Subscribe to the IHARE Blog

Latimer

The 1824 Bicentennial: The Four Party System

May 21, 2024
by Peter Feinman
1824 Elections (Wikipedia)

I first raised the issue of the 1824 bicentennial in a blog from 2016:

The Presidential Election of 1824: Lessons for Today September 9, 2016

I was writing about the annual SHEAR conference (Society for the Historians of the Early American Republic), July 21-24, 2016, in New Haven. The specific reason was a session on the book 1824 RECONSIDERED: A ROUNDTABLE ON DONALD RATCLIFFE, THE ONE-PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST: ADAMS, JACKSON AND 1824’S FIVE-HORSE RACE. Depending on how you count the candidates this time around, we have exceeded that number although of the candidates may be considered minor.

In the Q&A period, I asked what SHEAR’s plans were to commemorate the bi-centennial of the election of 1824 given the disarray/collapse of the current two-party system. I ended the blog with:

Maybe for the bicentennial of 1824 we should have a presidential election where candidates are entitled to their own facts and a public that doesn’t know better or how to think. Come to think of it, why wait?

At that time, I had not anticipated COVID, the COVID vaccine, or the stolen election. Nor did I realize that the 2024 election would be part of our Third Civil War and battle to determine whether we continued our journey/experiment to the 250th anniversary of the birth of the country. Still, all in all, I correctly anticipated that now defines the House of Representatives and the declaration by one candidate that if he loses again there will be another insurrection….and if he wins there will be divine retribution.

THREE-PARTY SYSTEM (Is America Ready for a Three Party System?)
December 5, 2022

The unsung 1824 Bicentennial is fast upon us. Soon it will be only a year away. The year has been a personal favorite of mine. It has been the subject of blogs since 2016.

The year marks the transition from the First Party System to the Second Party System. It was the end of the Virginian-dominated American Revolution era and start of the Jacksonian dominated one. The Federalists and the Republicans were out and the Whigs and Democrats would be in. The new system would last until the demise of the Whigs and the emergence of the Republicans under Lincoln. It also was a time of Senate giants like Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster.

Putting aside all the talk about the Civil War today, the squabbling over the Speaker position in the House of Representatives suggests we may be in for a de facto three party system in the next session of Congress.

America is not designed for a three-party system. In Europe and Israel, multiple parties are par for the course. After every election, the jockeying for power begins by the various parties. Which one can form majority? That is not the American way where the two-party system is sacred.

Until now. Right now the House of Representatives beginning in January is divided into three groups:

213 Democrats
182 Republicans
40 Freedom Party.

No one of the groups has the magic 218 votes needed to form a majority and elect a speaker. There has been talk of multiple ballots in an unprecedented situation. Perhaps Kevin McCarthy will deal for the position he has coveted. Perhaps he will drop out when he realizes he cannot win and a host of new candidates will emerge. Perhaps cross-party deals will be made. We are in uncharted waters.

Voters are concerned about jobs, inflation, the economy and the threat to democracy. By contrast the Freedom Party agenda consists of:

Relitigating the 2020 election
Investigating Hunter Biden
Investigating the House Select Committee
Impeaching Joe Biden.

None of these issues are on the radar of the Real Republicans.

In other words, even if McCarthy wins the battle to become Speaker, his problems are only just beginning.

All in all, this blog from 2022 has proved to be quite accurate. McCarthy did win the battle but his problems were just beginning. Soon he would be out not only as Speaker in the House of Representatives but out of the House all together.

The MAGAs would vigorously pursue their investigation agenda. So far they have nothing to show for it except looking like idiots. But never say never, they keep trying and will continue to do so since they have no sense of shame.

Now the governing of the House has become one where Democrats and Real Republicans have joined together to get things done. Through various mechanisms and procedural tricks of the trade, they have banded together to pass legislation. They even saved the position of the current House speaker to the chagrin of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Her attempt to chastise the wayward Republicans and remove Mike Johnson only revealed the limitation of power of the crazy wing of the Republican Party. Each time Real Republicans and Democrats band together it becomes easier for the next time.

The next result, the remainder of this Congressional term should be smooth sailing except perhaps in some committees/subcommittees.

THE FOUR PARTY SYSTEM

The current three party system obscures the existence of a four party system. I live in the 16th Congressional District of New York, ground zero for the war between Regular Democrats and Woke or Progressive Democrats.

Full Disclosure: I have known George Latimer for many years. He has helped arranged funding for the education programs in IHARE. Most recently he declared August 18, 2024, Lafayette Day in Westchester County at my request for the bicentennial of Lafayette’s return visit to the United States in 1824-1825 which included one day in Westchester.

The primary battle between the incumbent Representative and the incumbent County Executive who seeks the position of the former has been hot and heavy. I am not going to cite chapter and verse of the positions of the two candidates on October 7 and the war against Hamas. I do, however, note, its importance to the primary confrontation. It is expressed in the language of political discourse, the funding for the two candidates, and the switch of voters from independent and Republican status to Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary.

Latimer is a traditional Democrat who rose up through the ranks in local, county, and state positions before assuming an executive position instead of a legislative one. During these times he has been practically everywhere at events and meetings and touts his personal experience as an Irish-Italian kid in a Black neighborhood in Mount Vernon where he grew up.

Bowman, by contrast, was a middle school principal from the Bronx who had no previous political experience before defeating a Democratic incumbent himself. He is a frequent guest on MSNBC which also differentiates him from his opponent.

This battle between the Regular Democrat and the Woke Democrat should not be viewed as the one and only battle between the Progressives and the Real Democrats. Given the time and money being spent to defeat Bowman in the primary, a victory by him would signify that the times they are a changing in this reliable Democratic district. And even if Bowman loses, one may anticipate more and more fissures in the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives if the Democrats prevail in the November elections.

In November, it will not only matter which party wins, but which wing wins: Regular Democrats, Regular Republicans, Woke, or MAGA. Even if there is no formal separation, the days of the two-party system in the House may be over.

I Tried to Advocate for Local History in an Election: A Case Study

October 28, 2017
by Peter Feinman
Westchester County Executive debate (courtesy of lohud.com)

Westchester County where I live is holding an election for county executive this year. The two candidates are the incumbent Republican Rob Astorino who previously ran for governor and did well upstate but not downstate and State Senator George Latimer who has a long political career from local to county to state offices and has supported IHARE with Member Items for educational programs.

A few days, a rather vigorous debate was held at Iona College. Prior to the debate, a local newspaper invited people to submit questions. I submitted something on local history in the county. When the topic was not raised at the debate which I attended, I sent an email to both candidates, the Westchester history community, the media, and elected officials.

Here are the questions I asked:

Thank you for an invigorating event just a few hours ago at Iona. I would like to take this time to ask about an issue which didn’t make the tax-based debate.

As county executive what will you do to support Westchester residents developing a sense of place, a sense of belonging, a sense of community in the county and in their municipalities during this time of division?

1. Will you support creating full-time county historian as the smaller Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam counties have? [Note – these counties have Republican county executives as does Rockland which has a county historian who has a fulltime day-job.]
2. Will you encourage Westchester municipalities to have historians as required by law?
3. Will you support holding an annual Westchester County history conference? [This draws on the county conferences I initiated in Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam and Ulster too many years to count.]
4. Will you support holding an annual high school local history conference? [As Rockland County has held in lieu of the county history conference and attended by the two Republican county executives.]
5. Will you support developing cultural heritage tourism especially in the Hudson River towns and by making better use of the Ramble and Path through History?
6. Would you speak at the annual conference of Westchester Social Studies teachers in December on local history in the schools if it can be arranged?

Below are the responses I received.

Responses from the people who also sent them to the two candidates and/or the media

1. Thank you, Peter. These are questions at the core of our identity and our economy, and I do hope George Latimer takes them seriously (Marilyn Johnson, author and historian).

2. I agree with Peter. It is important to have a full time historian funded by the County. That person should work hand and hand with the Westchester County Historical Society to promote the rich historical heritage of Westchester County. I have been the Eastchester Town Historian for 30 years. When I first was appointed town historian we had a county historian who coordinated work of the many different municipalities. Westchester County does not take advantage of its historical heritage and potential for tourism because we do not have a single individual with secretarial support to do the job (Rich Forliano, town historian, social studies teacher).

3. Excellent questions that beg for affirmative replies! The candidates should take notice.
The past is more often than not the wise guide for the future. And even when that is not true, the stories, documents, footprints, deeds, battles, etc. are our priceless heritage. We need to celebrate and remember it and preserve it for the next generations. Elected officials can and should help. Sharing history is free and is not a political football! Thank you for all you do.
(Susan J. Thompson, Town Historian North Salem)

4. BRAVO!!!!! Currently, it is my understanding they pay a stipend to the Westchester County Historical Society, a 501 (c)(3). That is not the same, in my view, as having a single person serve as historian. All those counties have wonderful historians…especially Orange County. To my mind, that is exactly what a County historian should be doing!

And BRAVO for the other questions, as well. How can I champion this effort? Can I ask the same questions, via email? I’ve copied two younger members who are on the “same team.” This [the Orange County Historian monthly enewsletter which I also receive] exemplifies what a County Historian should be doing, in my view. I am using this as I prepare a letter to my elected officials, this weekend (Grace Zimmerman, president of the Somers Historical Society – we are pursuing the possibility of having a teacher local history county conference at the local high school).

Reponses from people who only sent the reply to me

1. Excellent (from an active local historian who also forwarded the original post)

2. Good for you, Peter (officer in a local historical society).

3. These ideas sound great. As you may know, Peter, I have a PhD in history from the CUNY Graduate Center. I’ll be happy to be supportive however I can (a county legislator – we will pursue after the election if the incumbent wins re-election).

4. As a former history teacher of 38 years, 22 of which were here in Westchester, I certainly hope all the answers to your 6 questions are yes (also a volunteer for Latimer).

5. None of these things need to be supported by tax dollars because they are all happening already. People in Westchester want fewer public expenses, not more. Just because something is mandated by law, doesn’t make it worthwhile. American history is the history of bad laws that needed to change and the brutally difficult work of changing those laws. I think we need to do a better job promoting the resources we have. Middle and working class Westchester residents are drowning in taxes and housing costs or leaving altogether. There are already many historians, many conferences, and many ways to study local history (board member of a local historical society).

6. Very nice Peter. I’m glad you did it (re-enactor and retired social studies teacher).

7. Very important questions which I hope are/were addressed. Thank you (retired teacher)

So far, I have had no response from the two candidates. It is quite possible that neither of them are even aware of the questions. The email was sent simultaneously to the two candidates to their official email addresses as county executive and state senator. That means most likely a member of the staff opened the email. At that point it may have been filed in the circular file, filed as pending depending on the election results next week, or passed on the candidate. Given how close we are to the election it is understandable why a candidate might not chose to open a new issue at this time. However even a pro forma thank you and we will look into it after the election would have been nice. Another possibility is a candidate spoke with/emailed the president of the county historical society whose organization does receive a stipend from the county and is located on county premises. We have not had an individual county historian in decades.

I did receive an email from and spoke with someone from the campaign staff of one of the candidates. The individual professed a personal interest in history and that we would revisit the questions I raised after the election depending on the results. My impression was this person became aware of my email not through the candidate but from one of the other people who received the message, a member of the history community or an elected official, who thought it was important and decided to contact the campaign staff directly. Maybe after the election if that candidate wins I will learn the identity of this person.

So that’s the story so far. Now it means waiting for the election.

Readers of this post are invited to raise these questions in their own county revised to take into account any relevant local developments. It would be interesting to learn how other county executives might respond. There also will be a new state legislative session starting in January. What should be ask of our state representatives?

P.S. As it turns out the two candidates have other problems to address. The above-the-fold headline in the paper today, October 28, 2017, is “GOT SOME EXPLAINING TO DO” about two separate scandals, one for each candidate. Perhaps the election will become part of county history in a way neither anticipated.