despised the idea of the U.S government becoming anything similar to England's monarchy system at the time. They also supported states’ rights as well as the literal and strict interpretation of the U.S Constitution. The group's purpose was to stand against the Federalists who were
...d. The Whig and Democratic parties developed as national parties, they advocated throughout the nation, regardless of the regional and sessional differences between the supporters. Due to the economic changes, it affected many of the territories in the United States. For example, the North and the Great Lakes economy, and the East-West economy was growing as well, which strengthened relations with Border States and the North. Unlike the North, the South struggled the workers and the poverty-stricken farmers felt excluded from the new exchanges that were being made by the Democrats. Both Parties battled each other over economical issues, both of the parties had supporters throughout the entire country and stayed devoted to the idea of a unified nation. Since the parties shared interest leaders from the North and South to work together and work through sectional issues.
The most influential structural element of the new primary system is the newfound practice of the political parties choosing a favored candidate before the primary season. The parties then throw all their support and financial backing behind this candidate and instantly make him/her a front-runner. While this element is standard among the two parties, the remaining structure of the primary system differs between the two main political parties. While both the Democratic and Republican parties hold open and closed primaries, the two parties hold many of their state primaries on separate dates. Additionally, the two parties have different rules that determine how each state’s delegates are allotted. The Democrats practice the proportional representation method of delegate allocation. The Republicans, on the other hand, pract...
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.
Since the late 1700’s, an era where the formation of political parties began, people have come together based upon similar views or opinions, otherwise known in the political world as factions. Factions have created political parties, factions have also created freedom. Madison claimed that there were two methods of relieving the mischiefs of factions; removing its causes or controlling its effects. “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the s...
In the United States political scientist and other scholars have placed third parties into four specific categories with various political functions. First, third parties are sometimes created to address sectional issues. Meaning a geographical area has a political or social issue or issues that are not being satisfied by the two major parties. Sectional Parties are often created and used to express the rights of particular states in America. One of the best examples of a sectional party was the Dixiecrat party of the south. The party was formed in southern states over the issue of Civil Rights and integration in the Unites States. Secondly, historically third parties have been formed to address single issues. In the United States these issues have included things such as slavery, prohibition, agricultural concerns, and other social issues. The Republican Party was originally a single issue third party. The issue the Republican Party was formed around was the expansion of slavery into newly created states and territories. The Free Soil Party is a strong example of a single-issue party formed with the goal of abolishing slavery in the United States. Thirdly, factions sometimes occur within the main parties themselves. These factions are often called party ...
Sanders has consistently fought for progressive issues and has kept to his record. Those issues include climate change, parental leave, LGBT rights, campaign finance reform, civil rights, civil liberties, opposition to war, universal healthcare, and income inequality, the last of which has been his key focus during his presidential campaign. On May 26 in Burlington, VT, Sanders officially launched his campaign for president of the United States. In his announcement, Sanders said, “I don’t believe that the men and women who defended American democracy fought to create a situation where billionaires own the political process.” The rhetoric of men and women soldiers resonates with the American people emotionally and builds strong pathos. Senator Elizabeth Warren welcomed his entry into the race saying, “I’m glad to see him get out there and give his version of what leadership in the country should be.” With Elizabeth Warren not entering the race her “Ready for Warren” organizers have endorsed Sanders. Senator Warren’s endorsement builds upon ethos, it gives Sanders credibility and that credibility continues by Sanders’ campaign is being financed through small donors and he refuses to have a Super
In Cornell Clayton's short essay “Incivility Crisis of politics Is Just a Symptom of Division” on incivility that occurs in politics that simply appears childish. He argues that incivility is not the cause of political conflict, the real cause is the deep division that we have had due to the polarization of wealth and political parties. This changes his tone on incivility not being the cause for political conflict, instead his tone shifts into the increasing divide on political parties. I agree with his claim that incivility is not the source of the problem which would be the growing inequality that people are facing. He argues that “The growing inequality in American wealth and opportunity drives bitter debates over taxation, government spending