Talk:Fourth Party System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

72 scholarly articles use this phrase; several of them are about Canada or Eastern Europe, or mean a political system with a fourth party. [1]. 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:

• 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

Rjensen 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)