Category: Democratic Party

The opening shot of the C-Span clip for the Republican National Convention, Day 2 (July 2016) shows State Rep. John Cabello of Rockford, co-chair of Trump’s Illinois campaign, giving an introduction, during the roll call of states that culminated in Trump’s official nomination. He said “Mr. Chairman, I am John Cabello, the state representative from the great state of Illinois. The only Hispanic member on the Republican side of the aisle serving the House of Representatives”. I am not sure what his intent and purpose was in introducing himself this way, but to me as a casual observer, it seemed he was using this platform to promote himself. This brings me to my thesis: ‘Personal agendas of politicians, overpowers patriotism in American politics’.

The Democratic and Republican candidates for President and Vice-President are formally nominated by the party’s national conventions. To be the presidential candidate of a major political party, a person must win the majority of the delegates at these conventions which are held every four years, before the U.S. presidential election. Besides selecting the party’s nominee for President, the statement of party principles and goals (known as the party’s platform) are approved at these national conventions along with adoption of the rules for the party’s activities, including the presidential nominating process for the next election cycle.

Delegates of the United States Republican Party met in July 2016 at Quicken Loans Arena, a multi-purpose arena in Cleveland, Ohio to choose the party’s nominees for President and Vice President of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This is the third time that this event was organized in Cleveland. In addition to determining the party’s national ticket, the convention ratified the party platform. There were 2,472 delegates to the Republican National Convention (RNC), and a simple majority of 1,237 was required to win the presidential nomination. Melania Trump, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, veterans’ activist Jason Beardsley, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, actor Scott Baio, Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, Sen. Tom Cotton, Sen. Jeff Sessions and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, were among the speakers. On July 19, 2016, the convention formally nominated Donald Trump for President and Indiana Governor Mike Pence for Vice President. Trump and Pence went on to win the general election, defeating the Democratic ticket of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine.

The 2016 Democratic National Convention (DNC) was held at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in July 2016. 4,769 delegates met to nominate the Presidential candidates. 2,382 votes were needed for nomination. The Wells Fargo Center is consistently a top 10 venue in the U.S. President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders were speakers at the convention while the keynote address was delivered by Senator Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton was nominated as the first female presidential candidate from a major political party at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. Throughout the convention, actors and singers who were Hillary supporters took the stage, including Katy Perry, Eva Longoria, Alicia Keys, Demi Lovato, Tony Goldwyn, and Lena Dunham. Overall, attendance at the convention was estimated to be around 50,000.

The participants for both conventions were very well dressed and certainly from affluent societies. After all, it takes a lot of money to become a delegate and attend these conventions. The delegates are expected to cover their own cost of attendance, which could run into thousands of dollars. The men were dressed in business suits and the women were also dressed formally, with eye-catching make-up, hairdos and accessories. The candidates were upbeat and roared their applause. I found that the Democrats were louder in their applause than the Republicans. Were they more enthusiastic than their Republican counterparts or was it just that DNC had a more packed house, since they had a larger number of delegates? Convention delegates have a higher commitment to the party than the average American who call themselves Democrats or Republicans. Who would be willing to put in all that time and money to be a delegate, unless you are all fired up about the party ideology and success of your party at the polls? It has been reported that in 2008, 70% of Democratic delegates and 67% of Republican delegates indicated earning $75,000 or more per year, compared to 27% of Democratic voters and 39% of Republican voters.

The demographic structure of the Democratic party seems to be more diverse than that of the Republicans in the video clips, in terms of race and gender. The Democrats seem to be crowding tightly together around the microphone that one speaker actually said, “if I can get in here”. There were only two contenders for the Democratic Presidential race, while the Republicans had 4 contenders. Virtually all Republican primaries allocate delegates on a “winner-take-all” basis, so that the candidate who wins the most votes in a state is awarded all the delegates of that state whereas Democratic primaries allocate delegates based on the proportion of the vote each candidate receives for the Democratic primaries. As a result, the convention simply ratifies the winner of the primaries. The score board at the RNC showed Trump vs ‘Others’. This leads me to believe that the organizers already knew ahead of time that Trump was leading. The fact that the convention only ratifies the winner of the primaries, is a damper to the spirit of the delegates and some of it was evident on the facial express of the participants.

Conventions these days do not make as much difference as in the past, when party leaders decided amongst themselves who would be a nominee and presented that nominee and their qualifications to the voting public to be elected in the general election. The difference between what a person would ideally prefer, and what the group with which that person makes collective action decisions actually does, is conformity costs. I could see the disappointment on the faces of some of the delegates when the roll call was being made – the disappointment that their favorite candidate did not get the majority vote from their state.

It is a bit challenging to comment on the similarities and difference of the leaders of both the parties, based simply on the shot clips we had to watch. It seemed to me that the leaders on both sides who took to the microphone, tried to gain attention for their issues and rally their base. Each one said something good to promote their states, but an analysis of their comments will show how the parties are divided and how their principles are shifting. Party platforms are approved at conventions which give the audience the idea where the leadership of the party wants to see the party heading, but these days individual politicians have a greater ability to split from their party on certain topics. It’s usually the fights over the platform that matter more than the platform itself. And this brings me to my thesis that ‘personal agendas overpower patriotism’.

We have witnessed so many controversial candidates and polarization conflicts in recent elections. Bad-mouthing and accusing not just opponents from other parties but even from the individual’s own party has become the rule, rather than the exception. Add to that is the selfish nature of mankind that drives individuals to gain money, fame and power; all of which can be acquired in the political arena. The greater good of the nation is at stake, when each politician splits from their party to promote their own agenda, in an attempt to draw votes and be elected or re-elected. A candidate may have been elected by the voters, but when he/she comes to power and there are conflicting interests, it is natural to ask, ‘What is in it for me?’ and choose the pathway to reducing conformity costs. Individuals in power will choose options with low conformity costs to themselves, rather than promote collective decisions that produce policy outcomes that do not best serve their personal interests. The very idea of patriotism and serving the nation gets redefined! The Republican and Democratic leaders and their voters may have similar long-term goals, but each group differs on the way to achieve it. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans want the United States to be a prosperous country. However, Democrats envision more government intervention in the economy as a means to achieve the nations’ prosperity while Republicans argue the government needs to stay out and allow businesses to make their own decisions wherever possible. Although one could also say that Democrats and Republicans alike are generally supportive of a capitalist economy, there exists a handful of prominent Democrats who are avowed socialists. The stand that each leader takes, tends to be based on individual perspective and their own perception of what is in their own best interest.

To conclude, it is my opinion that a successful candidate is one who can keep disagreements about the nuts and bolts of a political party viz. its platform and rules in the background and is able to tactfully draw the spotlight on themselves. Conventions in the modern era are less about the parties than the candidates themselves, and the national convention is their showcase. Some have even termed these conventions as ‘political pageants’ and infomercials for parties and their candidates. And in many respects, that is just what they have become – the last chance for the nominees to attract the millions of disgruntled Americans to embrace them and support their cause. It is up to each citizen to get involved and push for changes in the general election, local government, or the next election cycle. After the conventions have ended, the all-too important issue of who will take the White House, and with it the right to nominate Supreme Court Justices, sign executive orders and legislation, and in general be the chief executive of the United States is decided at the general elections. Doing one’s homework and becoming an informed voter is the way to counter all the showbiz that is used by the individuals to woo the ballot in their favor. Will the torch of American patriotism be kept burning brightly or will it go out.

Introduction: The Stereotypes and Misconceptions of Party Switching

For the past half-century, two parties: the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated American politics. The common stereotype is that the Democratic party looks out for the minorities while the Republicans are against them. Although examples like Abraham Lincoln go against this notion, many believe the two parties switched and support different stances. The argument of the ‘Southern Strategy’ is popular in the academic field as a reasoning for the prevailing parties. However, this theory does not explain the full story behind the South becoming more Republican and the North becoming Democratic because of the origins of the two parties, how the ‘Southern Strategy’ is flawed at the core and current examples.

Origins and Early Platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties

The origins of the Democratic and Republican party are very similar, at the same time, very different. The Democratic Party was formed in 1792 when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name ‘Democratic-Republicans’ to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. A split between the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1820s gave rise to two factions: the Whigs and the Democrats. This would happen after Andrew Jackson’s loss to John Quincy Adams in the election of 1824, Jackson’s supporters created their organization called the Democratic party to get him elected. Their platform would consist of many ideas, but during the 19th and early-20th century, the Democratic Platform was broken up into four ideas: the belief in the American working class, regulation towards big business, expansion of executive power, and defense of slavery.

Jackson would be the first Democrat supported primarily by the American working class and rural farmers. Jackson was the first populist president at the time with a slogan that attracted many poor folks toward the Democratic Party for many centuries to come. The idea that the government should be more direct was another concept being uprooted at the time. To protect the working class, many regulations towards businesses and banks would be signed. Democrats believed that corporations had too much influence in civil affairs affecting the common man, Jackson would say, “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government”. This fight against laissez-faire caused an expansion in Executive Power never seen before. Democrats like Jackson would abuse the powers granted to him by the constitution. In the 1820s, it would go as far as ripping apart treaties made by Thomas Jefferson and the forceful removal of Indians between Georgia and Oklahoma. Andrew Jackson and the Democrats did not care; they saw this as protecting the middle class by redistributing land as they saw fit. Jackson would make him and his followers a fortune during his presidency by seizing land and making it government-owned. They would either sell it to the highest bidder or keep the land for themselves.

However, the main platform which would symbolize the Democratic party during the antebellum era was the defense of slavery. The party was able to win the South by supporting the economic system at the time. All the figures who upheld and defended American slavery—Senators John C. Calhoun and Stephen Douglas, President James Buchanan, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, the architect of the Dred Scott decision, and the main leaders of the Confederacy—were Democrats. They believed in the idea of ‘positive good’, believing that slavery was positive for both the slave and the slave owner. Democrats, like George Fitzhugh, argued: “isn’t slavery the same thing as what we are reading about among European socialists”. Fitzhugh essentially argued that it was an effective form of socialism. Fitzhugh argued that “in slavery, unlike in capitalism, the slaves who cannot provide for themselves are looked after from their cradle to their grave”. The idea is that the slave plantation is an extended family that “from each according to his abilities to each according to his need”.

On the other side, the Republican Party traces its roots to the 1850s, when anti-slavery leaders from former members of the Democratic, Whig, and Free-Soil parties joined forces to oppose the extension of slavery into the Kansas and Nebraska territories by the proposed Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Republican Party grew out of opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which was signed into law by President Franklin Pierce in 1854. Anti-slavery Northerners viewed this change as an aggressive maneuver by the slave-owning South. Its platform during the 19th and early-20th centuries consisted primarily of ending slavery in the U.S., preserve the constitution, deregulate the economy, and limit immigration. Their first president would be Abraham Lincoln, who would describe the evil of slavery at its core: “You work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it”. For Lincoln, the sin of slavery was not its racial aspect, but the fundamental immorality is theft because it says: “You work you toil, I will take the benefits of that”. Lincoln pointed out how Northern Democrats had even worked together with Southern Democrats to justify taking away the “fruit of other people’s labor”. Their response was to conserve the founding principles through the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved. These were essential to preserve as at that time, many white republicans believed that if the liberty of blacks could be taken away, so could theirs. Most of the support would come from Northern Quakes and evangelicals like Henry Wilson, a congregational layman, declaring that the Republican party “contained more moral worth than was ever embodied in any political organization in any land”, as they pushed for equal rights under the law. Due to the support from the North, many people would favor deregulation and the promotion of the free-market system to support manufacturing jobs in the North. This would lead many industrialists to lobby in favor of Republicans, making them the party of big business throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Also, many ideas of the Free Land Party and the Whigs were implemented to protect the national welfare, for example, reducing the immigration of European servants to decrease cheap labor and tariffs to protect U.S. industry.

The Myth of the ‘Southern Strategy’ and the Post-War Era

In the post-war era, here is what many historians claim, “the Democrats may have been the party of slavery, but now they are better and different now”. They claim that in the 1960s, Richard Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ converted racist Democrats into Republicans. In short, today, Democrats are perceived as the ‘good guys’, and Republicans are considered to be the ‘bad guys’. They even protest that Nixon used drugs and crime as a code for racism; however, Nixon’s opposition was aimed against the hippies. Nixon did not have ‘Southern Strategy’, for he had a Sun Belt Strategy, which consisted of the attempt to appeal to more urban and wealthy voters in the Upper South. He ended up winning the Sun Belt, but losing the Deep South to George Wallace, a Democratic segregationist. When he took office in 1969, he introduced America’s first affirmative action program. Nixon was helping minorities through his entrepreneurship program, which contradicts his racist image by the Left. Furthermore, the Dixiecrats who became Republicans were only two people: Strom Thurmond and Albert Watson. All the others died as Democrats.

In fact, as the South became less racist, the Republican party started to dominate. In the book ‘The End of Southern Exceptionalism’ by Byron Shafer uses data to show that the poor racist whites never switched. It was non-racist southerners during the ’80s when the republican message of opportunity, prosperity, and upward mobility would attract voters as more industries moved down South. Similarly, Blacks didn’t switch for reasons of race because the Democratic Party was, in the 1930s, the home of racism. It remained so until at least the 1960s. The reason why Blacks moved over to the Democratic party was based on the promises of the New Deal. Many reluctantly moved because they knew they were leaving the party of Lincoln for the party of segregation. In both cases, it had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with economics. Fast forward to the present, and the Democrats use Charlottesville riots as an example. White supremacists and neo-Nazis are wearing Trump hats, proving that the conservatives are the racists. Jason Kessler, who organized the Charlottesville rally, is made out to be a right-winger, but The Southern Poverty Law Center took a peek into his records. They found an Obama supporter, who was part of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement. Also, the poster boy of white supremacy and founder of the ‘alt-right’ movement, Richard Spencer, said, “I would be happy to open the door to white South Africans, but we don’t want people from Africa or Barbados”. This is different from what Republicans are saying. Republicans are drawing no racial line but between the legal and the illegal immigrant. Richard Spencer went on saying, “men are not created equally… we do not have God-given rights, but the state gives it to us… I don’t think we should pledge allegiance to legal documents like the constitution… Reagan was one of the worst presidents”. They call him conservative, but he is not a conservative; he is a figure used to pin the white supremacists on the Republican Party.

Current Examples and Modern Misunderstandings

As we approach the 2020 election, many issues as different as they are related to the 1860s and the original platforms of the two parties. The problems of illegal immigration, abortion, and welfare strike resemble issues in the 1860s. The first issue of illegal immigration, the Democratic and Republican solutions, can go back to the antebellum era. Abraham Lincoln defended the idea of upward. Lincoln’s Republican Party tried to remove government obstacles that restricted it. In his time, the main obstacle was slavery. Slavery, Lincoln knew, hurt the value of people’s work because it placed them in competition with slaves who worked for nothing. Today’s Republicans make a similar point about illegal immigrant labor. Illegal immigrants don’t have to pay taxes. For this, they can price their labor below that of a U.S. citizen. Making illegal immigration a force that harms the upward mobility for American workers. Today’s Democrats say that such rhetoric is racist, but since racial inferiority is not implied, they make it only because they get political benefits from illegal immigration. The second issue of abortion can go further back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. In the debates, Stephen Douglas professed to be indifferent to whether slavery was voted up or down. To the degree he confessed to an option, he implied he was ‘personally opposed’ to slavery and would not have slaves himself. Even so, Douglas contended that popular sovereignty was a democratic solution to something that threatened the nation. For Douglas, the moral question of slavery came not from its merits but its affirmation through a democratic process. This is a resemblance to the Democrats’ cotemporary pro-choice argument. Both are efforts to take something that destroys the life and liberty of another and make it a political good. Lastly, the third issue of welfare can be traced back to the features of slavery. If one goes today to the Democratic-controlled inner-city entirely dominated by the Democratic Party.

One could argue that you can see the five elements of the slave plantation outlined in Kenneth Stampp’s ‘The Peculiar Institution’. In the description of the plantation, Kenneth Stampp identifies five things that you would see on a slave plantation. Number one: broken-down dilapidated and unsafe housing. Number two: broken up families, under slavery, there was a confusion of who’s the real father mulattos running around in the plantation the family structure in decay. Number three: a high degree of violence required to hold the place. Number four: everybody gets the basic provision of food, of health care (they call the doctor), but nobody gets ahead there’s no opportunity. And number five: nihilism and despair… a feeling that there is no future (Donald). All these five features can be traced directly to inner-city Oakland and inner-city Baltimore. This has been going on since the 60s under the ‘Great Society Program’, the United States has spent trillions of dollars to fix these places. The Democrats have been in charge of fixing it. Yet, many of these places are no better off than they were in 1967.

Conclusion: Debunking the Myth of Party Switching

In conclusion, in response to the question of have the Democratic and Republican party switched platforms? The answer is that the two parties have maintained a similar platform since the 1860s. Sure, the idea that if a politician today would have the same political party as in the 19th century is something that can never be known, but because of their original platforms, the ‘Southern Strategy’ myth, and current-day examples. The idea that both the parties have switched platforms is not valid; instead, they have held on too many of the same ideas that concerned them 160 years ago.

References

1. Brownstein, Ronald. “How the South Rose Again”. The American Prospect, 24 Jan. 2006, prospect.org/article/south-rose-d2/.
2. Calton, Chris. “George Fitzhugh, the Honest Socialist: Chris Calton”. Mises Institute, 1 Nov. 2017, mises.org/wire/george-fitzhugh-honest-socialist.
3. “Democratic Party”. Democratic Party – Ohio History Central, ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Democratic_Party.
4. “Democratic Party Platform (Breckinridge Faction) of 1860”. Democratic Party Platform (Breckinridge Faction) of 1860 | The American Presidency Project, 23 June 1860, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/democratic-party-platform-breckinridge-faction-1860.
5. Donald, David, and David Donald. “The Peculiar Institution, by Kenneth M. Stampp”. Commentary, 2 Aug. 2016, www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/david-donald/the-peculiar-institution-by-kenneth-m-stampp/.
6. Hormats, Robert D. “Abraham Lincoln and the Global Economy”. Harvard Business Review, 1 Aug. 2014, hbr.org/2003/08/abraham-lincoln-and-the-global-economy.
7. Inskeep, Steve. “How Jackson Made a Killing in Real Estate”. POLITICO Magazine, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/andrew-jackson-made-a-killing-in-real-estate-119727_Page2.html.
8. Klein, Christopher. “Last Hired, First Fired: How the Great Depression Affected African Americans”. History.com, A&E Television Networks, 18 Apr. 2018, www.history.com/news/last-hired-first-fired-how-the-great-depression-affected-african-americans.
9. Pruitt, Sarah. “What Abraham Lincoln Thought About Slavery”. History.com, A&E Television Networks, 21 Sept. 2012, www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation.
10. “Republican Party Platform of 1860”. Republican Party Platform of 1860 | The American Presidency Project, 17 May 1860, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1860.
11. “Richard Spencer, Wilsonian Progressive”. American Greatness, Https://Amgreatness.com/Wp-Content/Uploads/2020/01/American-Greatness-logo_201x37.Png, 10 Aug. 2018, amgreatness.com/2018/08/10/richard-spencer-wilsonian-progressive/.
12. Suarez, Chris. “Organizer of Charlottesville’s Unite the Right Rally Described as Onetime Wannabe Liberal Activist”. Richmond Times-Dispatch, 18 Aug. 2017, www.richmond.com/news/virginia/organizer-of-charlottesville-s-unite-the-right-rally-described-as/article_c0acb07f-873d-5a9b-87dc-4f912824ad12.html.
13. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Republican Party”. Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 12 Feb. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/Republican-Party.
14. “The Lincoln-Douglas Debates”. Ushistory.org, Independence Hall Association, www.ushistory.org/us/32b.asp.
15. “The Myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’”. TheHill, 23 Aug. 2018, thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy.
16. “Urban Legends: The Dixiecrats and The GOP”. Freedom’s Journal Institute for the Study of Faith and Public Policy, 15 Jan. 2018, freedomsjournalinstitute.org/latest-news/history/urban-legends-the-dixiecrats-and-the-gop/
17. “Visitors from Congress: Henry Wilson (1812-1875)”. Mr. Lincoln’s White House, www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/visitors-from-congress/visitors-congress-henry-wilson-1812-1875/.

The US pursues a two-party framework. This implies, albeit beyond what two gatherings can crusade and hold office, two political gatherings, Democrats and Republicans. Of the forty-three U.S. presidents that have served, fifteen were Democrats and eighteen were Republicans.

The Democratic Party was established in 1828, about 190 years prior. Individuals from this gathering are otherwise called ‘nonconformists’ or ‘progressives’ due to their relationship with libertarian esteems, similar to opportunity of decision and self-assurance, social equity, and social radicalism. This party ordinarily centers around giving social administrations, medicinal services, and occupations, thus it will in general obtain large amount of cash and depend intensely on charges. The Democratic party hosts situated itself since 1912 as the liberal gathering on residential issues. Democrats, additionally some of the time called ‘the left’, ‘nonconformists’ or ‘progressives’ make up one of the two fundamental political gatherings in the United States. A generally Democratic state is here and there called a ‘blue state’. This originates from the gathering’s fundamental shading, which is blue, alluding to a state supporting ‘blue’ hopefuls. Democrats have faith in a solid government with social help projects to help individuals from society. They incline toward strategic answers for clashes, and take a by and large protectionist see on exchange, trusting that exchange must be managed to secure American specialists. Socially, most Democrats have confidence in social progressivism, taking expert movement, star gay marriage, and ace decision sees. The image of the Democratic Party is the Donkey. Since the decision of 2000, the shading blue has turned into an image for Democrats. The Democratic Party follows its beginnings to the counter federalist groups around the season of America’s autonomy from British principle. These groups were sorted out into the Democratic party by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other persuasive adversaries of the Federalists in 1792. Like clockwork the gathering holds a National Convention where they concur on their possibility for President. The Democratic National Committee arranges the greater part of the exercises of the Democratic Party in each of the 50 United States. There have been 15 Democratic presidents, the latest being Barack Obama, who was President from 2009 to 2017. The Democratic Party speaks to a wide range of radical belief systems, including great progressivism, social popular government and communism. The Democratic Party underpins full fairness under the law for same-sex couples. This incorporates the privilege to marriage, as well as the privilege to indistinguishable money related advantages from every single wedded couple. In any case, Democrats trust that gay marriage ought to be left a state issue. They can’t help contradicting having a government command for authorizing gay marriage as much as they can’t help contradicting an administrative restriction on gay marriage, expressing, “in our nation, marriage has been characterized at the state level for a long time, and we trust it should keep on being characterized there”. This being stated, Democrats would want to see gay marriage legitimized in each state, expressing, “we restrict unfair bureaucratic and state established changes and different endeavors to preclude measure up to assurance from securing the laws to submitted same-sex couples who look for indistinguishable regard and obligations from other wedded couples. We bolster… the section of the Respect for Marriage Act”. Democrats likewise trust that religious substances ought to be permitted to settle on choices about marriage as a religious ceremony all alone, because of the division of Church and state. Under President Obama’s administration, and on account of the diligent work and assurance of the American individuals, we have made considerable progress from the Great Recession and the Republican approaches that activated it. American organizations have now included 14.8 million occupations since private-area work development turned positive in mid-2010. Twenty million individuals have picked up medical coverage inclusion. The American automobile industry simply had its greatest year ever. Furthermore, we are getting a greater amount of our vitality from the sun and wind, and bringing in less oil from abroad. Democrats trust we are more grounded and more secure when America unites the world and leads with standard and reason. Democrats trust we ought to reinforce our collusions, not debilitate them. Democrats have confidence in the intensity of advancement and tact. Democrats trust our military ought to be the best-prepared, best-prepared battling power on the planet, and that we should do all that we can to respect and bolster our veterans. Also, we realize that just the United States can activate basic activity on a genuinely worldwide scale, to go up against the difficulties that rise above outskirts, from universal fear-based oppression to environmental change to wellbeing pandemics. Most importantly, Democrats are the gathering of incorporation. We realize that assorted variety isn’t our concern—it is our guarantee. As Democrats, we regard contrasts of viewpoint and conviction, and vow to cooperate to push this nation ahead, notwithstanding when we oppose this idea. With this stage, we don’t simply look for shared belief—we endeavor to achieve higher ground.

The Republican party in the United States, one of the two noteworthy political gatherings, the other being the Democratic Party. The gathering gained the abbreviation GOP, generally comprehended as ‘Fantastic Old Party’, during the 1870s. The gathering’s authentic logo, the elephant, is gotten from an animation by Thomas Nast and furthermore dates from the 1870s. The gathering came into the invasion as a noteworthy political power with the decision of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The American Civil War before long pursued as genius bondage southern Democrats protested the abolitionist subjection perspectives of Lincoln. In the years amid and after the Civil War, the Republican Party headed by Lincoln proceeded to pass various laws and make critical established changes that restricted subjection and endeavored to give more rights to the blacks. This was likewise the time of the Radical Republicans, a group of the Republican Party that requested brutal measures against the Confederates and subjugation. Lincoln had the ability to hold them off, however this changed with his passing and the landing of Andrew Johnson as President. The drawn-out anguish of the Civil War incapacitated Lincoln’s prospects for re-arrangement in 1864. To grow his assistance, he picked as his negative behavior pattern presidential cheerful Andrew Johnson, an expert Union Democratic congressperson from Tennessee, and the Lincoln-Johnson ticket along these lines influenced a torrential slide triumph Democrat George B. McClellan and his running mate George Pendleton. Following Lincoln’s demise toward the complete of the war, Johnson bolstered Lincoln’s moderate program for the Reconstruction of the South over the more restorative course of action maintained by the Radical Republican people from Congress. Hindered for a period by Johnson’s vetoes, the Radical Republicans won overwhelming control of Congress in the 1866 races and fabricated Johnson’s arraignment in the House of Representatives. Disregarding the way that the Senate fell one vote short of prosecuting and emptying Johnson, the Radical Republicans made sense of how to execute their Reconstruction program, which made the get-together a horrifying presence over the past Confederacy. In the North the social affair’s close-by unmistakable confirmation with the Union triumph secured it the reliability of most farmers, and its assistance of protective obligations and of the premiums of gigantic business at last got it the sponsorship of momentous present day and cash related circles. In spite of the way that its creators declined to see the benefit of states and spaces to practice servitude, the frontline Republican Party reinforces states’ rights against the force of the administration all things considered, and it confines the bureaucratic bearing of for the most part state and close-by issues, for instance, policing and guidance. Since the social affair is incredibly decentralized (like the Democratic Party), it incorporates a wide variety of feeling on explicit issues, anyway it is ideologically more bound together at the national measurement than the Democratic Party is. The Republicans advocate diminished appraisals as techniques for empowering the economy and moving individual money related chance. They will when all is said in done repudiate expansive government control of the economy, government-financed social tasks, administrative strategy with respect to minorities in the public eye, and methodologies went for fortifying the benefits of workers. Various Republicans, anyway not all, bolster extended government heading of the private, noneconomic lives of nationals in a couple of zones, for instance, untimely birth, anyway most Republicans moreover solidly confine weapon control establishment. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to help dealt with supplication in state supported schools and to repudiate the genuine affirmation of identical rights for gays and lesbians. As for methodology, the Republican Party usually has reinforced a strong national hindrance and the powerful mission for U.S. national security interests, despite when it includes acting uniquely or in spite of the viewpoints of the worldwide system.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party detail their stages quadrennially at national political conventions, which are held to assign the social affairs’ presidential rivals. The conventions happen in the pre-summer of each presidential choice year; by custom, the officeholder party holds its convention second. The Republican National Convention consistently aggregates around 2,000 specialists who are picked in the midst of the winter and spring. Until the 1970s, couple of the nation over controls spoke to the selection of agents to the Republican National Convention. After the Democratic Party grasped a structure subject to state primaries and gatherings, the Republicans ran with a similar example. More than 40 states as of now select specialists to the Republican convention through fundamental races, while a couple of various states pick designates through social occasions. For all intents and purposes every Republican essential assign designates on a ‘champ take-all’ commence, with the objective that the contender who wins the most votes in a state is conceded all of the specialists of that state. Curiously, all Democratic primaries dole out representatives subject to the degree of the vote each candidate gets. Along these lines, the Republicans will when all is said in done pick their presidential picked individuals more quickly than the Democrats do, frequently some time before the mid-year assigning custom, leaving the convention just to endorse the champ of the primaries. Despite asserting the social affair’s presidential picked one and accepting the get-together stage, the national convention formally picks a national board to make the accompanying custom and to control the get-together until the moment that the accompanying convention is held. The Republican National Committee (RNC) includes around 150 social occasion pioneers addressing all U.S. states and spaces. Its director is ordinarily named by the social affair’s presidential applicant and a while later formally picked by the leading group of trustees. Republican people from the House and the Senate orchestrate themselves into social event gatherings that pick the get-together head of each chamber. With respect to the decentralized thought of the social occasion, each chamber similarly makes separate warning gatherings to raise and apportion resources for House and Senate race fights. Though Republican congressional social event affiliations keep very close easygoing relationship with the RNC, they are formally discrete from it and not open to its control. So, additionally, state party affiliations are not open to facilitate control by the national warning gathering.

The 2016 U.S. Presidential races denoted the progress from an administration driven by the Democrat Barack Obama to a legislature headed by previous agent and TV-star, Republican Donald Trump. The application – and resulting triumph – of Mr. Trump stunned numerous Americans and non-Americans, and his discussions against the Democrat Hillary Clinton were trailed by the whole world.

John Tyler was quite a controversial president. Since he is branded as tyrannically abusing the presidential veto, it is no wonder why political parties would get shaken up. This was especially true for the Whigs, who at first entrusted high hopes in Tyler’s presidency and allowed him into their party. Who knew that Tyler would “go against” his own political party, which caused much backlash from the Whigs? It is without a doubt that President John Tyler and the Whigs did not have a very friendly relationship throughout the early 1840s.

First off, the Whig Party was a group of anti-democrats that emerged in the 1830s out of opposition to Andrew Jackson, who crushed the National Republicans when he won the presidency in 1829 and 1833. Whig party members also included states’ rights advocates, liberal Jackson critics, and American System, supporters. Led by former-national republican Henry Clay, they strongly opposed Jacksonian democracy–a democracy that demonstrated “policies of anti-banking” (Holt, 1999, p. 247). Since Jackson assaulted the US Bank during his presidency, the Whigs grew to dislike him, as they believed in national banking for internal improvements in manufacturing (e.g., canals, roads, river clearance). They also advocated for “minority interests against majority tyranny,” whereas, on the other hand, the Jacksonians believed in a democracy “ruled by the common man” (Holt, 1999, p. 249).

Moreover, John Tyler was a Democrat-Republican who became a Whig out of dislike for President Andrew Jackson (“The US Bank and the Whigs”). Tyler switched parties while he was a U.S. senator from Virginia, but he has been both a Democrat-Republican and Democrat before being a Whig. Moreover, Tyler was a House of Representatives member from 1816 to 1821 (“John Tyler”). He usually was against nationalist legislation and the Missouri Compromise at the time. After serving five years in the House, he became Governor of Virginia, but as a senator, he did not fully support Jackson for president. When President Harrison died, Tyler replaced him, instilling hope among the Whig Party at first, since Tyler called himself a “Democrat”. He clearly became a Whig since he shared one thing in common with the Whig Party–a dislike for President Jackson. However, when Tyler’s presidential term came up, his presidential moves caused controversy and anger throughout America, especially with the Whig Party.

At first, the Whigs entrusted hope to John Tyler to lead the nation away from Jacksonian democracy. In 1840, they nominated him for vice president, thinking he would help them gain support from southerners–particularly the minority groups–who were fed up with the “tyranny” of Jacksonians (Sidey, 2006). Suddenly, in April of 1841, President William Henry Harrison died, so Tyler succeeded to the White House. At first, the Whigs had fate in Tyler’s presidency, optimistic that he would accept their program after they heard his Inaugural Address that was filled with good Whig doctrine. However, they would turn out to be disillusioned.

Little did the Whigs know that Tyler would not agree to establish a National Bank. Over the summer of 1841, Whig politician Thomas Ewing drafted a bank bill, planning for a modified version of the old US bank, and introduced it to Congress, where most people presumed that the bill had Tyler’s approval (Malone, n.d.). Clay revised the bill so that there would be restrictions on the bank’s power to establish branches in different states. The bank bill passed both houses; however, on August 16, 1841, Tyler used his constitutional powers to veto it, claiming that the U.S. bank would be a threat to individual states’ rights (Sidey, 2006). Shocked by this seemingly un-Whiggish use of the veto, Clay and the Whigs immediately made further efforts to create an acceptable bank bill. This time, the newly revised bill was supposed to create a limited-scoped “fiscal corporation” (Malone, n.d.). Yet again, on September 9, 1841, Tyler vetoed it, providing minor and unconvincing objections, such as not being given enough time to deeply reflect on how he would best meet the need to regulate the currency and safeguard the public funds. Undoubtedly, the Whigs felt betrayed by these two unexpected bank vetoes.

Not only was re-establishing a national bank important to Clay, but he also cherished his objective of distribution. He proposed that monies from public land sales be distributed among states, which would in turn carry out vital public works (Malone, n.d.). Additionally, he believed eliminating land sales as a source of federal revenue would force the government to keep important duties at a high level. Thus, all these proposals shaped the Preemption Act of 1841–a special session that called for the 90-percent distribution of land-sale revenues to the states and preemption that allowed squatters to acquire 160 acres for $1.25 per acre (Chitwood, 1964, p. 341). This and several other Whig-sponsored enactments were approved by Tyler, but that did not change the fact that Tyler’s two bank vetoes damaged his relations with the Whig party.

The Whigs saw Tyler’s vetoes as a major betrayal to their party and to his promise to accept the Whig political agenda. Tyler was expelled from the Whig party in retaliation, making him a president without a party (“Tyler is burned in effigy outside White House,” 2009). Additionally, the vetoed bills’ Congressional supporters formed a mob outside the White House, firing guns, hurling stones, and hanging and burning an effigy of Tyler. The mansion was unprotected by security at the time, and Tyler and his family feared for their safety. As a result of these violent demonstrations, Congress decided to expand the District of Columbia’s police force in 1842, having the city patrolled heavily at night from then on (“Looking back: One of the ugliest protests in White House history,” 2018).

Not only did Tyler veto two crucial bank bills, but he also controversially vetoed tariff bills, angering the Whigs. Since the US government was predicting a deficit of $14 million, out of $32 million as the total budget, Tyler knew he had to increase tariff revenues (Malone, n.d.). However, he clearly pointed out that if the rate of “reduction of tariff duties” exceeded 20 percent, he must end distribution–an objective so crucial to the Whigs to distribute the wealth among the southern states. Clay, on the other hand, insisted on both raising the tariff and continuing distribution since he knew that a higher tariff without a tie to distribution would not be supported by the southern Whigs. In the summer of 1842, Clay and the Whigs called for the enactment of a temporary tariff that would postpone tariff duty reduction until August of that year and continue distribution, hoping that Tyler would approve of it (Morgan, 1954, p. 87). However, Tyler disapproved of the distribution feature, and also vetoed the temporary tariff, vaguely arguing that it was unnecessary. Persistent, the Whigs passed a permanent tariff in August of 1842, again tying it to distribution, but unsurprisingly, another presidential veto occurred (Morgan, 1954, p. 88). Tyler claimed that no distribution shall occur so long as the treasury’s condition made it necessary to “impose tariff duties in excess of 20 percent” (Morgan, 1954, p. 90). Moreover, the Tariff of 1842 was finally yielded by Congress to undo the series of rate reductions since 1833, and Tyler signed this bill since it protected northern manufacturers (Sidey, 2006). However, the Whigs still opposed Tyler for his many other presidential vetoes.

Tyler had become very unpopular with more than just the Whigs. On July 22, 1842, the House of Representatives attempted a presidential impeachment for the first time in American history (Sidey, 2006). The attempt was not fully successful, though, and the president stayed in office, but Tyler remained without a party. Meanwhile, he wallowed himself in the fruitless hope that he could lead a new party of conservative Democrats, southern extremists, and anti-Clay Whigs (Chitwood, 1964). However, the Whigs would not allow any of their members to associate in any way with Tyler. He remained an unpopular president, especially with the Whigs, due to his “anti-Whig propaganda” (Holt, 1999, p. 252).

Eventually, Tyler departed from office on March 4, 1845, due to the ongoing tensions with the Whigs. He left the White House since Congress overrode his latest presidential veto of a bill allowing two vessels to be constructed for the Revenue Cutter Service. This was the first presidential veto override in American history, and Tyler was age 54 when he left office, making him the youngest ex-president at the time (Holt, 1999, p. 254).

Overall, the Whigs undoubtedly had pretty unfriendly relations with President Tyler. They definitely had fate in Tyler to restore the national bank and continue distribution, only to have their Whig doctrine betrayed by tyrannical abuses of the presidential veto. Throughout all the violent demonstrations and failed attempts to pass bills and impeach the president, the Whigs have shown America their strong opposition to a Democratic-Republican like John Tyler in the White House. Never again shall our nation’s voices have to be silenced by an overpowered executive branch.