The Democratic Party has existed for 188 years, since the election Of Andrew Jackson in 1828.
In that nearly two centuries, there have been major splits and divisions:
In 1860, the party split, and the Northern Democrats. the official party, nominated Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas for President, while Vice President John C. Breckinridge was the nominee of Southern Democrats.
In 1896, the “Gold Democrats” refused to back the party nominee, the “silver tongued orator”, thirty six year old William Jennings Bryan, who promoted “free silver”, and drew support from the rural states in the Midwest and Great Plains and Mountain West, and kept the South loyal to the party.
In 1948, Southern Democrats broke from the convention that nominated Harry Truman for a full term, and ran South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond as the States Rights (Dixiecrats) candidate.
In 1968, Alabama Governor George C. Wallace formed the American Independent Party, and ran against Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey.
Notice that it was the South that caused three of the four splits, with the result being Douglas and Humphrey losing because of the split, while Truman won despite Thurmond’s opposition.
The other time, it was the rural West that revolved against the “Eastern Establishment”, represented by Wall Street, but Bryan, nominated three times for President, was unable to win the Presidency, although he helped to shape the Progressive Era with some of his reform ideas.
I see a split as healthy.
What leads from the beginning of a split is what is concerning.
I see a split in the Republican Party which looks like they’re lost. (Which does happen during presidential realigning periods working against a given political party.)
The fact that the 2016 Republican caucuses/primaries voters are embracing Donald Trump, who says he is conservative even though his entire record doesn’t indicate he’s conservative like Republicans like their conservatives, suggests that conservatism isn’t too hot anymore in the Republican Party. And, so far, Donald Trump has vanquished neoconservatives in the primaries. (Marco Rubio, who never came across like as if he had a thought which was actually his own, was very appealing to the neoconservatives who yield power in the Republican Party.)
The split in the Democratic Party is being well-considered in Thomas Frank’s new book, “Listen Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” I just started reading it. But in early parts of the book, Frank strikes his point. The yielded power in this current Democratic Party involves a meritocracy. And the problem with that is this: not every human being, as he comes of age, has an aptitude for becoming a “professional.”
Part of what causes a split in a major political party has to do with direction of the party, yes, but it also had to do with a given party losing touch with really knowing the entire existing base. That’s what been the problem with the Democratic Party. They are still preferred over the Republican Party by people who are not among “The Professional Left”; do not make over $50,000 in annual gross income; and are working class. They’re the ones who are closer to Bernie Sanders than the Democratic Party’s preferred choice of Hillary Clinton.
Rewrite:
They are still preferred over the Republican Party by people who are not among “The Professional [Class]”…
With this election, Democrats need to be united in the Fall, supporting either Hillary or Bernie.
How Hillary can gain the people’s trust: http://bluevirginia.us/2016/04/hillary-can-gain-american-peoples-trust
Even though I’ve always tended to use the two terms interchangeably, our local blog has an article today about the difference between progressives and liberals: http://bluevirginia.us/2016/04/progressive-liberal-not-im-progressive