Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T18:13:52.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Walter Dean Burnham and “The System of 1896”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Richard L. McCormick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Anyone who has tried to teach undergraduates about the election of 1896 should instinctively appreciate Walter Dean Burnham’s enormous contribution in making sense of that election and its aftermath. Waged between two rather uninteresting men over issues that defy easy understanding, the presidential contest of 1896 hardly stacks up with those of 1860 and 1932 as “critical” in the casual sense of the term. Perhaps if William Jennings Bryan had defeated William McKinley, or, better still, if the glamorous Theodore Roosevelt had been the victorious Republican candidate, or, best of all, if Roosevelt had won and immediately started a major war, the election of 1896 would more readily appear to have been the transforming event that modern scholars contend it was. But, alas, McKinley won, waited over a year before reluctantly waging even a minor war, and proved unwilling to make any significant departures in domestic policy. Compared to the election of Abraham Lincoln or that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the contest of 1896 appears trivial. Who can blame undergraduates for yawning over the “Battle of the Standards”?

Type
Walter Dean Burnham and the Dynamics of American Politics
Information
Social Science History , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Fall 1986 , pp. 245 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1986 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, P. A. (1979) “The Electoral Cycle and Patterns of American Politics.” British Journal of Political Science 9: 129–156.Google Scholar
Bogue, A. G. (1980) “The New Political History in the 1970s,” in Kammen, M. (ed.) The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 231–251.Google Scholar
Brady, D. W.(1978) “Critical Elections, Congressional Parties and Clusters of Policy Changes.” British Journal of Political Science 8: 79–99.Google Scholar
Brady, D. W. (1980) “Elections, Congress, and Public Policy Changes: 1886-1960,” in Campbell, B. A. and Trilling, R. J. (eds.) Realignment in American Politics: Toward A Theory. Austin: University of Texas Press: 176–201.Google Scholar
Brady, D.W. (1985) “A Reevaluation of Realignments in American Politics: Evidence from the House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 79: 28–49.Google Scholar
Brady, D. W. and Lynn, N. B. (1973) “Switched-Seat Congressional Districts: Their Effect on Party Voting and Public Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 17: 528–543.Google Scholar
Braeman, J. (1964) “The Square Deal in Action: A Case Study in the Growth of the ‘National Police Power,’” in Braeman, J., Bremner, R. H., and Walters, (eds.) Change and Continuity in Twentieth-Century America. Columbus: Ohio State University Press: 35–80.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. D. (1965) “The Changing Shape of the American Political Universe.” American Political Science Review 59: 7–28.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. D. (1967) “Party Systems and the Political Process,” in Chambers, W. N. and Burnham, W. D. (eds.) The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development. New York: Oxford University Press: 277–307.Google Scholar
Burnham, W.D. (1970) Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Burnham, W.D. (1974) “Theory and Voting Research: Some Reflections on Converse’s ‘Change in the American Electorate.’” American Political Science Review 68: 1002–1023.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. D. (1981) “The System of 1896: An Analysis,” in Kleppner, P., Burnham, W. D., Formisano, R. P., Hays, S. P., Jensen, R., and Shade, W. G., The Evolution of American Electoral Systems. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press: 147–202.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. D. (1984) “Parties and Political Modernization,” in McCormick, R. L. (ed.) Political Parties and the Modern State. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press: 109–148.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E. (1960) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clubb, J. M., Flanigan, W. H., and Zingale, N. H. (1980) Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1972) “Change in the American Electorate,” in Campbell, A. and Converse, P. E. (eds.) The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 263–337.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, B. (1972) “Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16: 603–625.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, B. (1976) “Elections and Public Policy.” American Political Science Review 70:41–49.Google Scholar
Goodwyn, L. (1976) Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, L. L. (1978) Reform and Regulation: American Politics, 1900-1916. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hays, S. P. (1964) “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55: 157–169.Google Scholar
Hurst, J. W. (1956) Law and the Conditions of Freedom in the Nineteenth-Century United States. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. (1955) “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17: 3–18.Google Scholar
Kolko, G. (1963) The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. M. (1974) The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lichtman, A. J.(1982) “The End of Realignment Theory? Toward a New Research Program for American Political History.” Historical Methods 15: 170–188.Google Scholar
Lichtman, A. J. (1983) “Political Realignment and ‘Ethnocultural’ Voting in Late Nineteenth Century America.” Journal of Social History 16: 55–82.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. J. (1964) “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies and Political Theory.” World Politics 16: 677–715.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. J. (1967) “Party, Policy, and Constitution in America,” in Chambers, W. N. and Burnham, W. D. (eds.) The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development. New York: Oxford University Press: 238–276.Google Scholar
MacRae, D. Jr. and Meldrum, J. A. (1960) “Critical Elections in Illinois, 1888-1958.” American Political Science Review 54: 669–683.Google Scholar
McCormick, R. L. (1981) “The Discovery that Business Corrupts Politics: A Reappraisal of the Origins of Progressivism.” American Historical Review 86: 247–274.Google Scholar
McCormick, R. L. (1982) “The Realignment Synthesis in American History.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13: 85–105.Google Scholar
McCraw, T. K. (1975) “Regulation in America: A Review Article.” Business History Review 49: 159–183.Google Scholar
Pomper, G. (1967) “Classification of Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 29: 535–566.Google Scholar
Rusk, J. G. (1970) “The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876-1908.” American Political Science Review 64: 1220–1238.Google Scholar
Rusk, J. G. (1974) “Comment: The American Electoral Universe: Speculation and Evidence.” American Political Science Review 68: 1028–1049.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E.(1956) “United States: The Functional Approach to Party Government,” in Neumann, S. (ed.) Modern Political Parties: Approaches to Comparative Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 194–215.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar