by Robert La Follette,1 is continually making raids and sorties of a most spectacular character. The artillery, however, moves slowly. Some of the placement guns do not seem to move at all. The Democrats, so this writer maintained, were the infantry. But even so, not all the infantry occupy front line trenches. There are sappers like Wheeler, and sharp-shooters like Reed, and then there are those who, like Underwood, stay very close to the artillery. Interesting as the theory is, it is evidently not substantiated by the facts.

Then there are those who see in the tariff the vital distinction. And in support of their contention, they point to great tariff controversies of the past. Nor can the array of dates fail to impress the observer.2 Nevertheless, numerous as they are, the frequency with which the tariff has been only a minor issue at an election makes one hesitate to contend that it is the great underlying difference. So, too, with the money question. Although, generally speaking, the Democratic party has inclined toward an expanded currency and the Republican party toward a contracted one, the fact that the question has been paramount only once in recent years, in 1896, disposes of any claim it may have to being the ever-present subject of controversy.

1 Since this was written Senator La Follette has bolted the Republican Party.

2 1816, 1824, 1828, 1832, 1833, 1846, 1857, 1860, 1870, 1872, 1875, 1883, 1888, 1890, 1894, 1897, 1908, 1909, 1913, etc.

The State rights issue is still frequently advanced as the solution of the problem. Historically, it is claimed that the Democrats have stood for the maintenance of the status quo in our governmental relations; the Republicans, for the growth of nationalism. And certainly such was the case in the 50's and 60's. To-day, however, the positions of the two parties are somewhat reversed. It is the Southern Democracy which is championing the cause of grants-inaid, the device by which national authority is being rapidly expanded, and the Republican Northeast which is opposed.1 Thus we find "another beautiful theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts."

More plausible than any of the explanations so far presented is the thesis which maintains that there has persisted throughout our history an underlying economic cleavage of which the tariff, the money issue, and State rights are but outward manifestations. On the one side of this issue have stood those whose chief interests were those of "big business" and industrial development; on the other side, those who believed in the supremacy of agriculture and the rights of man. The Federalists were the early industrialists, representing the "big business" of their day. Opposed to them were the Anti-Federalists, who championed the cause of agriculture and with it, singularly enough, individual liberty. Nomenclature has changed. To-day the Republicans and Democrats occupy the field. But, generally speaking, the alignment is the 1 See page 98.

same. The Republicans represent "big business"; the Democrats champion the rights of the "small fry." This at least is the contention of the thesis. But even here some very embarrassing questions can be raised. If the Democratic party represents the interests of agriculture, why has it not made inroads into the Republican strongholds of New York and Pennsylvania, situated as they are in the rural areas of the respective states? Why does the banner of Republicanism usually float over the Middle West? Even here an adequate explanation has not been found.

The flaws so apparent in the theses put forward have led many to maintain that no great underlying difference exists. They believe that the explanation of the persistence of the two major parties lies in the fact that they have acted as brokers and at different times have taken different sides of various questions-the tariff, money, state rights, etc. Those who hold this view believe that although no paramount issue running throughout our history is to be discovered, nevertheless there exists at any given time a vital distinction between the parties—and that this is the explanation of their persistence.

Still others, however, fail to see an adequate explanation of the phenomena here. They incline to the belief that the factors which have institutionalized the parties are chiefly responsible for their persistence. Certainly the psychological factors, inertia, habit, sympathy and imitation, so they maintain, make for the status quo. They explain in great measure those

factors which are commonly denoted by the term "historical influences." The persistence of the Solid South, for example, can in part be attributed to them. Their influence, needless to say, is not confined to any one section of the country. In so far as the impulses of pugnacity and competition cause victory to be placed above principle, they unquestionably contribute to a like perpetuation. The long ballot, as has been pointed out, has placed our political machinery very largely in the hands of professional politicians. These, in turn, see in the existing organizations surer roads to office and spoils than in the shifting sands of party realignment or independent action. Add to this the fact that the newspaper press of the country is almost wholly in the hands of those who have either party affiliations or a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo, and the explanation seems pretty complete. Two other factors, however, contribute. One is the enormous expense necessary to initiate and organize a new party. The other is our presidential or gubernatorial form of government. The existence under our form of government of one office of outstanding power, the occupant of which can very frequently determine questions of policy, makes that office the desideratum of all contending factions. Since that office is attainable only by a majority vote,1 the coalition of all possibly har

1 Some qualification of this statement is necessary. It is possible for the election to go to the House, in which case a coalition of the various factions is possible after election. Such circumstances, however, are exceptional.

monious groups becomes imperative. Hence the two great parties are formed. Hence they persist, for only through membership in one or the other is it possible for any group to obtain the influence or patronage so greatly desired.

Suggested Reading

Merriam, Charles E. The American Party System. (1922)