Skip to main content
×
×
Home

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

  • John H. Aldrich
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.”

Copyright
References
Hide All
Aldrich, John H. 1999. “Political Parties in a Critical Era.” American Politics Research. January, 27(1): 932.
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.
Aldrich, John H. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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 Ambition, Policy, and the Presidency,” Unpublished manuscript.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.
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.
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.
Bailyn, Bernard. 1992. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Besley, Timothy. 2005. “Political Selection.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(3): 4360.
Binder, Sarah A. 1999. “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96.” American Political Science Review 93(3): 519–33.
Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Bonica, Adam. 2014a. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367–86.
Bonica, Adam. 2014b. “The Punctuated Origins of Senate Polarization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39(1): 526.
Brady, David W., and Volden, Craig. 1998. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to Clinton. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
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.
Carson, Jamie L., and Roberts, Jason M.. 2013. Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cox, Gary W. Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. Vol. 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
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.
Duverger, Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Trans. Barbara North and Robert North. New York: Wiley.
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity: 3(3): 395405.
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–64.
Hallerman, Tamar 2014. “Tapping Back In to Regular Order.” CQ Weekly, April 7, 538–45.
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.
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.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1813. “The Natural Aristocracy,” letter to John Adams, October 28 The Portable Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Peterson, Merrill D. , New York: Penguin. 1975.
Katz, Jonathan N., and Sala, Brian R.. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 2133.
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Toward Understanding 19th Century Congressional Careers: Ambition, Competition, and Rotation.” American Journal of Political Science 21(4): 669693.
Key, V. O., Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Key Jr, V. O. Jr. 1958. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, New York: Thomas Crowell.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. “Institutional and Partisan Sources of Gridlock: A Theory of Divided and Unified Government.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 8(1): 740.
Krehbiel, Keith. 2010. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Mayhew, David R. 1974a. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mayhew, David R. 1974b. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity: 6(3): 295317.
Mayhew, David R. 1991. Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McCormick, Richard P. 1960. “New Perspectives on Jacksonian Politics.” American Historical Review 65(2): 288301.
McGerr, Michael E. 1986. The Decline of Popular Politics: The American North, 1865–1928. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mickie, Robert. 2013. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944–1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.
Peterson, Merrill D. 2001. The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun. New York: Oxford University Press.
Polsby Nelson, W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review. 62(1): 144168. – see n. 38.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Poole, Keith T. 2007.“Changing Minds? Not in Congress!Public Choice 131(3–4): 435–51.
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.
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.
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1989. “The Changing Textbook Congress.” In Can the Government Govern? ed. John Chubb and Paul Peterson. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wilkins, Arjun S. 2012. “Electoral Security of Members of the U.S. House, 1900–2006.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(3): 277304.
Zaller, John, 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambirdge: Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Perspectives on Politics
  • ISSN: 1537-5927
  • EISSN: 1541-0986
  • URL: /core/journals/perspectives-on-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 162
Total number of PDF views: 407 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1507 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th September 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.