Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-67gxp Total loading time: 0.368 Render date: 2021-03-04T04:15:50.758Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Did Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison “Cause” the U.S. Government Shutdown? The Institutional Path from an Eighteenth Century Republic to a Twenty-first Century Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

Abstract

This address asks how we got to today’s politics in America; a politics of polarized political parties engaged in close political competition in a system of checks and balances. The result has often been divided control of government and an apparent inability to address major political problems. This address develops the historical foundation for these characteristics. Historically, the Founding period set the stage of separated powers and the first party system. America developed a market economy, a middle class, and a mass-based set of parties in the Antebellum period. Through the Progressive era, nation-wide reforms led to a more democratic but increasingly candidate-centered politics in the North, and the establishment of Jim Crow politics in the South. The post-War period saw the full development of candidate-centered elections. While the breakup of Jim Crow due to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in the mid-1960s ended Jim Crow and made possible a competitive party system in the South, the later was delayed until the full implementation of the Republican’s “southern strategy” in 1980 and beyond. This set in motion the partisan polarization of today, to combine with separated powers to create what many refer to as the “current” political “dysfunction.”

Type
Presidential Address
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aldrich, John H. 1999. “Political Parties in a Critical Era.” American Politics Research. January, 27(1): 932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 2005. “The Election of 1800: The Consequences of the First Change in Party Control.” In Establishing Congress: The Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800, ed. Bowling, Kenneth R. and Kennon, Donald R.. Athens: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Griffin, John D., forthcoming, Why Parties Matter: Political Competition and Democracy in the South, 1832–2012.
Aldrich, John H., and Lee, Daniel J.. 2014. “Why Two Parties? Ambition, Policy, and the Presidency,” Unpublished manuscript.
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2000. “The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of the Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in the Partisan Era, ed. Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Alford, John R., and Brady, David W.. 1989. “Personal and Partisan Advantage in U.S. Congressional Elections.” In Congress Reconsidered, 4th ed. ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenhemier, Bruce I.. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Mark Hansen, John, Hirano, Shigeo, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2006. “The Decline of Competition in U.S. Primary Elections, 1908–2004.” In The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, ed. Curtis Samples, John and McDonald, Michael P.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Bailyn, Bernard. 1992. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy. 2005. “Political Selection.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(3): 4360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1999. “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96.” American Political Science Review 93(3): 519–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2014a. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2014b. “The Punctuated Origins of Senate Polarization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39(1): 526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., and Volden, Craig. 1998. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to Clinton. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Engstrom, Erik J., and Roberts, Jason M.. 2007.“Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress.” American Political Science Review 101(2): 289301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Roberts, Jason M.. 2013. Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. Vol. 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?American Journal of Political Science: 40(2): 478–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Trans. Barbara North and Robert North. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity: 3(3): 395405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallerman, Tamar 2014. “Tapping Back In to Regular Order.” CQ Weekly, April 7, 538–45.Google Scholar
Harrington, James, and Toland, John. 1700. The Oceana and other Works of James Harrington, with an account of his Life by John Toland. London: Booksellers of London and Westminister.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1969. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: Univ of California Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Thomas. 1813. “The Natural Aristocracy,” letter to John Adams, October 28 The Portable Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Peterson, Merrill D. , New York: Penguin. 1975.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonathan N., and Sala, Brian R.. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 2133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Toward Understanding 19th Century Congressional Careers: Ambition, Competition, and Rotation.” American Journal of Political Science 21(4): 669693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O., Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.PubMed
Key Jr, V. O. Jr. 1958. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, New York: Thomas Crowell.PubMed
Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. “Institutional and Partisan Sources of Gridlock: A Theory of Divided and Unified Government.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 8(1): 740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2010. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. “Admit It, Political Scientists: Politics Really Is More Broken Than Ever.” http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/dysfunction/371544/.
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. It's even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. Basic Books, 2013.
Matthews, Christopher 2013. Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974a. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974b. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity: 6(3): 295317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1991. Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCormick, Richard P. 1960. “New Perspectives on Jacksonian Politics.” American Historical Review 65(2): 288301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGerr, Michael E. 1986. The Decline of Popular Politics: The American North, 1865–1928. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mickie, Robert. 2013. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944–1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Baron de. “The Spirit of the Laws.” 1949 [1748]. Trans. Thomas Nugent. 2 vols. New York: Hafner Press.
Montgomery, Jacob. 2009. “Partisan Representation: Voters, Partisans, and Responsiveness in the U.S. Senate.” Ph.D. diss. Duke University.
Palfrey, Thomas. 1984. “Spatial Equilibrium with Entry.” Review of Economic Studies 51: 139–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas. 1989. “A Mathematical Proof of Duverger's Law.” In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, ed. Ordeshook., Peter C. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Merrill D. 2001. The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polsby Nelson, W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review. 62(1): 144168. – see n. 38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007.“Changing Minds? Not in Congress!Public Choice 131(3–4): 435–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. M. 2009. “The Effect of Ballot Type on Congressional Elections, 1946–2008” paper delivered at the 2009 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science association.
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Rand McNally.
Schousen, Matthew M. 1994. “Who's in Charge? A Study of Coalitions and Power in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University.
Sellers, Charles. 1992. The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1989. “The Changing Textbook Congress.” In Can the Government Govern? ed. John Chubb and Paul Peterson. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storing, Herbert J. 2008. What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution. Vol. 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, Arjun S. 2012. “Electoral Security of Members of the U.S. House, 1900–2006.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(3): 277304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John, 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambirdge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 246
Total number of PDF views: 1267 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Did Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison “Cause” the U.S. Government Shutdown? The Institutional Path from an Eighteenth Century Republic to a Twenty-first Century Democracy
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Did Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison “Cause” the U.S. Government Shutdown? The Institutional Path from an Eighteenth Century Republic to a Twenty-first Century Democracy
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Did Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison “Cause” the U.S. Government Shutdown? The Institutional Path from an Eighteenth Century Republic to a Twenty-first Century Democracy
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *