Johnathan Hayward

HIS 573

9/15/11

Party Games – Précis

Section I – Our Friend The Enemy

The first section in Mark Wahlgren Summers’ Party Games deals with the nature of politics during the Gilded Age in America. He makes it clear that hype, trickery, and fraud were all common aspects of any election during this time. Both Democrats and Republicans portrayed themselves as patriots who were saving the nation, in some cases protecting it from the horrors that were bound to come if the other side won. Democrats claimed that should Republicans gain power, it would certainly lead to an imperialist nation, with military troops marching through the South. Republicans saw a Democratic future in which a reborn Confederacy would emerge and new states would be formed to hand control of Congress back to the South. This told quite a bit about the parties themselves and the lengths to which they would go in order to prevent the opposition from gaining power.

The party that someone chose was based on their upbringing and tradition. Republicans were the moralist, Protestant party that encouraged the use of government in making society better. Democrats favored less government involvement and a greater focus on personal liberty, by which they meant “white man’s liberty.” Because of their views, they held a solid majority in the South during most elections, preventing blacks and Republicans from voting. Participation in elections was largely shaped by the party organizations. “Floaters,” or those whose votes could be bought, flooded polling places and chose a candidate based on who had paid them. Partisan newspapers “informed” potential voters with smear ads and fake letters embarrassing the opposing side. Parades were held and often culminated in outdoor barbecues that featured oratorical flourishes by the candidates. In some cases, the entire campaign could rest upon one of these speeches, which increased the candidate’s notoriety in the party. Committees and local organizers would go door to door in order to raise support. Individuals were often pressured into voting for candidates that they normally would never have considered. Campaign managers often determined the party platform and who would participate. Some would personally select the officers. It was all tailored in order to achieve victory in the election.

Section II – Party Tricks

Summers’ second section deals with the various methods that the parties used to succeed, one of which was their shrewd use of the newspapers. Newspapers by the 1890s were attempting to shake off their longstanding reputation as partisan bullhorns, claiming to be “independent.” They had to produce thorough news coverage in order to attract readers, but most papers still favored one particular side. During this time, a newspaper could survive if it had certain friends in the government who could expedite the paper’s release or prevent an opposition paper from getting out. A paper often would “modify” the details of a story to create a bigger headline, one clear case being James Garfield’s letter to Henry Morey regarding cheap Chinese labor. Promulgated by the Democrats, it turned out to be a complete forgery. Since newspapers were financially dependent upon ads, this tied them strongly to business (and Republican) interests. This came at the expense of labor unions, who found their activities often strangely absent or ignored in the paper.

Vote buying was also used as a common way of winning elections. It was hard to legislate against, since many claimed they were being reimbursed for the inconvenience of missing work. Voting fraud, which included anything from importing voters across state lines to using the names of the dead for registration, was another frequently used method. In the South, many cases of fraud went unreported because of Democrats’ tight control of polling places. In 1888, rural Arkansas was ripped apart by Southern violence against a Republican-backed labor movement, resulting in several deaths and a stolen ballot box. The Democrats won, based upon only 40 counted votes. A final method was gerrymandering, where in the case of Pennsylvania Republicans held onto a majority of the legislature for almost 70 years. Gerrymandering redrew district boundaries to include large clumps of party territory, isolating smaller areas where the opposition existed. In some cases, like Connecticut, a small percentage of the population had more representation than the state as a whole. Added to this were cases of Republicans adding new states quickly, despite their limited population, in order to get more congressional seats. Finally, the winner take all system of the Electoral College precluded third parties from participation, and ignored the popular vote by awarding territories based on only a slight margin of victory.

Section III – Policy: The Golden Rule?

In his third section, Summers demonstrates how money and business interests were completely intertwined with the political process. Money was necessary, though the amounts used by politicians in campaigning were sometimes exaggerated. It was still expensive, however, to run a large campaign in a big city. Labor parties, who lacked the sufficient funds, were often shut out from the campaigns altogether. Business men supplied money to politicians, but it had to be done quietly. Those who had gained their jobs due to party patronage often felt the weight of assessments, which were taxes collected to pay for campaign costs. This created a sort of payoff system, where those who had to pay assessments were encouraged to earn money to supply to campaigns. Railroads were also deeply enmeshed with the government. Their money, and the politicians who backed them, prevented farmer and labor bills from ever getting through Congress. Democrats tended to take the side of labor activists, which made a third party entering the race difficult.

Republicans and Democrats would also co-opt and incorporate the issues that mattered most to third parties, in the hopes of attracting their vote. This was done delicately, since some of the major parties’ core beliefs ran counter to the very things that the third parties preached. They selected the least controversial issues and the most likely to gain them popularity. Some within Democratic and Republican circles, however, sincerely wanted the third parties as a way of confirming their own sets of values. This accommodation usually resulted in a solo third party being crushed in the election.

Section IV – Rounding Off The Two and a Half Party System

Summers’ last section deals with the role of minor parties and their influence on the two-party system. Minor parties were often utilized, or bought, by Republicans or Democrats as a way of tilting the balance in their favor. A third party had to think carefully about joining a major party, since doing so would water down its core values and possibly alienate it from its supporters. It was a desirable option, though, when minor parties had faced defeat after defeat. It was often their one and only shot at gaining some degree of power.

The Knights of Labor, for example, faced a demoralizing defeat against Republicans in 1886. This was due primarily to the wide range of issues, including temperance, which took the focus away from labor. Since the system was centered on the two parties, the issues they chose to emphasize determined the national focus of any election. Labor also lacked the clear sets of programs that Republicans had, and Republicans could always introduce a new program to meet a current outrage.

Going into the 1890s, there was a deep distrust of government and politicians. Reform was called for, and reformers had to work within a broken system. In order to get anything accomplished, reformers had to work with Democrats and Republicans, who held the seats of power and had no incentive to change. Civil service reform was passed, but politicians found ways of exempting important jobs from the regulations. John Wanamaker, a postmaster general, encouraged promotions based on merit, but only for Republicans. Publicity laws, meant to bring the sources of campaign funds out in the open, did nothing to curb spending limits. Both parties abused registration laws in order to register phony names, while residency requirements prevented a constantly shifting working class from voting. The Australian ballot was the most successful measure, which gave a private ballot to voters with a full range of candidates. Surprisingly, voting habits didn’t change all that much. Minority parties were excluded from the ballot based upon required signatures or proportion of the vote. The big two parties still figured out ways of paying of voters to go their way.

The Populists were one of the final groups of the 19^th century to challenge the two party monopoly. Like many of the other minor parties, they too were co-opted and wooed back to the fold through concessions. They demanded lasting reform, but were ultimately shut out of the conversation by those in power.