Talk:Fourth Party System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

72 scholarly articles use this phrase; several of them are about Canada or Eastern Europe, or mean a political system with a fourth party. [1]. Generally used? Not by my standards. Septentrionalis 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's used in the textbooks: for example:

American Politics, Second Edition William Lasser, Clemson University http://www.college.hmco.com/polisci/lasser/am_pol/2e/students/ch_out09.html Chapter Nine: Political Parties Basic Concepts The Framers and Political Parties The Idea of a Party System The American Party System Parties in the American Political System Parties and the Party Systems in American History The Idea of Realignment The First Party System The Second Party System The Third and Fourth Party Systems The Fifth (or New Deal) Party System The Modern American Party System Democrats and Republicans Today Rjensen 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It'salso used in the major journals in both history and political science:
  • PS: Political Science and Politics > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 293-308+310-326+328-338+341-347+351-461+465-468
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 391-399
  • Social Science History > Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 83-116
  • Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 104, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 360-361
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), p. 639
  • The American Historical Review > Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 1008-1009
  • Journal of Interdisciplinary History > Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer, 1985), pp. 43-67
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 415-435
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 77-91
  • The History Teacher > Vol. 17, No. 1 (Nov., 1983), pp. 9-31
  • Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 65-78
  • The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 607-608
  • Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 515-532
  • Reviews in American History > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 547-552
  • Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979), pp. 649-667
  • PS > Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), pp. 326-328
  • Social Science History > Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 144-171
  • The Journal of Politics > Vol. 38, No. 3, 200 Years of the Republic in Retrospect: A Special Bicentennial Issue (Aug., 1976), pp. 239-257
  • Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 90, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 411-435
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 795-811
  • The American Political Science Review > Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 1002-1023
  • The Western Political Quarterly > Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 385-413

Rjensen 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I congratulate Rjensen on his ability to cut and paste; is this a scholar.google.com result (in which case there should be a couple dozen more) or has he actually called up JSTOR?

Nevertheless, the 16 books mentioning Fourth Party System in the United States are a small fraction of the discussion of political realignment in the United States.Septentrionalis 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I used JSTOR for the list and in fact over the years have read some of the articles. Perhaps people who wasnt to be experts on the topic and help edit this article should read some of these articles -- but start with the bibliography that is provided. (And yes, I did read and use all the books in the bibliography). Rjensen 03:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How prevalent is this 'party system' stuff? Someone has splattered this "party system" method of understanding American political party development all over American history articles in wiki. But how prevalent is this system stuff. Who is McCormick, the guy who invented it? Is this system in common use in scholarship, or is it just the academic bailiwick of some little scholar in Pennsylvania, for example? Wise people want to know. I think this article needs to give some background on the "party system" method of understanding American history, who developed it, and what it's all about

Party Systems were introduced by Charles Merriam in 1920s and updated by Chambers and Burnham about 1965. The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year. For an introduction See Lex Renda, "Richard P. Mccormick and the Second American Party System. " Reviews in American History 1995 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext in Project Muse. Why anyone would want to remove it is baffling! Rjensen 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The overwhelming Republican victory in 1896 over William Jennings Bryan and his Democratic Party, repeated in 1900, restored business confidence, inaugurated a long epoch of prosperity, and swept away the issues and personalities of the Third Party System.

Really, now. There was a severe contraction in 1902 and another in 1907; and does this count Bryan himself as a personality of the Third Party System or does it not? It's an exaggeration either way. The claims of historical systems should not be presented as fact, but as the opinions of their proponents. Septentrionalis 04:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The article focuses on the broad party lineups. Of course it is political history and does not cover economic, diplomatic, military etc topics. Bryan was a very minor figure in the 3rd party system. The idea of a party system is a construct created by scholars --like "Renaissance" "Great Awakening" "Napoleonic Era" "Jacksonian Democracy", "Ante Bellum Period", "Progressive Era", the "Frontier", and so on. Has anyone every alleged it represents a POV??? Rjensen 05:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The idea of the five Party Systems is not (particularly) POV; this sentence, however, might have been written for Taft's election campaign. That's why the tag is on the section, not the article. Septentrionalis 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Not true that there was a severe contraction in 1902. There was one in 1907 that lasted about 9 months--pretty minor in a 30 year period between two REAL depressions. Politically 1907 did not have much impact--Taft was elected by a landslide and, more important, Bryan did not bring up the issue. The point is that minor recessions were not politically important in that era. Rjensen 03:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why have it at length in this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Era

Don't the two article somehow overlap? Tazmaniacs 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Party Systems articles also overlap with various History of the United States of America, i.e. History of the United States (1918–1945)... I know they don't refer exactly to the same thing (in particular do not have the exact same correspondence of chronologies) but do overlap in many ways. I think some sort of general structure between these articles should be used. Maybe by focusing "Party Systems" articles on political history (while Progressive Era would refer to more social & cultural changes) and having the main, historical articles on general matters. Tazmaniacs 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a PoV fork of Progressive Era; of course they should be merged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The 4th party system outlasted the Progressive era, so it's different. It's been a standard concept in Political Science for 40 years, where the take a different approach from the way historians who look at Progressivism. For example, voting and election and congressional studies are done by pol scientists under the 4PS approach, and (in recent decades) not by historans.Rjensen 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been one of several ideas; but the assertion that it is standard is false. (The assertion that it is longer is also dubious; the political structure of the Progressive Era began falling apart with the extrusion of LaFollette in 1924, if not with the Bull Moose schism.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I quote from a work of political science published in 1997, thirty years into this alleged predominance:

The United States has had three periods with distinct two-party systems. The first, the Jeffersonian Republican/Federalist party syste, ended with the Era of Good Feelings. The second, the Democratic/Whig system, was organized after the Era of Good Feelings and lasted until the early 1850s. The third, the Democratic/Republican system, was organized by the late 1850s and continues today, although we will frequently refer to this system as having perturbed into a three-party system (northern Democrats, southern Democrats, Republicans) by civil-rights issues that arose in the mid-twentieth century.(Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal:Congress : a political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
many government textbooks discuss 4th party system and it's included in the AP Government syllabus. It's mostly used to discuss presidential election; The fact that one author of a book on CONGRESS doesn't use the term is not a good reason for dropping term used for presidential elecgtions, a different issue. for example of use in standard textbook see American Politics, Second Edition / William Lasser, Clemson University in ch 9; see [2] Also O'Connor and Sabato textbook 8th ed pp 419ff; Lowi textbook 8th ed pp 476ff Rjensen 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
WP is not a curriculum guide; and there are many more books on political science and government which use Progressive Era (much of this list, for example) There are, in fact, comparatively few papers on this schema; one of them is by Richard Jensen. There are enough that we should have articles on the subject; the metastasis of the idea through Wikipedia, however, seems to be the work of Rjensen, who inserted the paper into article text here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC