Talk:Fourth Party System

72 scholarly articles use this phrase; several of them are about Canada or Eastern Europe, or mean a political system with a fourth party. . Generally used? Not by my standards. Septentrionalis 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's used in the textbooks: for example:

American Politics, Second Edition William Lasser, Clemson University http://www.college.hmco.com/polisci/lasser/am_pol/2e/students/ch_out09.html Chapter Nine: Political Parties Basic Concepts The Framers and Political Parties The Idea of a Party System The American Party System Parties in the American Political System Parties and the Party Systems in American History The Idea of Realignment The First Party System The Second Party System The Third and Fourth Party Systems  The Fifth (or New Deal) Party System The Modern American Party System Democrats and Republicans Today Rjensen 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It'salso used in the major journals in both history and political science:

Rjensen 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Political Science and Politics > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 293-308+310-326+328-338+341-347+351-461+465-468
 * The American Political Science Review > Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 391-399
 * Social Science History > Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 83-116
 * Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 104, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 360-361
 * The American Political Science Review > Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), p. 639
 * The American Historical Review > Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 1008-1009
 * Journal of Interdisciplinary History > Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer, 1985), pp. 43-67
 * The American Political Science Review > Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 415-435
 * The American Political Science Review > Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 77-91
 * The History Teacher > Vol. 17, No. 1 (Nov., 1983), pp. 9-31
 * Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 65-78
 * The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 607-608
 * Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 515-532
 * Reviews in American History > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 547-552
 * Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979), pp. 649-667
 * PS > Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), pp. 326-328
 * Social Science History > Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 144-171
 * The Journal of Politics > Vol. 38, No. 3, 200 Years of the Republic in Retrospect: A Special Bicentennial Issue (Aug., 1976), pp. 239-257
 * Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 90, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 411-435
 * The American Political Science Review > Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 795-811
 * The American Political Science Review > Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 1002-1023
 * The Western Political Quarterly > Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 385-413

I congratulate Rjensen on his ability to cut and paste; is this a scholar.google.com result (in which case there should be a couple dozen more) or has he actually called up JSTOR?

Nevertheless, the 16 books mentioning Fourth Party System in the United States  are a small fraction of the discussion of  political realignment in the United States.Septentrionalis 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I used JSTOR for the list and in fact over the years have read some of the articles. Perhaps people who wasnt to be experts on the topic and help edit this article should read some of these articles -- but start with the bibliography that is provided. (And yes, I did read and use all the books in the bibliography). Rjensen 03:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How prevalent is this 'party system' stuff? Someone has splattered this "party system" method of understanding American political party development all over American history articles in wiki. But how prevalent is this system stuff. Who is McCormick, the guy who invented it? Is this system in common use in scholarship, or is it just the academic bailiwick of some little scholar in Pennsylvania, for example? Wise people want to know. I think this article needs to give some background on the "party system" method of understanding American history, who developed it, and what it's all about
 * Party Systems were introduced by Charles Merriam in 1920s and updated by Chambers and Burnham about 1965. The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year. For an introduction See Lex Renda, "Richard P. Mccormick and the Second American Party System. " Reviews in American History 1995 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext in Project Muse. Why anyone would want to remove it is baffling!  Rjensen 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

 * ''The overwhelming Republican victory in 1896 over William Jennings Bryan and his Democratic Party, repeated in 1900, restored business confidence, inaugurated a long epoch of prosperity, and swept away the issues and personalities of the Third Party System.

Really, now. There was a severe contraction in 1902 and another in 1907; and does this count Bryan himself as a personality of the Third Party System or does it not? It's an exaggeration either way. The claims of historical systems should not be presented as fact, but as the opinions of their proponents. Septentrionalis 04:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article focuses on the broad party lineups. Of course it is political history and does not cover economic, diplomatic, military etc topics. Bryan was a very minor figure in the 3rd party system. The idea of a party system is a construct created by scholars --like "Renaissance" "Great Awakening" "Napoleonic Era" "Jacksonian Democracy", "Ante Bellum Period", "Progressive Era", the "Frontier", and so on. Has anyone every alleged it represents a POV??? Rjensen 05:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea of the five Party Systems is not (particularly) POV; this sentence, however, might have been written for Taft's election campaign. That's why the tag is on the section, not the article. Septentrionalis 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true that there was a severe contraction in 1902. There was one in 1907 that lasted about 9 months--pretty minor in a 30 year period between two REAL depressions. Politically 1907 did not have much impact--Taft was elected by a landslide and, more important, Bryan did not bring up the issue. The point is that minor recessions were not politically important in that era. Rjensen 03:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why have it at length in this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "In 1928 the stealth liberal Herbert Hoover became the last president of the Fourth Party System" sounds like POV to me. Hoover was a technocratic statist; for this approach to governing to be called "liberal" is a post-1992 or perhaps even post-2008 usage.  It also sounds like an attempt to discredit Hoover by calling him a liberal, implying an anti-liberal POV.   I didn't change it, but thought I would point out my concern. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Larry Siegel
 * Good point. I'll fix it. Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Progressive Era
Don't the two article somehow overlap? Tazmaniacs 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Party Systems articles also overlap with various History of the United States of America, i.e. History of the United States (1918–1945)... I know they don't refer exactly to the same thing (in particular do not have the exact same correspondence of chronologies) but do overlap in many ways. I think some sort of general structure between these articles should be used. Maybe by focusing "Party Systems" articles on political history (while Progressive Era would refer to more social & cultural changes) and having the main, historical articles on general matters. Tazmaniacs 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is a PoV fork of Progressive Era; of course they should be merged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 4th party system outlasted the Progressive era, so it's different. It's been a standard concept in Political Science for 40 years, where the take a different approach from the way historians who look at Progressivism. For example, voting and election and congressional studies are done by pol scientists under the 4PS approach, and (in recent decades) not by historans.Rjensen 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been one of several ideas; but the assertion that it is standard is false. (The assertion that it is longer is also dubious; the political structure of the Progressive Era began falling apart with the extrusion of LaFollette in 1924, if not with the Bull Moose schism.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I quote from a work of political science published in 1997, thirty years into this alleged predominance:
 * 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.(Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal:Congress : a political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * many government textbooks discuss 4th party system and it's included in the AP Government syllabus. It's mostly used to discuss presidential election; The fact that one author of a book on CONGRESS doesn't use the term is not a good reason for dropping term used for presidential elecgtions, a different issue. for example of use in standard textbook see American Politics, Second Edition / William Lasser, Clemson University in ch 9; see  Also O'Connor and Sabato textbook 8th ed pp 419ff; Lowi textbook 8th ed pp 476ff Rjensen 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP is not a curriculum guide; and there are many more books on political science and government which use Progressive Era (much of this list, for example) There are, in fact, comparatively few papers on this schema; one of them is by Richard Jensen. There are enough that we should have articles on the subject; the metastasis of the idea through Wikipedia, however, seems to be the work of Rjensen, who inserted the paper into article text here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC

TWO ERRORS: Factually, Theodore Roosevelt was not elected President in 1901; he succeeded upon the assassination of McKinley in September of that year. Stylistically, the United States should never be referred to as "they." It's one nation. Doug O&#39;Connell (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * good points and I fixed them. Rjensen (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Error in map caption and title?
The caption (both here and on the image page) on the map at the top of the page (File:USPresResults1896 1932.png) says it covers 1896-1932 elections (excluding 1912). This would include nine elections, but the color scheme only accounts for eight elections. I'm guessing 1932 isn't actually included, because many of the states coded "Voted Republican 8 out of 8 elections" voted Democratic in 1932 (Oregon, Idaho, Minnesota, several others.) Could somebody else confirm that this is the case? Thanks--Malepheasant (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sharp eye--I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Redemptorists
What was the role of Redemptorist 'missionary' priests who were sent up north from Baltimore to organize German brewery workers in otherwise dry Prostestant areas? US expansion MaynardClark (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * when was that? Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * US expansion
 * MaynardClark (talk) In 1882, the Congregation sent priests to the Archdiocese of Washington and eventually established five parishes. In 1861 they opened a community in Chicago, Illinois. Soon after, due to the many successful missions they had given in the Archdiocese of St. Louis a house was opened at St. Louis. In 1871 an important mission house was opened at Roxbury, Boston and was dedicated to Our Lady of Perpetual Help. When, in 1883, a new parish was formed, the Fathers of the mission church took charge. (In 2009, its later basilica, of the same name, hosted the nationally televised funeral of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, attended by President Barack Obama, three former U.S. presidents and first ladies, among other dignitaries.)


 * From 1883 onward, the Redemptorists spread throughout most of North America and are present in a variety of states such as California in the west, Michigan and Illinois in the midwest, Washington DC and Baltimore in the northeast and Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas in the south.


 * 23:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but what is this claim that they were politically active in opposition to prohibition and tried to organize brewery workers ???? Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

African-American partisan re-alignment
Part of the end of the fourth party system was the switch of African-American voters to the Democratic Party, particularly after the anaemic response of the federal government to the catastrophic flooding in the lower Mississippi River basin in 1927. In particular it involved Herbert Hoover, first as a member of the Coolidge Administration then as President. It was such a complete and rapid change that it came up in the media and elsewhere after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. One of the people I see quoted most often by political scientists on this is Al Sharpton. In the South the flooding was worse than 1993 with some towns in Mississppi and Louisiana being under more than 33m/100 ft of water at one point. The African-American vote had gone mainly to to the Republicans during Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction, the latter of which takes us up to the autumn of 1929, by which point the die was cast and in 1932 those votes were part of the FDR coalition to a large extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.162.32 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Idaho Colour
Idaho voted Democrat in 1916. So why is it shown as 8 out of 8 times Republican in the first picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.129.176 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourth 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) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Odd sentence construction in "Beginnings"
Just pointing out that the sentence "The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson marked a watershed as a new generation of Democrats without the baggage of slavery and secession" is missing a verb in the second part. What did the new generation of Democrats do? O0drogue0o (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)