Uncovered Politics Features a History of Party Switching in the US Senate

Darcy G. Richardson and Austin Cassidy have teamed up to launch a new website this month: Uncovered Politics. Darcy Richardson is an author and historian who has written a six part history of the American third party and independent political tradition. Austin Cassidy is a political-media activist, among other things, co-founder of Independent Political Report and Third Party Watch. Understandably, then, the new site is devoted to covering "longshots, insurgents and underdogs." From the "about" page:
Uncovered Politics was launched in May of 2010 as a website dedicated to covering the stories the major media often misses. Our primary focus is on insurgents, underdogs and longshots. We cover Republicans, Democrats and those working outside the major parties.
Uncovered Politics thus promises to provide a unique perspective on our contemporary politics. And if its current featured article is any guide, UP will certainly deliver. In the piece, Darcy examines Arlen Specter's recent primary loss in the context of historical "party switchers," finding that the Republican-turned-Democrat is among the few who have lost their seats. Whereas comparable corporate and mainstream media analyses have compared Specter with the likes of Joe Lieberman and perhaps Jim Jeffords, Darcy's informed and informative piece glosses the careers of nine other US Senate party switchers over the course of the twentieth century. Some short excerpts from a lengthy piece:
One of the most famous examples of success — from someone without a party, no less — was that of Nebraska’s George W. Norris, a three-term Republican lawmaker who bolted to become an independent in 1936 . . .

In 1940, Minnesota Farmer-Laborite Henrik Shipstead, a distinguished-looking Glenwood dentist whose early domestic political views foreshadowed FDR’s New Deal, successfully switched to the Republican Party . . .

The Progressive Party’s Robert M. La Follette, Jr., of Wisconsin, son of the late “Fighting Bob,” rejoined the Republican Party when his state’s dejected Progressives, meeting in Portage in March 1946, voted to officially align with the GOP . . .

Six years later, Oregon’s Wayne Morse unceremoniously shed his Republican attire and became the first independent to serve in the Senate since Nebraska’s Norris . . .

J. Strom Thurmond’s situation was very different from that of Pennsylvania’s Specter. Having bolted from the national Democratic Party in 1948 to run for president on a States’ Rights ticket and spectacularly winning a seat in the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate six years later . . .

The same thing was true of Virginia’s Harry F. Byrd, Jr. Fearing that the Democratic primary electorate might reject him, Byrd dropped out of the Democratic Party in 1970 and was easily re-elected as an independent later that autumn, becoming only the second senator in history to win as an independent . . .
Read the whole thing. Such pieces are the perfect antidote to the revisionist political history preferred by the ideologues of the two-party state and duopoly system of government, and their mouthpieces in the corporate media. The development of a site like Uncovered Politics was perhaps as inevitable as it is necessary. I'll certainly be checking in regularly.

3 comments:

Dale Sheldon-Hess said...

I find it interesting that, out of that whole list, only two ever won election as a non-major-party-candidate first:

La Follette on his father's coattails, and Shipstead under Michigan Farmer-Labor; which at the time was even more successful as a party than even today's Vermont Progressives.

Once you've _had_ the recognition, and the backing, of a major party, and made the personal connections and contacts by being in office, it's much easier to win, clearly.

But this doesn't seem to be the strategy that 3rd party and independent candidates generally take.

What made/makes MI-F/L and VPP as successful as they are?

Dale Sheldon-Hess said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
d.eris said...

That's a good question, to which I don't know the answer. A recent study from Follow the Money on third party candidates has a section on incumbency rates, and found that third party incumbents were much less likely to retain their seats than their major party counterparts.

From the study:

"Reflecting the long odds faced by candidates outside the two main parties, only 87 of the 6,181 third-party candidates were incumbents. The largest number of third-party incumbents, 30, hailed from Vermont. Incumbent third-party candidates kept their seats 57 percent of the time, or in 45 out of 79 races. Only eight third-party candidates who were incumbent in one seat ran for another, open seat. Two of those eight candidates won the open seat. In stark contrast, incumbents from the two major parties enjoyed a 92 percent success rate. For an in-depth analysis of the effects of money and incumbency, see The Role of Money & Incumbency in 2007–2008 State Elections."

http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=426&ext=4

 
http://www.wikio.com