The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 Volume 2

With the ascendancy of the Republicans, and the coinciding demise of the Democrats, Americans have begun questioning the wisdom the two party system. Luckily for us, from the inception of this country, various questions have been asked about political parties, and various answers provided. Perhaps the best book anyone can read on this topic is The Idea of a Party System. Richard Hofstadter, explains that America was a novel experiment when founded, and hence the Founding Fathers, lacking governing experience, were highly influenced by classical history and contemporary English political philosophy. He traces the evolution of political thought from its violent anti-party bias, to the subsequent arguments advocating the acceptance, even the necessity, of parties. From the Englishmen (Bolingdroke, Burke, etc) to the Virginia aristocrats (Jefferson, Madison) to the Albany Regency, we are led by a timeline, showing what each saw in this issue. In this relevant, albeit arcane, area of political science, Hofstadter analyzes and writes lucidly, trenchantly, indeed indifferently. The reader is stung by the depth of research undertaken. The Idea of a Party System is required reading for students of politics, history, or infact, anyone who wants to dig into the brains of the Founders.

What with the current flap in Florida over the Presidential election, and the concomitant party posturing, I pulled down this book to get some perspective on the silliness of political parties. But, in a low-key way, the author leads me to believe that our system is pretty good.This is not a book that analyzes the system of political parties-not a book of political science, in other words. It is a targeted history, which confines itself nicely to a single question: how did our current system of two major political parties arise?I had read the book about ten years ago, and found it unmemorable. I liked it better this time, perhaps because the issue it discusses (that is, why there should be political parties, and in particular, why two of them) interests me more these days. Basically, Hofstadter contrasts the traditional views of party that Jefferson and Madison espoused, with more or less consistency at various times, with what came later-particularly through Martin van Buren and his ilk. Under the Founders parties tended to be factions in legislatures loyal to particular elites. Fairly soon, though, and under the force of necessity, they came to embrace the common man (later yet, woman), and changed character.What is most interesting in this story is that parties were never planned for by those that designed our government, but it is unlikely it could have endured for more than a few years without them. Moreover, the current party situation, with two dead-even opponents of vague ideology but who agree to play by the rules, is probably about the best any democracy can hope for. We have plenty of examples in the world where ideology trumps civility, and party strife easily jumps over into violence. Not much chance of a persistent democracy there!This book is an easy read for non-historians, as is appropriate in its origin as Jefferson Memorial Lectures. And it is pleasant to come out of a history book with a grasp of anything, however limited.