Whig Party

Part of an ongoing, occasional series looking at the state of democracy and the political process in the United States in light of the 2024 presidential election.

A brief essay on the Whig Party in the United States. How and when did the Whig Party form? What was the Whig Party's core beliefs and policy agenda? Who were the Whig presidents, and what were their noteworthy accomplishments, if any, while in office? Was the Whig Party in the United States considered a third party?

The rise and fall of the Whig Party in the United States

The Whig Party, a significant political force in the United States during the 19th century, emerged as a response to the shifting dynamics of American politics. Formed in the early 1830s, the Whigs represented a diverse coalition of interests united by their opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. Despite their relatively short existence, the Whigs played a crucial role in shaping American political discourse, advocating for economic modernization, infrastructure development, and a more active role for the federal government.

William Henry Harrison 

The Whig Party coalesced in the early 1830s in response to the policies of President Andrew Jackson, particularly his controversial handling of the Bank of the United States. Discontented with Jackson's populist approach and suspicion of centralized power, various factions including National Republicans, Anti-Masons, and former Federalists came together to form the Whig Party. The name "Whig" was borrowed from British politics, where it referred to those who opposed royal prerogatives and supported parliamentary supremacy.

At its core, the Whig Party espoused several key beliefs and policy agendas. One of its primary objectives was promoting economic development through the implementation of protective tariffs, internal improvements such as roads and canals, and support for a national banking system. Whigs believed that these measures would stimulate economic growth and facilitate the expansion of commerce and industry. Additionally, the party advocated for a strong federal government capable of fostering national unity and promoting the common good, in contrast to Jacksonian Democrats' emphasis on states' rights and limited government intervention.

Throughout its existence, the Whig Party produced four presidents: William Henry Harrison (1841), John Tyler (1841-1845), Zachary Taylor (1849-1850), and Millard Fillmore (1850-1853). Of these four, only Harrison and Taylor were elected, while Tyler and Fillmore, their respective vice presidents, assumed the office upon their deaths.

William Henry Harrison, a general and war hero elected in 1840, served the shortest term of any U.S. president, succumbing to pneumonia just a month after his inauguration. Despite his brief tenure, Harrison's election marked a significant victory for the Whig Party, as he ran on a platform emphasizing economic policies favoring industrial development and infrastructure improvements.

Zachary Taylor

Zachary Taylor, another celebrated general and war hero, assumed the presidency in 1849. Although Taylor's presidency was cut short by his death in 1850, his administration was marked by efforts to address the divisive issue of slavery in the newly acquired territories from Mexico. Taylor's proposed admission of California as a free state sparked intense debate and ultimately contributed to the Compromise of 1850, a temporary resolution to the ongoing sectional tensions between the North and South.

Millard Fillmore, who succeeded Taylor upon his death, continued the Whig Party's emphasis on economic development and infrastructure projects. Fillmore's presidency was overshadowed by the escalating tensions over slavery, particularly with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850. Despite his efforts to maintain national unity, Fillmore's support for the compromise further alienated anti-slavery Whigs in the North and contributed to the party's decline.

The Whig Party's demise can be attributed to several factors, including internal divisions over slavery, the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, and changing socio-economic dynamics in the United States. By the mid-1850s, the party had fragmented beyond repair, paving the way for the Republican Party's ascendance as the dominant political force opposed to the expansion of slavery.

In conclusion, the Whig Party's formation in the early 1830s marked a significant chapter in American political history. Despite its relatively short existence, the Whigs advocated for policies aimed at promoting economic development, infrastructure improvements, and a strong federal government. While the party produced several presidents, including William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore, internal divisions over slavery and changing political dynamics ultimately led to its demise by the mid-1850s. Nevertheless, the Whig Party's legacy continues to resonate in American politics, serving as a reminder of the complexities and tensions inherent in the country's democratic experiment.

The Whigs were not a third party, but a major party during its time

The Whig Party in the United States was not considered a third party in the traditional sense. Instead, it was one of the two major political parties during the mid-19th century, alongside the Democratic Party. As previously noted, the Whigs emerged as a significant political force in the early 1830s in response to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. They represented a diverse coalition of interests, including former National Republicans, Anti-Masons, and disaffected Democrats, united by their opposition to Jacksonian policies such as the dismantling of the national bank.

Throughout the 1830s and 1840s, the Whig Party competed directly with the Democratic Party in national elections, fielding candidates for the presidency, Congress, and state offices. The Whigs enjoyed varying degrees of success during this period, electing several presidents, including William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore.

While the Whig Party ultimately declined and disbanded in the 1850s due to internal divisions over issues such as slavery, it was not considered a third party during its existence. Instead, it was one of the dominant political parties of its time, representing a significant portion of the American electorate and competing on equal footing with the Democrats. The rise of the Republican Party in the 1850s, which absorbed many former Whigs and emerged as the primary opposition to the Democrats, marked the end of the Whig Party's prominence in American politics.

Third party candidates for president

Part of an ongoing, occasional series looking at the state of democracy and the political process in the United States in light of the 2024 presidential election.

In light of the 2024 independent bid of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for president of the United States, we take a look at a sampling of other noteworthy independent and third-party presidential campaigns in modern U.S. history. How did these candidates fare? What were their impacts on the elections they ran in?

The impact of independent and third-party presidential campaigns in modern U.S. history

Throughout the annals of American political history, independent and third-party presidential campaigns have emerged as formidable disruptors, challenging the dominance of the two major parties and injecting fresh ideas into the political discourse. While many of these candidates have faced significant hurdles in their quests for the presidency, their campaigns have often left enduring legacies, reshaping the political landscape and influencing the trajectory of future elections. In this post, we will examine some of these noteworthy campaigns and their impacts on the elections they ran in.

1. Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive Party) - 1912:

Perhaps one of the most famous third-party candidates, Theodore Roosevelt, a former Republican president, launched the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party) in 1912 after failing to secure the Republican nomination. Running on a platform of progressive reforms, including labor protections, women's suffrage, and conservation, Roosevelt garnered an impressive 27.4% of the popular vote and won six states for a total of 88 electoral votes. While he ultimately lost to Woodrow Wilson, his candidacy split the Republican vote, paving the way for Wilson's victory and highlighting the growing influence of progressive ideals in American politics.

2. George Wallace (American Independent Party) - 1968:

George C. Wallace, the former, as well as future, Democratic governor of Alabama, ran for president in the 1968 election as the candidate of the American Independent Party. Wallace's campaign centered on a platform of segregationist and law-and-order policies, appealing primarily to white voters disaffected by the civil rights movement and social unrest of the 1960s.

In the end, Wallace captured a significant portion of the popular vote, winning 13.5%, along with five states in the Deep South for a total of 46 electoral votes. Wallace's campaign had a profound impact on the election that year. By tapping into racial anxieties among white voters in the South and parts of the Midwest, Wallace effectively split the Democratic vote in many states, contributing to the election of Republican candidate Richard Nixon, the former vice president under Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961).

3. Ross Perot - 1992 (Independent) and 1996 (Reform Party):

Business magnate Ross Perot's bids for the presidency in 1992 and 1996 shook up the political establishment with his focus on fiscal responsibility and opposition to free trade agreements like NAFTA. Despite lacking major party affiliation, Perot captured 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992 and 8.4% in 1996. While he did not win any electoral votes in either election, he managed to take several counties across the country and even placed second in two states in his 1992 campaign against Democratic candidate Bill Clinton and Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush. It's widely assumed he most likely would have secured an even greater percentage of the popular vote in 1992 had he not dropped out of the race for several months. In any case, both of Perot's campaigns forced the major parties to address issues such as the federal deficit and government spending, leaving a lasting impact on the national conversation surrounding economic policy.

4. Ralph Nader (Green Party) - 2000:

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in the 2000 presidential election, campaigning on progressive policies such as environmental protection, corporate accountability, and universal healthcare. While Nader only received 2.74% of the popular vote, his candidacy was widely seen as a spoiler for Democratic nominee and incumbent vice president Al Gore, particularly in the closely contested state of Florida. Many Democrats blamed Nader for siphoning off crucial votes that could have tipped the election in Gore's favor, leading to George W. Bush's narrow victory and sparking debates about the impact of third-party candidates on electoral outcomes.

5. Jill Stein (Green Party) - 2012 and 2016:

Physician and activist Jill Stein ran as the Green Party candidate in both the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections, advocating for progressive policies such as Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and student debt forgiveness. While her share of the popular vote was relatively small (0.36% in 2012 and 1.07% in 2016), Stein's campaigns attracted attention to issues often overlooked by the major parties, such as environmental justice and corporate influence in politics. Stein is running again in 2024.


6. Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) - 2012 and 2016:

Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson's libertarian-leaning campaign in the 2016 presidential election focused on issues such as drug policy reform, government spending cuts, and civil liberties. Despite being excluded from the presidential debates and facing limited media coverage, Johnson, who served as a Republican when governor of New Mexico, sealed 3.3% of the popular vote, making him the most successful Libertarian Party candidate in history. While he did not significantly alter the outcome of the election, Johnson's candidacy highlighted the growing appeal of libertarianism among certain segments of the electorate and contributed to discussions about the role of third parties in American politics.

On a side note, Johnson ran for president as the Libertarian Party's candidate four years earlier, in 2012, as well. He originally sought the Republican nomination for the 2012 election before joining the LP. While he only secured 1% of the popular vote, which amounted to some 1.3 million ballots cast for him nationally, his total represents more votes for him than all other third-party candidates combined that year.

Conclusion

In conclusion, independent and third-party presidential campaigns have played a significant role in shaping American politics, often serving as catalysts for change and challenging the dominance of the two major parties. While many of these candidates have struggled to achieve electoral success, their campaigns have nevertheless left indelible marks on the political landscape, influencing policy debates and electoral outcomes for years to come. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s 2024 independent bid for the presidency demonstrates, the tradition of independent and third-party activism remains alive and well in American politics, offering voters alternative visions for the future of the country.

Understanding the Electoral College

Part of an ongoing, occasional series looking at the state of democracy and the political process in the United States in light of the 2024 presidential election.

Exploring both the merits and the drawbacks to the Electoral College system in U.S. presidential elections. What are the main arguments that supporters of the Electoral College system make? What are the main arguments that opponents of the Electoral College system cite? We also briefly look at U.S. presidential elections in which the Electoral College vote, and not the popular vote, decided the outcome.

The Electoral College: Pros and Cons

In the United States, when it's time to elect a president, we use a system called the Electoral College. This system has both good things about it (pros) and not-so-good things about it (cons), depending on your view and who you're rooting for. Let's take a closer look at both sides and see if we can break it down for you, as it can be a fairly-complicated system to understand.

Pros of the Electoral College:

Balancing power: The Electoral College gives smaller states a fair chance in presidential elections. Each state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on its population, so the system allows states with fewer people to have a say in the outcome, as well.

Stability and certainty: The Electoral College helps ensure a clear winner in presidential elections. Once a candidate wins the majority of electoral votes, it's clear who will become the next president, which can prevent long, drawn-out disputes and uncertainty.

Preserving federalism: The Electoral College reflects the federalist system of government in the United States. It maintains the balance of power between the states and the federal government, allowing states to play a significant role in choosing the president.



Cons of the Electoral College:

Winner-take-all system: In most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote gets all of the state's electoral votes. This means that even if a candidate wins by a small margin, they get all of the state's electoral votes, which can end up leading to a disparity between the popular vote and the electoral vote in the end. We'll explore some real examples near the end of this post where this was the case. It is certainly possible, and it has happened, where presidential candidates won the popular vote but lost the actual election due to how the Electoral College works.

Disproportionate influence: Because of the winner-take-all system, candidates tend to focus their campaign efforts on "battleground" states, also called "swing" states, where the outcome is uncertain. This can make voters in other states feel like their votes don't matter as much.

Potential for disputed elections: In rare cases, as previously noted, the Electoral College can result in a candidate winning the presidency without winning the popular vote. This has happened a few times in U.S. history and can lead to controversy and questions about the legitimacy of the election and the system we have in place for deciding elections.



Examples of U.S. presidential elections decided by the Electoral College:

1824: In the presidential election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but did not win enough electoral votes to secure the presidency. The election was ultimately decided by the House of Representatives, who chose John Quincy Adams as the winner.

1876: In the election of 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but fell one electoral vote short of the majority needed to win the presidency. A special commission was formed to resolve the dispute, and Rutherford B. Hayes was ultimately awarded the presidency.

2000: In the presidential election of 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but narrowly lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush after a recount in Florida. This led to a prolonged legal battle and ultimately a Supreme Court decision in Bush's favor.

In conclusion, while the Electoral College system has its advantages in balancing power and providing stability, it also has drawbacks such as the potential for disproportionate influence and disputed elections, as we have seen at times throughout history.

George Washington on political parties

Part of an ongoing, occasional series looking at the state of democracy and the political process in the United States in light of the 2024 presidential election.

George Washington and political parties: A warning against factionalism

George Washington, revered as one of the founding fathers of the United States and its first president, held strong convictions regarding the potential dangers posed by political parties to the young nation's democracy. In his farewell address in 1796, Washington delivered a poignant warning against the divisive nature of political factions, foreseeing their detrimental effects on national unity and governance. Washington's foresight and concerns regarding political parties remain relevant and insightful even in contemporary times.

Washington's apprehension towards political parties stemmed from his profound commitment to the principles of unity, harmony, and the common good of the nation. He believed that political parties could potentially undermine these foundational values, leading to partisan strife, polarization, and the prioritization of narrow interests over the welfare of the entire nation. Washington famously cautioned that "the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

One of the primary concerns Washington expressed was that political parties could foster a climate of animosity and distrust among citizens, weakening the bonds of national unity essential for a thriving democracy. He feared that party loyalty might supersede allegiance to the nation as a whole, resulting in citizens prioritizing partisan victories over the collective interests of the country.

Furthermore, Washington believed that political parties could lead to the elevation of personal ambition and self-interest above the public good. He cautioned against the dangers of individuals within parties pursuing power and influence for their own benefit rather than serving the greater good. Washington warned that such pursuits could undermine the integrity of democratic institutions and erode public trust in government.

Despite Washington's warnings, political parties have become entrenched fixtures within the American political landscape, playing significant roles in shaping policy, elections, and governance. While the existence of political parties has certain advantages, such as providing a mechanism for organizing and mobilizing citizens, articulating policy platforms, and fostering political engagement, they also carry inherent drawbacks.

Pros of political parties:

Organizing political action: Political parties serve as vehicles for organizing citizens around shared ideologies, values, and policy goals. They provide a means for individuals to collectively advocate for their interests and influence governmental decision-making processes.

Facilitating governance: Political parties play a crucial role in the functioning of democratic governments by offering coherent policy agendas and facilitating the legislative process. They help to structure political debate, negotiate compromises, and implement policies through elected representatives.

Promoting political participation: Parties mobilize citizens to participate in the democratic process through activities such as voting, campaigning, and volunteering. They provide avenues for individuals to engage in politics, express their preferences, and hold elected officials accountable.

Representing diverse perspectives: Political parties represent a wide range of ideological, social, and cultural perspectives within society. They offer voters choices and alternatives in elections, reflecting the diversity of interests and values present in the electorate.

Cons of political parties:

Polarization and division: Political parties can contribute to polarization and divisiveness within society by promoting partisan loyalties and fostering antagonism towards opposing viewpoints. This polarization can inhibit cooperation, compromise, and constructive dialogue, impeding effective governance.

Partisan gridlock: The intense competition between political parties, especially the major ones, can lead to legislative gridlock and dysfunction, as parties prioritize partisan interests over the common good. This gridlock can hinder the enactment of meaningful policy reforms and impede government effectiveness.

Influence of special interests: Political parties may become susceptible to the influence of special interest groups, wealthy donors, and lobbyists who seek to advance their own agendas through party politics. This influence can undermine the integrity of the political process and erode public trust in government.

Limited representation: The dominance of major political parties can marginalize minority voices and perspectives within the political system, limiting the representation of diverse communities and viewpoints. This lack of inclusivity can perpetuate inequalities and disenfranchise certain segments of the population.

In conclusion, George Washington's cautionary words regarding the perils of political parties offer valuable insights into the challenges facing democratic governance. While political parties play essential roles in modern politics, it is crucial to remain vigilant against the potential dangers of factionalism, partisanship, and the erosion of democratic norms. By striving to uphold the principles of unity, compromise, and the common good, citizens can mitigate the negative consequences of political parties and safeguard the vitality of democracy for future generations.

Democracy depends on education

Part of an ongoing, occasional series looking at the state of democracy and the political process in the United States in light of the 2024 presidential election.

The power of education in keeping democracy healthy

To all the middle school students and high school students out there,

Imagine a world where everyone gets to have a say in how things are run, where everyone's voice matters, and where everyone has the chance to make a meaningful difference, a profound contribution. This is essentially what democracy is all about, or supposed to be about. These are the ideals it espouses. It's a precious gift we have, and it comes in a set of rights and responsibilities. But did you know that for democracy to work well, we all need to be educated and informed? Let's dive into why this is so important.

First off, what is democracy? Democracy, perhaps in its simplest explanation, is a system of government where the power belongs to the people. Think of it like a big decision-making club where everyone gets to have a say in, and perhaps even directly vote on, what they think is best for their community, city, state, and/or country. But here's the thing: for democracy to run smoothly, people need to understand how it works and what they're supporting and/or voting for. That's where education comes in.



Education is like the key that unlocks the door to democracy. When we're educated, we truly understand, and continue to learn about, subjects like history, government, economics, philosophy, how society works, and specific key issues affecting many. We understand our rights and responsibilities as citizens. We can think critically about the issues facing our communities and broader world, and make informed decisions when it's time to cast that vote.

But being educated isn't just about knowing facts and figures. It's also about learning how to think for ourselves and how to separate truth from fiction. In today's world, where information is everywhere, it's easy to get confused or even outright misled. That's why those critical thinking skills are so important. We need to be able to ask questions, research answers, and form our own conclusions based on evidence, not just what we see on social media or hear from friends.

When we're well-educated and well-informed, we become active participants, and even leaders, in democracy. We don't just sit back and let other people make decisions for us. That's a sad waste of talent and potential. Rather, we take responsibility for both our individual and collective futures, and we work together to cultivate opportunities and effect positive changes. We seek to grow in virtue and become civic-minded. We vote for leaders who represent our values, we speak out against injustice, and we advocate for policies that make our communities stronger and fairer for everyone.



But here's the thing: democracy isn't a one-time deal. It's like a garden that needs constant tending. We need to keep learning and stay informed throughout our lives to keep democracy healthy and thriving. That means following the news, staying curious and asking questions, engaging in productive dialogue with others, and being open to new ideas. It means listening to different perspectives and engaging in respectful debate. It means being willing to stand up for what's right, even when it's hard to do so.

So, to all the middle school students and high school students out there, remember this: your education matters. It's not just about getting good grades or getting into college, and it doesn't end after the school day or upon graduation. Your education is ongoing, for the rest of your life. It's about being an active, informed citizen who can help shape the future of our democracy. So keep learning, keep asking questions, and never underestimate the power of your potential and your voice. The health of our democracy depends on it.