Why did large numbers of Northerners vote for the Democrats on the eve of the Civil War? This is a question which the most recent studies of Northern ante-bellum politics leave unanswered. Professor Formisano's pains-taking study of Michigan's party politics amply shows the eclectic character of the Republicans' appeal. Republicans combined a stern mixture of moral purpose and narrow puritanism with a powerful critique of the South. Republicanism emerges from Professor Foner's influential study as a species of stalwart, visionary parochialism quite irresistible to the northern electorate. It represented the self-satisfied affirmation that the proper maintenance of existing Protestant and entrepreneurial values in the socially harmonious North was essential to America's future growth. It also rested upon a belief in the need to resist Southern attempts to push slavery into the western territories. This belief stemmed from a defensive, slightly paranoid interpretation of the operation of federal politics. Congress and the federal administration in Democratic hands were, according to the Republicans, the merest tools of “ the Dominant Class in the Republic, ” the Southern slaveowners. Thus high faith in free society and deep fear of Southern expansion co-existed uneasily together. Republicans, in Eric Foner's view, articulated an ideology which merged together an over-arching notion of the good society (a basically non-class society, in which the ladder of status was short and its ascent easy, and in which the fundamental interests of labourers, farmers and small entrepreneurs were identical) with an immediate call to political action.

“ Liberal ” is a familiar term in contemporary American political debate. Like all political labels it is used in a variety of ways: pejoratively by liberalism's opponents, approvingly by its advocates, or simply as a descriptive term by political commentators and pollsters. The 1976 Presidential campaign offers numerous illustrations. George Wallace dismissed liberals as “ pointy heads … who couldn't ride a bicycle straight.” Georgia State Senator Julian Bond defined his position during the primaries in these terms: “ Liberal voters long tired of losing election battles may want to lay down their liberalism and convert to Carter. I'll stick to Udall.” Interestingly, Udall himself was hesitant about calling himself a “ liberal ” and attempted to dump the label, preferring “ progressive ” on the grounds that “ it seems to bounce off the people better.” The media obviously were not impressed and continued to rate him and his fellow politicians according to their “ liberal ” or “ conservative ” bias. Clearly “ liberal ” is a term we cannot do without, however great the confusions surrounding it.