Instructions: 

1. Watch and listen to the video below. If you'd like, you can also read along using the script that appears below the quiz. Or you can turn on the video's subtitles and read while watching the video.
2. Take the Daily Civics Quiz. If you get the question wrong, watch the video again or read the script and try again.

Episode Description:
In this extra-in-depth Beyond the Legacy episode of the podcast, Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, describes historical challenges with the development of factions and the two-party system of the United States.

Beyond the Legacy: Political Parties and Conservatism in American History, Part 6

Donna Phillips:  Welcome to Beyond the Legacy, as part of the Civil Discourse in American Legacy Project.  Today we are joined by Dr. Lester Brooks, American History Professor Emeritus from Anne Arundel Community College.  We are going to go into more depth about political parties and conservatism in American history.  So Dr. Brooks, we have talked briefly about the evolution of our political parties from our founding to today.  But this notion of conservatism that we see today and over time has evolved as well.  Can you talk more about what that meant in our founding and in different time periods in American history?

Dr. Lester Brooks:  There is that conservative thread throughout history and sometimes people don't understand that the ideologies of the political parties have shifted over time.  In the 1790s, the first two political parties, the Federalist Party and the Republican Party; sometimes called the Democratic Republican Party; sometimes called the Jeffersonian Republicans.  Well the Jeffersonian Republicans had faith in the people.  That was Jefferson’s thing.  He had a faith in the people, whereas the Federalist Party, they had a lot less faith in the people.  If we look at Hamilton.  Hamilton and even John Adams, the belief that the leaders should essentially be the ones that dictate or call the shots; that there should be a strong government; a strong central government.  Particularly, Alexander Hamilton, a strong government.  And that was the ideology that people adopted; a strong central government.  Jefferson,  no.  Let’s keep the central government a weak central government.  As parties evolved, by the time we get to the Jacksonian period, the Jacksonian Democrats.  The Jacksonian Democrats wanted minimal government interference, just as Jefferson; minimal government interference.  The more conservative group would be the John Quincy Adams supporters, the National Republicans. By the time we get to the 1850s and 60s, the Civil War era, again, there is, to some degree, a new political party.  Now we have the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats, by the 1860s, are the party of the South.  They are going to support state’s rights. They are going to support the continuation of slavery.  They are going to support a weaker Federal Government that won’t interfere in what they want to do.  Whereas, the Republican Party, they wanted a stronger Federal Government.  They believed; certainly they were split and both parties had their conservatives and their liberals.  But it would be the more conservative party would have been the Democratic Party in the 1960s.  As we get into the Twentieth Century, the more conservative party would be the Republican Party, who did not like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s programs; the social welfare.  In fact, Herbert Hoover, who was elected in 1928, believed that the people didn’t need handouts.  That the people were strong; they had proven themselves independently over time.  That they would pull themselves up, out of the quagmire of any depression.  So this is a more conservative; that the government doesn’t need to bail people out.  Whereas the Democrats and Franklin D. Roosevelt said yes, we do have to have these federal programs because people need assistance.  By the 1960s, one of the key factors in all of this will be the civil rights movement and those who are supportive of the civil rights movement. Many belong to the Democratic Party, where, as the Republicans were rejecting the civil rights movement, the extension of those rights, any handouts, any radicalism that comes from the civil rights movement; the Republicans rejected that, are more conservative. Republicans question the freedom, free speech movement, the women's rights movement.

And so, the hippies of the 1960s. So there is this thread of conservativism that believed in tradition, the way things are structured, the way things should be done, that you don't go out in the street and protest. So we see this conservative thread throughout American history and to some extent, there's a balance here between that liberal thread and the conservative thread that they certainly monitor one another. They certainly provide each other with an ideology. And there's a unifying aspect to the different sides, even though the party designation has to some degree changed over time. But you do see the liberal and conservative threads throughout American history going back and forth. And to some degree, same arguments.

Donna Phillips: Yeah. It's interesting the way the names have changed and the arguments and the ideologies are not pure. You don't, they're not pure from their founding, but they are all represented by the different parties throughout the time.

Dr. Lester Brooks:  Sure. And even within a political party. We have those differences. And in the Civil War era, we had the conservative Republicans, we had the moderate Republicans, we had the liberal Republicans who were called the Radical Republicans and conservative Republicans. They were angry at Lincoln. Don't get the slavery issue involved in things. Leave it alone. Don't touch it. Whereas the radical Republicans, the liberal Republicans, were angry with Lincoln.

They were saying, You're dragging your feet on the slave issue. You've got to do something about emancipation. So here Lincoln is getting it from both ends of the spectrum. So we've always had within a political party, we've had these conservative, moderate, and liberal elements within the different political parties.

Donna Phillips: And some people today and even in our history have worried that political parties and factions are bad for our government and our country. How would you, what would we say to people to understand their role or how we might…

Dr. Lester Brooks:  Absolutely. In the 1790s, people did not want political parties. George Washington, in his farewell address in 1796, said specifically, “Beware.” He gave advice to the people: beware of political parties because they're going to divide you. They're going to have you on the North-South issue, the East-West issue. So he said, beware of political parties going all the way back to Federalist number 10 in the ratification process of the Constitution. James Madison said, factions, they're out for themselves. So early on in American history, people did not like political parties. They thought they were evil things and they would cause mischief. But by the mid 1790s, people are beginning to realize that political parties are here because they reflect different views. They reflect a certain ideology. They're arguing, there is going to be a conservative way of looking at things. There's going to be a liberal way of looking at things. And we see that reflected in the political parties. We see it in the 1790s and we've seen it ever since. Reflecting the ideological view, presenting us with candidates that have the same type of view. The electioneering process. In the 1790s, we really don't see that electioneering process. It really explodes in the election of 1828, where you really see an explosion of campaign gimmicks: the parades, the dinners, the banners, the buttons, all of that. And one of the reasons is because there was no popular vote in this country until the election of 1824. Now, naturally, to win the presidency, you have to have the Electoral College vote. But literally, there was no popular vote until the election of 1824. You won't even see a popular vote tally until 1824. Well now, if there's going to be this popular vote, you have to get the people out to vote. How do you get the people out to vote? You stage parades and banners and then you have party conventions. And so, that's when we see the electioneering process really beginning to take off. But we've always had the ideology. We've had candidates who basically in 1790s, you ran on your reputation. John Adams reputation. Thomas Jefferson's reputation. 

The monitoring. There's always been the monitoring, the Federalist Party monitored the Republican Party, and the Republican Party monitored the Jeffersonian Republicans. And they watched each other like hawks. And this is necessary. This is absolutely necessary because we, the people, need to know what the party in power is doing correctly and what they may be mishandling. And the best way to do that is to talk to the party on the outs; the opposition party.

So, it's an informal—the parties have been very informative as informing us of not only an ideology in the 20th century, traditionally, if you were a Republican, you were the party of big business. You were the party that believed in minimal government interference. If you were a Democrat in the 20th century, basically you were the party of labor. You were the party of minorities in the urban areas. So, here again, this ideology that is provided to us by the political parties as well as candidates; the monitoring and just the unification, the unifying Republicans all over the country, every state they can get a message across because there are Republican Party organizations in each state. Same thing for the Democrats.

So, if you want to get anything done, you contact that local Republican or Democratic committee and they can send it throughout the states and to Congress.

Donna Phillips: So they're here to stay.

Dr. Lester Brooks: They're here to stay. And how many? That's a good question, because we have had more than two parties, which is always a fear of a candidate to have that third party, because the third party means who's going to lose votes to that third party. And so that's always been a concern of candidates in an election.

Donna Phillips: And might that be connected to that remedy that James Madison talks about in Federalist 10? Now, a third party is not the exact same thing as all the factions and fight factions with factions. But I wonder if you've foresee a world where we have multiple parties that then allow for more of the…

Dr. Lester Brooks: We probably do need more than two parties. Well, I think one of the problems that the two parties are having is how do you contain everybody in it? One of the reasons the Whig Party fell apart in the 1850s. How do you keep the Northern Whigs and the Southern Whigs together, because of the slavery issue? And they couldn't do that. In the 20th century, how do you keep the minorities labor together in a political party? And so, again, there are only so many planks you can have in a party. And how do you handle that in the 1850s? You do have one plank. Political parties, the American Party. They were against immigrants. And so they were 100% Americanism because any immigrant, as far as they were concerned, immigrants were mostly Irish.

And what was wrong with the Irish they said? They were Catholic. They had allegiance to the pope. They were rowdy because they drank too much. So, but with one plank, you don't draw that many people under your tent. Well, we now have the Republicans and Democrats. How many people can you get in your tent with all the beliefs that people have today?

And so, I think ultimately we're going to have to have more than just the two political parties, because do the two political parties represent everyone? And it'll be interesting to see how that takes shape; what is going to happen there.

Donna Phillips: So, somewhere between the single-issue party and the omnibus current two party system, maybe there's something in the middle there that would be a better remedy, that would better represent people and their views.

Dr. Lester Brooks: And how do you appeal? If we have a population of 320 million in this country, do the Republicans, can the Republicans speak to all those people? Can the Democrats speak to 320 million people? Is that, are they now to wieldy. It's just too big to handle. But what kind of? And so we're getting back to Federalist number 10. What kind of factions are we going to have? Are we…does the Republican Party represent the poor? Do the Democrats represent the poor? Who represents the middle class? Who represents the elites? So will it divide over those issues? Will it divide over gender and identity issues? Because that's going to be an issue in the future. So where are these divisions going to take place and how will they develop and how do you appeal?

One reason we have only two is because you have to appeal to as many people as you can to get enough votes to win. But if you're not, if you can't appeal to that many people, then what do you do? So that's another problem. And that's what Madison was saying, that if the factions will bump heads until there's a faction that provides for the general welfare and that one will draw enough people in their tent, and that's the key. You have to draw enough people in your tent. Otherwise, you don't win the election. You don't get your ideology in place and what you want to accomplish. You can't do it unless you have enough people in your tent.

Donna Phillips: Thank you, Dr. Brooks.

Dr. Lester Brooks: Thank you.

Donna Phillips: This has been Beyond the Legacy as part of our Civil Discourse: An American Legacy project. Thank you.