The study of third parties in America
appears to be related mainly to party movements in the later
parts of the 20th century. Scholarly work has focused on movements
such as the Reform Party in the 1990s and on Ralph Nader's
Green Party during the same time period. There were major
platform changes for both the Republican and Democratic Parties
in the early 20th century. In comparing these two major parties'
platforms to the platform of the Socialist Party one may ask
if there was an absorption of the Socialist Party platform
into those platforms of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
To suggest "absorption" may be too much of a generalization.
It can be said that many of the proposals set forth in the
Socialist Party platforms, ranging from 1900-1956, were accepted
by the major parties. It is found that there is a relation
between the number of Socialist Party proposals accepted and
the Socialist Party having a strong Presidential candidate.
It is further found that the Great Depression era was where
the majority of eleven studied platform issues were accepted
by the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Introduction
The study of third parties may be important
if the study shows that third parties do in fact have influence
on policy in the United States. In studying the Socialist
Party and comparing the platform of the party to those of
the Democratic and Republican Parties during the time period
of 1900-1956, one can look into many potential correlations
that could have influenced any Socialist ideals being accepted
by the major parties. To best research this topic one should
pose a question that may be difficult to accept an answer
for. In using this mindset, the following question arose:
At what point and to what extent was the Socialist Party
platform absorbed into the major party platforms?
This study is important in several ways. If the answer to
the question was to reveal that there was no "absorption"
or "acceptance" of Socialist ideas, it may lead
way to less credibility given to the ideas of third parties.
On the converse, if there was evidence of "absorption"
or "acceptance" of Socialist ideas, there may well
be more credibility given to the study of third parties in
the future.
Review of Literature
In order to successfully move forward with this study, it
was essential to have a firm background of literature dealing
with third parties, party platforms, and movements that took
place in the early 20th century. It was difficult to find
any scholarly journal articles that dealt with the comparison
or contrast of any third party platforms. Much information
was obtained from edited texts.
Most studies that have been performed involving third parties
in the American political system are studies that compare
those movements with the Democratic and Republican Parties.
None of the studies found have looked into the comparison
of platforms and systematically shown patterns of third party
demise that relate to popularity of the issues they bring
forth. Some volumes have been written that reveal flaws and
changes in the major parties, but attribute none of these
flaws and changes to the ideas or movements of third parties.
Editors such as Charles Mayo attribute new ideas in the major
parties to be solely the product of popular support amongst
voters. There is no attribution to third party or independent
movements, although the fact remains that his writings came
before the John Anderson independent revolution in 1980 or
that of Ross Perot in 1992.
While the number of journals and edited texts dealing with
the integration of third party platforms may be limited, there
are a number of studies and books on third parties. Steven
Rosenstone is an editor that attributes the rise of third
parties to the failure of the major parties to address the
needs of the citizens. Rosenstone writes that most scholars
study only one third party movement at a time and none have
"given a general theory of third party voting that can
be applied across instances or can be used to predict when
the two-party system is likely to deteriorate and third parties
flourish."
Rosenstone breaks down the various constraints that are placed
upon third parties including that of single member plurality
in governing systems and the fact that third party candidates
historically do not have the financial backing of the major
parties. In his looking at the financial figures of the Socialist
Party, Rosenstone reveals that the demise of the Socialist
movement in the late 1920's was partially in regard to the
fundraising ability of the Progressive movement.
In comparing the third parties of the 19th century to those
of the 20th century, Steven Rosenstone suggests that the 19th
century third parties closely modeled the major parties of
the time while the third parties of the 20th century were
starkly different and did not resemble the major parties of
the time. He further implies that the movements of the 20th
century be given a blanket term of "Independent."
In reaching conclusions about third parties and their candidates,
Rosenstone reveals that the major parties will always have
a need to keep the third party candidates involved in the
system. He says that as long as there are third parties, compromise
can come from both sides to benefit both the third parties
and the major parties at the same time. He goes on to suggest
that the third party movement should continue to pick up steam
and that with changes in technology and the political environment,
they have a new means of which to use to reach voters. His
most concrete conclusion suggested that third party voting
will again reach levels seen in 1912 (Progressive candidate
Roosevelt obtained 27% of the vote).
It would be revealed to be true that a candidate would reach
high numbers as an Independent as Ross Perot did so in 1992.
Given that Rosenstone published his work in 1984, his theory
of a third party candidate reaching previously seen levels
would be one holding truth.
Everett Ladd edited a book that focused on the major parties,
but included third party influence over the major parties.
He, like previous authors, believes that third parties are
created as a result of major party deficiencies. He does not
go all the way to suggesting that third parties end because
of the major parties absorbing their platforms.
Like Rosenstone, Ladd attributes the failure of third parties
to their inability to raise money and to obtain a substantial
percentage of the support of voters. Ladd takes a hard shot
at the national Socialists party that existed in the United
States. He suggested, "The small socialist parties that
did contest nationally
were forced to curiously adulterate
their ideology."
Ladd defined socialism very specifically as "the common
control of the instruments of production." Given this
definition, Ladd believes that the platforms of the Socialist
Party of the early 20th century make for "strange reading."
In an example, Ladd used that of social reform suggesting
that the Socialists had so little support and that the political
climate was so unsympathetic to them at the time that they
had to become "social reformers" instead of true
"socialists."
Ladd believes that the ultimate support gained by the Socialist
Party was because of the weak dosage of actual socialism in
the party's platforms. The demise therefore of the Socialist
Party came when the party began to take more of a trend true
to its definition.
Economist Milton Friedman makes the most compelling case for
the fact that there was indeed an absorption of the Socialist
Party platforms in the early 20th centuries into those of
the Democratic and Republican Parties. He does so in his text,
Free to Choose.
Milton Friedman, speaking on behalf of he and his wife Rose,
stated that they believed there was a great deal of influence
from the Socialist Party.
In our opinion the Socialist party was the most influential political party in the United States in the first decades of the twentieth century. Because it had no hope of electoral success on a national level, it could afford to be a party of principle. The Democrats and Republicans could not. They had to be parties of expediency and compromise, in order to hold together widely disparate factions and interests.
It would be Milton Friedman who would be
the first to suggest truth to the hypothesis that the Democrats
and Republicans began to adopt the platform issues of the
Socialist Party. Friedman said that despite the fact that
no Socialist Presidential candidate received more than six
percent of the vote, "almost every economic plank in
its 1928 presidential platform has by now been enacted into
law."
It is because of this suggestion by Milton Friedman that the
study on the platform issues of the Socialist Party will be
spread out by using the 1928 platform - going backward to
1900 and forward to 1956. In the appendix of Free to Choose,
Friedman gives fourteen different Socialist Party planks from
1928 and reveals specifically how they were implemented into
law since that time.
As fore mentioned, many authors and editors do not give much
notice to third party movements as a reason for demise or
lack of support in the major parties. In James Sundquist's
Dynamics of the Party System, the suggestion is made that
changes that take part in the party system relate directly
between actions of the two major parties.
Instead of attributing any contributions to third parties,
Sundquist gives credit to individuals and groups such as farmers
in the early 1900s. While many farmers were aligned with the
Progressives and in some cases with the Socialist Parties
of the time, they were considered to be an "independent"
force that influenced the politics of the major parties. In
fact, mention of the word "Socialist" comes as only
to mention the party as a sort of afterthought throughout
the text. In his one half page spent on third parties in the
20th century, no mention of the name "Socialist"
or "Progressive" is given. Sundquist uses the term
Greenbackers in reference to a third party movement of the
late 19th century, but gets into no detail of the Socialists
of the 20th century.
With the diversity of attention paid to the third party movements
throughout the early 20th century, one can assume that there
are many areas that remain to be studied. Close detail should
be provided to what real influence the third parties in America
have had on their major party counterparts. In the countless
books edited on the works of third parties in relation to
major parties, finding one that focuses on political economy
to be one to suggest integration of Socialist platforms is
interesting at best. One can hope that further research into
the matter can provide a more concrete link to the Socialist
party's issues integration or acceptance into the Republican
and Democratic Parties. Not only should we stop with the integration
as it may have been, but we should also go further down the
road of finding out what attributed to this integration. Milton
Friedman offers no answer as to why the Democrats and Republicans
adopted what he says is the "entire economic plank of
the 1928 Socialist Party."
The study at hand will take his work many steps forward and
will make honest the research of many scientists who have
decided to overlook what may be a significant study on the
effectiveness of third parties in the United States.
In Fred Haynes' Third Party Movements Since the Civil War,
the conclusion is clear. "Third parties at the very least
keep the major party system accountable to the people; they
keep them honest. The study of these movements is essential
to our study of our Democracy."
Study of the Platforms
The dependent variable being studied in this project is the
absorption of the Socialist Party platform. In order to study
this variable, the platforms of the Socialist, Republican,
and Democratic Parties from 1900-1956 were obtained. The 1928
Socialist Party platform was arbitrarily used to obtain major
issues, as it was the median of the given date range. This
date was also that of the closest time period prior to the
beginning of the Great Depression. The most accurate method
of choosing platform issues from 1928 was to use the headings
of the platform planks.
The Socialist Party of 1928 had eleven main objectives that
included the support of labor unions, the creation of unemployment
relief, public ownership of natural resources, withdrawal
of military from foreign countries, relief for farmers, and
the nationalization of the banking system. Using all eleven
issues supported in the 1928 platform, a chart was created
for every Presidential election year and the issues were coded
and placed beside the respective party if they included it
in that year's platform. (See Appendix A)
Important Elements
In this study there were many key elements that contributed
to the creation of hypotheses and further to the results that
were attained. In looking at important campaign issues during
the given Presidential election years, information on similarities
in platforms was looked at based on popular support for the
Socialist Party. This goes along with looking at election
results in a general sense. Would there be a correlation in
the absorption of Socialist platform ideals and Presidential
election figures? A third important variable is the Great
Depression. It is noted by scholars that the platforms of
both the Democratic and Republican Parties changed somewhat
dramatically in an attempt to solve the economic dooms that
were brought forth by the Great Depression. Would any of these
changes in platform come from earlier Socialist Party platforms?
The Socialist New Deal Hypothesis
This first hypothesis suggests that the Republican and Democratic
Parties absorbed issues of the Socialist Party in creating
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. To study this hypothesis
the platforms of the three parties from 1900-1956 as well
as edited texts that give detailed accounts of major political
events taking place during the Depression era. Starting with
the 1928 Socialist platform as the middle ground, the platforms
of all three parties involved in the study were mapped from
1900-1924 and 1932-1956 in comparison to the 1928 platform.
Observations in Regard to Socialist
New Deal Hypothesis
The acceptance of issues from the Socialist Platform into
the Republican and Democratic Platforms peaked in 1932 and
continued through 1940. The eleven issues studied were all
accepted by the Democratic Party, while the Republicans met
even with the Democratic Party before and after the Great
Depression. (See Appendix B)
Conclusions
In attempting to reach a conclusion, it would be inaccurate
to suggest that the issues in the Socialist Party were absorbed
by the Democratic and Republican Parties. Because the platforms
did change over time it is more accurate to suggest that the
platform of the Socialist Party became more accepted by the
Democratic and Republican Parties, especially during the Great
Depression era. Because of losses in the stock market that
caused much grief for our country, the Social Security system
was put into place. This was presented in Socialist Platforms
as early as 1900 in their calling for retirement accounts
for all citizens. This was not taken into account by either
of the major parties until the stock market crash. The early
Socialist Party platforms further called for unemployment
insurance. These programs began to be promoted by the major
parties during the Depression era as well.
Socialist Popularity Hypothesis
The "Socialist Popularity Hypothesis" suggests that
The Republican and Democratic Parties absorbed issues of the
Socialist Party when the level of support for the party reached
the margin of electoral difference between the two major parties.
Using Presidential election data to show the peak of the Socialist
Party's popular support, we can compare the platforms of all
three parties in the study to potentially show correlation
between a rise and fall in support of the Socialist Party
and the implementation of its platform issues into those platforms
of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Observations With the Socialist Popularity Hypothesis
In 1916, the margin of difference between the Democratic and
Republican Presidential candidate was 3.13%. The Socialist
candidate received 3.17% of the vote. In comparing the chart
showing the acceptance of the Socialist platform by the Democrats
and Republicans (Appendix B), there appears to be a correlation
between the election of 1916 and an increase in the pace of
platform acceptance.
Conclusions
With there being only one Presidential election year where
the Socialist candidate obtained enough votes to be a "spoiler"
it is difficult to reach any firm conclusions. It would be
inappropriate to assume a direct correlation despite the strong
evidence as suggested by Appendices B & C.
Project Conclusions and Thoughts
It is most definitely of great interest to study third parties
in America, especially when one is able to find correlations
that offer that third parties have a great deal of influence
in the policy of the Democratic and Republican Parties. In
looking back at the original question, it must again be said
that the Socialist platform was not directly absorbed into
either the Democratic or Republican platforms. While many
issues were most definitely accepted by the two major parties,
absorption would likely show consistent use by the Democratic
and Republican Parties.
One of the key lacking elements in the study was any polling
data that could show and compare off year and Presidential
year support for third parties, specifically the Socialist
Party.
Potential future studies could involve more recent political
parties and how the Democrats and Republicans may have accepted
their platforms and ideas. Given the high level support of
the Ross Perot Reform Party, such a study could potentially
be very valuable to the field of Political Science.