It has been said that the two great American parties are like two bottles, both empty, one labelled 'Republican', the other 'Democrat'.
And if the bottles do have anything in them, some ingredients change continuously from one to the other; so any attempt to describe either party needs endless and complex qualification.
Around 1850 the two parties were the Whigs and the Democrats. The old Democrats tended to support state autonomy against the central government. In 1854 a northern alliance of people determined to abolish slavery founded a new party, which they called 'Republican' (reviving an old name). It rapidly absorbed the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President in 1861-65, and the Republicans were identified with the northern fight in the Civil War for a Union free of slavery. Afterwards they represented the main stream of developing northern industry and free private enterprise. Outside the South the Democrats attracted the support of the groups who felt themselves to be outside the dominant system: around 1900 the less favoured immigrants from Eastern Europe and Ireland, and as time went on other non-insiders too, whether poor or Jewish or intellectuals or Catholic or (very much later) blacks. As labour unions grew up, most of them supported the Democrats.
Since 1933 the Democrats have been the party of the left - outside the South. The 1932 election was fought in the midst of the worst economic depression ever experienced. Probably a quarter of the people were unemployed, without any systematic relief. Franklin Roosevelt won, and led the Democrats with his 'New Deal' programme, involving federal and state intervention in the economy and the beginnings of governmental social services. In the next forty years the Democrats pushed these policies further, particularly during the presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson. Since the beginning of the seventies there has been little real progress in this direction.
The Republicans have, at least since 1900, shown more qualities associated with the right: less government intervention in the economy; little enthusiasm for new social programmes; patriotic language (but in practice until 1980 a cautious foreign policy); much talk about the responsibility of the individual, and about state and local autonomy. They are in general supported by business interests.
Southern politics are different. Because of its origins, the Republican Party could gain no support at all among the dominant southern white population. For many decades there was only one party in the south, the Democrats. All political contests were contests between factions of the Democratic Party - and the most conservative factions usually won. So in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives the southern states were represented always by Democrats, often more conservative than any Republicans from the North. By the 1960s many conservative southerners transferred their allegiance to the Republicans. Since then all the southern states have elected some Republicans as governors and to the U.S. Congress, and have supported some Republicans for the U.S. Presidency - Ronald Reagan in particular. Meanwhile, with blacks and other minorities in the South taking a full part in politics, they in their turn support the Democrats.
In parts of the South the old Democratic party still dominates local politics, with right and left (and other) factions contesting primary elections within the party, while in national politics there is serious rivalry between the Democrats and Republicans, as in most other areas of the nation. Meanwhile the main, or 'liberal' body of the Democratic party now has its most solid basis in the northern cities, and particularly among trade union members and among the black and other ethnic inner-city groups. But these cities do not dominate their states in terms of population. There are more people in the suburbs than in the central cities. To win a majority in the House of Representatives the Democrats need to attract votes on a wide basis. In fact, all through the 1970s and 1980s, with Republicans as Presidents for sixteen years out of twenty, the Democrats had big majorities in the House of Representatives, controlled most state legislatures, and held the governorships of most states (sometimes two-thirds or more). They lost the Senate only in the first six years of Reagan's presidency, and in 1986 regained the majority there that they had enjoyed throughout the 1970s. Such widespread electoral success could not be achieved by a party which Europeans would regard as a party of the left. Although the left is contained within the Democratic party, the party as a whole is based on interests so diverse and scattered that it cannot easily have a coherent party policy. Some of the people elected as Democrats to state and national offices could be considered as being, on a left/right scale, more to the right than their Republican opponents.
The Republicans have always been linked with business large and small, and with the idea that free enterprise is at the foundation of the nation's character. After the disasters of Watergate and the 1976 election, the Republican National Committee began a vigorous campaign to build up a well-funded central party organization through which a coherent party policy might be developed, capable of translating a clear conservative philosophy into ideas for action. The Reagan presidency has not had much success in its pursuit of sound national finance, or in its aim of reducing federal intervention in the social welfare budget, but it has effectively identified the Republican party with the moral and patriotic feelings of the 'silent majority' of the people - though obviously some members of this majority have voted for Democrats for some offices.
Within some states there are big cities, or other areas with substantial populations, where one of the two parties (usually the Democrats) has a virtual monopoly of power and of electoral support. In such places the dominant party's candidates are sure to win, and the real electoral contest is at the dominant party's primary election between rival factions based on ethnic or material interests. Both in these one-party areas and elsewhere there are often five or six rivals for a party's nomination at a primary, and many states provide for a 'run-off' (second ballot) a week or more later, between the two candidates who had most votes at the first.
Choosing the Candidates
The process of choosing each major-party candidate assumes a special importance, particularly in places where one party is so dominant that its candidate is almost sure to win. When the Democratic and Republican parties were fully established in the latter part of the nineteenth century, each party chose its candidates at assemblies of party activists. In some cities and some states individuals succeeded, through skilful manipulation, in obtaining impregnable positions of power in their parties, and through their party-power, effective control over the whole political apparatus. Some such 'bosses' relied on corrupt methods.
Reformers could see that if party candidates were chosen in public elections, it would be less easy for bosses to exercise power. The specially American device of the primary election was an attempt to solve this problem; it spread gradually at first. The first local 'direct' primary was held (probably) in 1868. In 1903 a law of the State of Wisconsin required the parties to choose their candidates by public vote. Other states soon followed, and the practice is now universal for elective positions except the Presidency (for which, as will be seen, most states now hold non-direct primaries of various types).
Although in theory the choice of a party's candidate might be regarded as a private matter for the party, primary elections are recognized as part of the formal voting process, and organized by the public authorities. The Supreme Court (against earlier decisions) has accepted jurisdiction over the conduct of primaries as part of its duty to see that citizens' constitutional rights are respected. But the system of primaries is not uniform. Each state has its own rules and there are many differences of detail.
In most states, primaries are 'closed'. If a citizen wishes to take part in the primary at which the Democratic party candidates are chosen, he or she must register as a Democrat. The Republican primaries are held at the same time and place. Voters may vote only in the primary of the party for which they have registered.
Once the party candidates have been chosen by this means, the campaign between the parties begins, in preparation for the election proper. But then the voter can vote for either party. In a state where the Democrats are dominant, a voter who hopes they will lose may well register as a Democrat so as to vote in the Democratic primary, but then vote for Republican candidates at the general election. Because it is impossible to prevent such practices, some states have 'open' primaries, allowing any person to vote in either party's primary - and there are other variants as well.
The system of primaries is a highly democratic device. In practice it has one serious weakness. An effective primary campaign needs money. No one can become the Democratic candidate for governor or senator in a big state without spending huge amounts which have to be provided by supporters. Partly because of this, the primary system has not been altogether successful in putting an end to 'boss rule'. Someone who gains an ascendancy in a state party may be able to ensure that the candidates he prefers have the money they need for their primary campaigns - and thus to ensure that if they are elected they behave according to his wishes.
Another disadvantage of the primary system is the time that it takes. Candidates must begin preparations for their primary campaigns as much as a year before the general election. As members of the United States House of Representatives are elected for only two years, and have to expect to be opposed by rivals for their party's nomination, a newly-elected Representative may need to begin the next primary campaign within a year of being elected.
