Bound to No Party, Trump Upends 150 Years of Two-Party RuleBreaking News
tags: GOP, Trump
To borrow a line from the president, this piece is, uh ... not good.https://t.co/ZpsUddkLRl— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) September 9, 2017
Until now, the American two-party system has resisted assaults from the outside for more than a century and a half. No new party has captured the presidency since Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans in 1860.
Even formidable figures like Theodore Roosevelt failed to break up the duopoly. Unhappy with his Republican successor, William Howard Taft, Roosevelt formed his own Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party, to mount a comeback in 1912, winning 27 percent of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes, but losing to the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968 staged independent candidacies founded on overtly racial appeals. John B. Anderson, a moderate Republican congressman, ran as an independent in 1980. The high-water mark since Roosevelt came in 1992, when Mr. Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote as an independent; he ran again in 1996 and drew less than half of that.
By running within the Republican Party, Mr. Trump last year managed what they never did, while making clear that he was not really a party man. The feeling was mutual. The Republican establishment resisted even after he had won enough primaries to secure the nomination, and he repeatedly threatened to run as an independent if he felt mistreated.
comments powered by Disqus
- Turnover In Trump's White House Is 'Record-Setting,' And It Isn't Even Close
- The History Of Government Shutdowns In The U.S.
- Unhealthiest presidents in U.S. history
- ‘Make it right’: Descendants of slaves demand restitution from Georgetown
- See How Trump's Approval Rating Stacks Up Against Other Presidents After One Year
- Barbara and Karen Fields discuss their new book, "Racecraft"
- What’s Antifa all about? Mark Bray explains.
- Historian Keisha N. Blain tells the story of black nationalist women in her new book
- War or Peace for North Korea: A call for Action by Historians for Peace and Democracy
- George Will goes after liberal historian David Goldfield