Talk:Fifth Party System

Untitled 2006 thread
This semi-notable concept has a couple dozen articles written on it. Most of them are efforts to explain the then current events by the end of the system, but the dates in question vary from 1960 to the present, with some assertionss that the system hasn't ended at all. Since this periodization was only devised in 1955, this does not constitute consensus. Claiming any date for the end of this is OR. Septentrionalis 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Nice update. Cwolfsheep 04:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Septentrionalis 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Some statistics
I place these details here, because they are too cluttered for the article.. It seems rather silly to present them as evidence that 1964 was a turning point; the Democrats were not getting landslides before then either. It is quite true that the next Democrat to get 50% of the popular vote was Carter; but the previous Democrat to do so was Roosevelt. Septentrionalis 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ''In ten presidential elections since 1964 the Democrats' largest share was 50.1% of the popular vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Democrat Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 with less than 50% because of a third party candidate, Ross Perot. Republican Ronald Reagan won landslides in 1980 and 1984. Republican George H.W. Bush won in 1988, while his son George W. Bush won close elections in 2000 and 2004.

Critical Election
If the definition of a new political system is two sweeps of Congress and a landslide in the Electoral College, why doesn't 1804 qualify? Septentrionalis 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Presidentiads
I have looked in vain for a proper definition of the word "Presidentiads", and have only references to it in writings, many of them of a poetic nature, most of them related to Walt Whitman. However, Merriam-Webster's Online Unabridged Dictionary says that there is no such word, so I'll assume that it is an appropriation of the word "Columbiad". That being so, what do you base your right to make use of a non-word without an explanation in the text, or a footnote?? - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sixth Party System?
I would really appreciate it if someone would create a separate article on this hypothetical topic, for afterall, if all the previous systems only lasted 30-40 years, how rational is it to hold that the Fifth Party System, starting in the early 1930s, survives even today, over 70 years later? Also, I noticed in the Wikipedia article on the Republican Party, it is indeed asserted that a Sixth Party System began in 1980 (and it doesn't even note the controversy!). If that is the case, then it should be about time for a SEVENTH Party System (or at the very least, separate articles and links addressing these two subsequent, hypothetical Party Systems).Shanoman 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The existence of a Fifth Party System is disputed; the existence of a Sixth Party System is tenuous. Some of the sources on the subject remark on the surprising length of the FPS. One obvious suggestion is that the parties are now entrenched in primary legislation, and it is very difficult to undermine or redefine the present parties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the experts are near unanimous that there was a fifth party system/new deal system. When it ended is debated. Rjensen 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Poole & Rosenthal, which says: "The United States has had three periods with distinct two-party systems. The first, the Jeffersonian Republican/Federalist party syste, ended with the Era of Good Feelings. The second, the Democratic/Whig system, was organized after the Era of Good Feelings and lasted until the early 1850s. The third, the Democratic/Republican system, was organized by the late 1850s and continues today, although we will frequently refer to this system as having perturbed into a three-party system (northern Democrats, southern Democrats, Republicans) by civil-rights issues that arose in the mid-twentieth century." (p. 35)


 * This entire set of ideas is a contested minority reading. The usage of the terms declines markedly with "Third Party System"; it continues to decline as the index increases. "Sixth Party System" is used by a dozen papers, some of which use it only to deny that there is such a thing. The rest do not agree on any aspect of it except the necessary claim that it comes after the FPS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The United States have in effect been a two-party system since 1789. --dllu 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, there is a lack of historical continuity in the evolution of American political parties that makes it appropriate to refer to different "party systems". For example, the name "Democratic Party" has been around since the 1820s (or, even before that, if we consider Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican party"). However the 1820s Democratic party of Andrew Jackson was obviously very different from the modern Democratic party. In fact, even going not that far out in the past, the Democratic party of the JFK (pre-LBJ) or even the Carter eras were radically different from the modern Democratic party of John Kerry and Barack Obama. What I mean is that the regional and social coalitions supporting each of the so-called mainstream Democratic and Republican parties have shifted dramatically over the past decades to the point that the modern Democratic and Republican parties should be understood as de facto different organizations from their historical predecessors. It may be a stretch, but I would welcome your comments. 200.177.7.127 (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why the Reagan coalition and its aftermath wouldn't be viewed as the "Sixth Party System." If the Fifth System was the era of the New Deal coalition (as this article states), then it should be clear that it ended in 1968, when the Democrats lost the "Solid South" to civil rights, with the Vietnam War and social crises shattering the Democrats' philosophy in a way that hasn't been rebuilt since.
 * Nixon laid the groundwork for the Sixth Party System with his southern strategy (with a little help from Goldwater in the previous election), and Reagan cemented it with his victory in 1980. Since then, the dominating party has been the Republicans (not just in the White House, Congress went conservative from 1994 to 2006 for the first time in decades).  The buzzwords have been an assertive and interventionist foreign policy and a pro-business, pro-international trade and pro-deregulation economic policy.  Both those things were as true for Clinton as for Reagan and the Bushes, which is why he ran on a more centrist "Third Way" platform rather than traditional Democratic principles.
 * On social issues, a stalemate. The Democrats were unable to pass the ERA or the gay rights platforms they've wanted, and the ban on the death penalty is no longer taken seriously even among Dems.  The Republicans have been unable to outlaw Roe v. Wade or force official prayer or intelligent design into public schools.  So on that, a tie.  But overall, I'd say there is a Sixth Party System and the Republicans are definitely on top. 147.9.167.173 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some think so; some don't. What's the case against? It didn't change the system; it was a success (and a notably incomplete one) within the system. The Reaganites inherited their personnel and philosophy from Nixon, and the changes, now extended, had been in process for decades. The South and the New Deal quarrelled at least as early as 1938, and party-switching began in 1944 and 1948. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of this classification, debatable though it is, is that Landon, Reagan, and McCain exhibit the same Republicanism, replete with free-market rhetoric but accepting, with tweaks, the safety devices of the New Deal. This is not Theodore Roosevelt's Republicanism, any more than FDR's was the Democracy of Alton Parker and Grover Cleveland. The truth of this System is largely the assertion that FDR's majorities, and the competitive elections thereafter result from a new coalition calling itself the Democratic Party, which essentially included the Bull Mooses like Harold Ickes; the falsehood consists of the implicit claims that this was either radical or sudden. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think FDR's policies in the New Deal, social security and the other safety devices, have become an integral and pretty much irreversible part of American politics, which both parties essentially take for granted. Today they focus on other issues, like deregulation and the war on terror, and the overall national stance is right-wing more than left-wing on these issues.  The GOP's views dominate in foreign and economic policy, while social policy is essentially a tie; but there is no area of politics in which the Democrats dominate.
 * My point isn't that Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan changed or reversed the system. The system moved on to other issues.  Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was never reversed either, but that doesn't mean we still live in the Third Party System. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go publish on it; it's a possible position, and some sources hold it. Doubtless it will be more acceptable at partisan outlets: deregulation was Landon's platform, and the systemic threat of Foreign Evil has been part of the Republican position since before the New Deal, and has been dominant in their foreign policy rhetoric since at least 1950; the Evil in question has changed from time to time. As this article points out, the Democrats haven't been "dominant" since FDR died; one of the characteristics of the 5PS is a more or less even division between the parties.


 * But we are not here to recycle Republican talking points. If you have sourced changes to the article, that would be appropriate to this talk page; your opinion on the 5PS, like mine, is Original Research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Go hire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Democrats were dominant for quite a while after FDR, all the way until Vietnam. Number one, the Democrats were the ruling party in Congress all the way until 1994 - Democratic control of Congress was taken as a given until then, whether by liberal or conservative Dems.  Number two, the Democrats had the presidency for most of the time - the only Republican who won between 1932 and 1968 was Eisenhower, who won by basically embracing the New Deal legacy, albeit in a more toned-down and moderated version.  Number three, the Democrats were so dominant by the sixties that the party leadership was able to force through civil rights legislation that was opposed not only by the Republicans but by a large segment of their own party - and it still made no difference.  Now that's power.
 * Today, it's the other way around. First, Democrats are no longer entrenched in Congress, the two parties have become equally competitive in that area.  Second, Democratic presidents are the ones on the defensive today - like I pointed out, Clinton was the one who had to adapt his platform to be closer to the Republicans (friendliness to big business), as Eisenhower did in the fifties.
 * For the record, those aren't Republican talking points - I'm a Democrat and I'm not a huge fan of the GOP dominance in our era, but that shouldn't prevent us from admitting it's there. However this hasn't happened in an academic context yet, so I'll concede your point and end my posting spree here. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing that determines the demarcation of a new system is either the dissolution of one or more parties or a transformation of same into an essentially new party. By this reasoning, the fifth system would have been the one in which the Reagan and Clinton eras fit as the nature of the parties did not change. Unbroken domination or control of government is not the determining factor but the stability of the two party system in a relatively stable set of viewpoints held by the two parties. It's true that over the course of the Fifth System, the issue of race reversed from the GOP/party of Lincoln to the Democrats but this can be considered just a trailing element from the overall turnover of the GOP from the basis of progressivism to the pure basis of reaction. It would appear that a Sixth System is emerging with Jeffersons party once more absorbing the center carved out by its opposition. If this logic carries thru there will be a fairly rapid death process for the GOP and the emergence of a new second party with the majority of the GOP being absorbed into the Democrat party, a hard right rump remaining as a regional but rapidly diminishing entity and a new second party to the left of the Democrats as yet unknown formed from the left of the current Democratic party and the currently non participating 30-40% of the electorate. Lycurgus (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The thing that determines the demarcation of a new system is either the dissolution of one or more parties or a transformation of same into an essentially new party."
 * In that case, explain to me why we make a difference between the Third and Fourth party systems, despite the fact that it's the same two parties with the same constituencies (Republicans = Northern WASPs and blacks, Democrats = Southern WASPs and immigrants). The answer is that first, the issues that controlled the political landscape changed, second, one of the two parties (the Democrats) broke away from its big business controlled establishment (the Bourbon Democrats) in favor of a new ideology more in line with Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party.
 * For the last thirty years, we've had the same two parties but they've changed beyond belief from what they were between 1932 and 1968 (the original Fifth Party System). There's been the change in ideologies (Republicans went from liberal to conservative and Democrats from populist to liberal), and the attendant change in constituencies (Democrats lost their stronghold in the South but won control of the Northeast and California, while Republicans did exactly the opposite).  The Republican Party's pro-business stance (deregulation, privatization, globalization) has not always been so, but came about when Reagan took control in 1980, sweeping away the generation of GOP politicians who had accepted and embraced the New Deal legacy.  Many of the issues that dominate the political landscape today (in foreign policy the war on terror, in economics globalization, in social policy abortion and gay marriage) did not exist until thirty/twenty/ten years ago.  The Fifth Party System was marked by intense party crossover and politics based around individual issues rather than partisan politics (segregation divided the Democrats between a dominant Northern wing and a rebellious Southern wing, the New Deal legacy divided the Republicans between a dominant moderate wing and a conservative wing that was buried for thirty years); by contrast, the last three decades have been marked by increasing partisanship more like the Third and Fourth party systems.  The Republicans and Democrats have become totalistic ideologies with little to no crossover.
 * My impression is that the Fifth Party System underwent a slow and protracted death between 1968 and 1980, as the above poster seemed to imply. A Sixth Party System definitely popped up in 1980 with Reagan's victory, which may not have changed control of the House and Senate right away but redefined politics for the next thirty years (a unilateral, militaristic foreign policy, an economic policy marked by a return to classical economics, and a social policy marked by culture wars in which neither side really gained any ground).  The Sixth Party System came crashing down in 2006 and 2008, with Republican foreign policy discredited by the Iraq fiasco, Republican economics discredited by the crisis, and the Republicans' ability to exploit social issues partly eroded because the public today is noticeably more liberal today than thirty years ago.  What we're seeing now does indeed seem to be the creation of a new party system, though its shape remains impossible to describe; but I agree with the above poster that it is a Seventh Party System, not a Sixth, that is emerging. 216.15.41.45 (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 30 years ago is roughly the 1980 election, in which I voted (for Barry Commoner) so I am familiar with the nature of things since then and my perception is that the GOP became more radically right and the Democrats more centrist/right leaning but that neither change was "beyond belief" as you state. My personal recollection of the Fifth Party system only goes back to the 1964 election but I see the period between then and 1980 as the time of change when the transition from the state of affairs that existed before the sixties morphed into that which existed after 1980. I certainly didn't mean to defend the current statement of demarcations in Wikipedia but rather was stating what presumably are the logical criterion for such demarcations. I assume given policies such as NPOV, OR, etc. that the wikipedia demarcation of systems reflects that of the current academic consensus. Certainly I disagree that the GOP first acquired its "pro business stance" after 1980 and rather think that it has been associated with same since at least just after or during Reconstruction. Of course I implicitly stated that "crossovers" would be irrelevant if they didn't occasion a change in the fundamental nature of the parties, which I don't believe until now they have. In any case we are in agreement that Obama is the probable initiator of a new system, as I stated, whether sixth or Nth the new thing is here. So since I can only really firmly state what is the case in the period in which I have lived and in as much the "experts" say that the fifth system went from the New Deal to at least 2006-2008, I am happy to extrapolate back to 1933 and agree with the conventional wisdom in this case. Since the left-right association of the two parties can be demonstrated not to have changed in this time, ... (rhetorical ellipsis). FTR I am part of the 30-40% of the electorate that doesn't vote and one of those that thinks the two parties are essentially one party representing two heatedly contested poles of essentially the same (christian, capitalist, etc.) world view and that moreover with the exception of figures like Perot, Bloomberg, et.al. who are big capital in their own right they are all essentially spokespersons for capital. Lycurgus (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For a resolution of the thread, I have renamed the &sect; as well as done some clean-up on it. Wrt Shanoman's original suggestion, until such a thing becomes an accepted reality or topic in second level sources any such article is likely to be subject to the same complaints as the &sect; was. Lycurgus (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fails to adequately characterize the realignment of the south
And expresses in fact what is for the most part a counterfactual in this regard. Graphics also are the fail here. Lycurgus (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: clone the existing graphic for 1964-1980 and 1980 to 2008 (two separate maps, 3 total). Lycurgus (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References to GOP
Reading this as an outsider to the US, I don't know what the GOP is. Well, OK, I thought I did, but the article seems to imply that the GOP might not be exactly the same as the Republican Party - this impression is enhanced by the fact that the article is about realignments. This article at least needs a link out to a GOP article or a definition of GOP within its text. Over to someone else, because I am not confident to do this. 78.32.68.244 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * GOP = nickname for Republican Party as a whole. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fifth Party System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907112839/http://polisci.wisc.edu/~party/apsa2000green.pdf to http://polisci.wisc.edu/~party/apsa2000green.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
Barack Obama became the first African-American president in 2008, in an election held against the backdrop of severe economic problems caused by policies started or worsened under President George W. Bush but has significantly improved under President Obama during the Obama Administration.

That's obviously a very controversial statement, many economists and politicians would deny that. Wikipedia can not determine something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.232 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * good point--i fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
The article is a mess. It contradicts itself and it contradicts the Sixth Party System article.

The self-contradiction has to with whether and when the Fifth Party System ended. The lede leaves this question completely unresolved. However, the table relating to presidential election results (placed right next to the lede) indicates that the Fifth Party System covers the period from 1932 to 1966. Strangely, however, that same chart depicts presidential election results from 1932 to 1964. Then, a section of the article shows group voting patterns prior to 1964, which would appear to lend further support to a 1964 date.

The article contradicts the Sixth Party System article as well. The Sixth Party System article asserts that there is expert consensus for the proposition that the Sixth Party system is underway. This article indicates no such consensus. SunCrow (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the contradiction and self-contradiction problems. The lede could still use a few more sources. SunCrow (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

[Minor] Infobox Year Range Link
The infobox has links to the alignment and de-alignment presidential elections of 1932 and 1964 respectively. This is similar to how the First (1) Party System infobox is set.

2-4 Party System infoboxes have the alignment year linked to presidential election (similar to those mentioned above), but de-alignment is linked to US elections (which all seem to be stubs listing house, senate results).

Opinion: All party systems should link to presidential elections, not to the stub; Definitely both should link to the same type of page.

I mention this here, since I noticed this while adding the infobox for 5; As of this writing, it is set similarly to 1, both (alignment and de-alignment) linking to presidential elections. I will similarly add an infobox to 6, in similar fashion to 1 and 5 infoboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PointAdvance (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * PointAdvance, I have removed the infobox because it contradicts the rest of the article. The rest of the article makes it clear that there is no consensus as to when the Fifth Party System ended, and lays out various ideas as to when it ended. The infobox indicates that it ended in 1964, which is not even listed as one of the potential end dates in the body of the article. I would respectfully ask that the infobox not be re-added absent reliable sources showing a consensus end date of 1964 (any such sources should, of course, be added to the body of the article as well). SunCrow (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001
— Assignment last updated by Oliver Lizzhelm (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)