America's Three Regimes

1. America's political history is structured by three enduring regimes.

To speak of regimes underscores the fact that the sheer staying power of America’s public institutions is as much a historical fact as the change for which our society is so widely celebrated.

Long-term perspective. American public life, encompassing politics, government, and law, is best understood through the lens of "regimes" rather than shorter "ages" or "eras." These regimes represent sustained periods where fundamental decisions are made through a consistent set of institutions and guiding principles, often lasting a century or more. This approach highlights the remarkable continuity and evolution within the American polity, despite its reputation for rapid change.

Three distinct regimes. The book identifies three major regimes that have shaped the nation's public life from its colonial beginnings to the present. Each regime faced unique challenges and developed distinctive ways of governing, yet all operated within the enduring framework of the U.S. Constitution. These regimes are:

• Deferential-Republican (early 17th century - 1820s): From colonial origins to the early Republic.
• Party-Democratic (1830s - 1930s): Defined by mass-based party politics.
• Populist-Bureaucratic (1930s - present): Characterized by expanded government and diverse public voices.

Continuity and adaptation. The transition between these regimes was not abrupt but a gradual process, often requiring significant historical pressures and major events. Each regime, while distinct, built upon the foundations of its predecessor, adapting inherited ideas and institutions to new realities. This framework allows for a deeper understanding of how American public institutions have consistently adapted to challenges while maintaining their core identity.

2. The Deferential-Republican regime blended Old World traditions with New World realities.

The result: a polity defined by the tension between the cultural and psychological need of its citizens to sustain their identity as colonizing Englishmen, on one hand, and the insistent pull of a new land that demanded new ways of thinking about, and doing, politics, government, and law, on the other.

Inherited governance ideas. Early English settlers brought with them established notions of governance, including beliefs in social hierarchy, deference to authority, and the intermingling of law and politics, often mirroring the Tudor state. This was evident in the establishment of proprietary colonies and joint-stock companies, and even in early attempts to replicate feudal social systems, like John Locke's scheme for Carolina.

New World transformations. However, the vast distance from England, abundant land, labor demands (leading to indentured servitude and slavery), and loose imperial control gradually transformed these Old World traditions. This led to a distinctive American polity characterized by:

• Local autonomy: Settlements like Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay quickly developed self-governing structures.
• Political rambunctiousness: Early rebellions (Bacon's, Leisler's) and local conflicts demonstrated a nascent assertiveness.
• Legal innovation: While English common law provided a foundation, American law adapted to local conditions, becoming more individualistic and less bound by strict precedent.

Evolving American identity. This tension between inherited traditions and new realities fostered a unique blend of anxiety and assertiveness among colonists. By the mid-18th century, a distinctive American public life had emerged, laying the groundwork for revolution. This period saw the gradual development of self-governance, where local officials were often elected, and institutions like colonial assemblies became training grounds for future revolutionary leaders.

3. The American Revolution was a pragmatic, not radical, break from the Old World.

The American Revolution was no tea party (though it did come after one). But it had no counterpart to the authoritarian iconoclasm of Cromwell’s Puritan Commonwealth, or Robespierre and the Terror, or Napoleon’s warfare state.

A unique revolutionary path. Unlike the tumultuous English and French revolutions, which often led to restored monarchies or authoritarian rule, the American Revolution was characterized by a pragmatic approach to state-making. It avoided the sweeping repudiation of old ways, the execution of kings, or the descent into ideological extremism seen in Europe. The American experience was more about legitimizing existing native forms of governance that had been developing for generations.

Founders' practical approach. The leaders of the American Revolution, many of whom were lawyers and planters, were not driven by social or economic alienation but by a desire to formalize an independence they felt was already a reality. Their actions, from the Continental Congress to the drafting of the Constitution, were marked by a "practical, workaday manner." Key aspects included:

• Washington's restraint: His voluntary relinquishment of power contrasted sharply with Cromwell and Napoleon.
• Declaration as a legal brief: Focused on grievances rather than abstract philosophical purity.
• State constitutions: Emphasized popular representation and distrust of executive power, but avoided radical social restructuring.

Continuity over upheaval. The new American Republic, while innovative, retained significant elements of its colonial past. The Constitution, for instance, was a pluralist response to existing interests and factions, not a denial of their existence. This blend of "a new political society" and "a quasi-Republican alternative to parliamentary monarchy" ensured that the transition was less about destroying inherited institutions and more about adapting them to a distinctively American mode.

4. The Party-Democratic regime established mass-based parties as the core of public life.

But the differences between the two polities were more significant. English elections were far less frequent than those required by the Constitution and by the states, the voter base considerably more restricted, the system of representation more thoroughly deferential.

Emergence of cadre parties. The U.S. Constitution, despite making no provision for political parties, inadvertently fostered their rise through its winner-take-all presidential elections and fixed, frequent election schedules. This led to the rapid formation of "cadre parties" like the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans, which were top-down organizations but also adapted to a more democratic, participatory electorate.

Ideological differentiation. Foreign policy issues, particularly the French Revolution, became a crucial tool for these nascent parties to define themselves ideologically and mobilize support across diverse social and regional lines. This allowed for:

• Broad coalitions: Parties transcended ephemeral factions to build more permanent alliances.
• Public engagement: Newspapers, parades, and political clubs became vital instruments for communication and mobilization.
• Professional politicians: Figures like Martin Van Buren and Thurlow Weed emerged, building local party machines and adapting to the demands of a democratic political culture.

Democratic political culture. By the 1820s, the deferential-republican era gave way to a new political culture where popular participation was increasingly valued. Property and religious restrictions on voting were gradually removed, and the range of public offices subject to election expanded. This shift was reflected in a new, more vernacular political language, drawn from everyday life, and a pervasive sense that politics was a trade, a "growth enterprise" for ambitious individuals.

5. This regime fostered a weak national state but a dynamic, party-intertwined legal system.

By European measures of public power—an imperial capital, a large, entrenched bureaucracy and military, economic and social guidance by the central state—American government was a puny thing.

Minimalist federal government. In contrast to European states, the American national government remained small and decentralized throughout the Party-Democratic regime. Washington D.C. was a modest capital, and federal departments like the Post Office, Treasury, and War, while extensive, were primarily focused on specific functions like land disposal, Indian affairs, and mail delivery. This limited federal scope was a direct consequence of popular hostility to centralized power and the constitutional primacy of Congress and the states.

Party-driven bureaucracy. The "spoils system," where party allegiance dictated access to public office, became a defining feature of governance. This meant:

• High turnover: Federal employees, especially postmasters, were frequently replaced with each change in administration.
• Patronage: Jobs and contracts served as crucial sources of party funds and loyalty.
• Limited expertise: The democratic belief that any citizen could handle government work often trumped the need for specialized expertise.
  This system, while prone to corruption, also democratized access to government jobs and expanded federal reach through agencies like the Post Office.

Dynamic, adaptive law. The legal system, though rooted in English common law, underwent a significant transformation, becoming more "instrumentalist" and responsive to economic and social change. Judges like John Marshall and Lemuel Shaw adapted legal principles to new conditions, often deferring to legislative will. This era saw:

• Expansion of legal fields: Growth in property, contract, and tort law to support a burgeoning economy.
• Judicial democratization: State judges became popularly elected, and the legal profession became more accessible.
• Police power: States gained broad authority to regulate for public health, safety, and morals, reflecting a new view of government's role in society.

6. The Civil War was a profound failure of the Party-Democratic regime, yet its core persisted.

The greatest failure of the party-democratic regime ineluctably emerged from that regime’s character and structure.

Erosion of governmental capacity. The decades leading up to the Civil War saw a significant decline in the capacity of American government institutions. The presidency was marked by a series of undistinguished one-termers, and Congress became increasingly gridlocked and prone to internal conflict over sectional issues. This institutional frailty reflected a deep-seated tension in the American psyche: a popular distaste for strong, centralized control versus the need for social order.

Partisan breakdown. The two-party system, which had previously served as a tempering force, fractured under the weight of slavery and territorial expansion. The Whig party disappeared, and the Democratic party became increasingly aligned with pro-slavery, southern interests, alienating northern constituents. This created a vacuum filled by:

• Single-issue third parties: The Know-Nothings and the new Republican party emerged, focusing on nativism and abolition, respectively.
• Ideological polarization: Issues like the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision intensified sectional animosity, making compromise increasingly difficult.

Secession as democratic application. The South's decision to secede, while catastrophic, can be seen as an extreme application of the democratic regime's ethos of individual (or regional) freedom and self-determination. For many white southerners, forming their own nation was a logical response to a perceived threat to their institutions, reflecting decades of declining federal authority and growing local autonomy. Conversely, the North's resolve to preserve the Union stemmed from a deeply held belief in the nation's sacred meaning, viewing secession as a failure of the American experiment.

7. Industrialization and social change were absorbed by the adaptive Party-Democratic regime.

But the most striking aspect of the 1840 election was the large influx of new voters, second only to 1828. The proportion of eligible males voting rose from 57.2 percent to 80.2 percent.

Post-Civil War political landscape. Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, the major parties quickly reasserted their dominance, albeit with a dramatic inversion of power, as Republicans became the "normal majority" party for seven decades. This era, often called the "Gilded Age," saw American politics, government, and law become more highly organized, mirroring the industrial society it governed. Foreign observers like James Bryce noted the elaborate organization of American parties, comparing them to a "second body of political machinery."

Party as central institution. Elections became the "market" for politicos, driving unprecedented voter turnouts (averaging 78.5% from 1876-1896). This intense competition necessitated:

• Sophisticated organization: Parties developed extensive networks of committees, poll watchers, and campaign workers.
• Financial mobilization: Fund-raising evolved from kickbacks to large corporate contributions.
• Ideological adaptation: Republicans became the party of "Protestantism and prosperity," advocating for protective tariffs and appealing to pietistic Protestants and the middle class. Democrats, while retaining their southern base and urban Catholic support, adopted a libertarian and populist rhetoric against big government and privilege.

Resilience against dissent. Despite the rise of single-issue third parties (like the Greenback-Labor party) and intellectual critiques of corruption, the major parties demonstrated an impressive capacity for absorption and adaptation. They co-opted popular grievances and maintained their hold on the electorate, preventing the kind of systemic breakdown seen before the Civil War. The 1896 election, with William Jennings Bryan's populist campaign and William McKinley's organized, pro-business response, exemplified the parties' ability to adapt to new economic challenges while preserving their dominance.

8. The Populist-Bureaucratic regime emerged from the crises of the Great Depression and World War II.

For the first time ever, in the off-year election of 1934 the incumbent party increased its already hefty congressional majority.

New Deal as a turning point. The Great Depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal marked a profound shift in American public life, comparable only to the early 19th century's transition to mass democracy. The 1932 election, while initially a traditional protest vote against Hoover, quickly transformed into a sustained Democratic majority, fueled by an unprecedented mobilization of urban, working-class, immigrant, and ethnic voters. This demonstrated the possibilities of political change under extreme conditions.

Populist political transformation. The New Deal dramatically expanded political participation and redefined American nationality, reversing previous exclusionary trends. Key aspects included:

• Labor's rise: Pro-labor legislation forged a strong alliance between unions and the Democratic party.
• Ethnic inclusion: Irish Catholics and Jewish Americans gained unprecedented influence and representation in government.
• Black political shift: African Americans, previously loyal to the Republican party, overwhelmingly shifted to the Democrats due to the beneficial impact of New Deal programs.
  This era saw the Democratic party ascend to a level of political dominance not seen since the Jeffersonian Republicans.

Wartime state expansion. World War II further entrenched the regime change initiated by the New Deal. The war effort necessitated a massive expansion of federal spending and bureaucracy, far exceeding anything seen before. This led to:

• Permanent active state: Popular acceptance of a vastly expanded government, with agencies like the Pentagon becoming symbols of national purpose.
• Government planning: The war schooled a generation of leaders in the possibilities of large-scale government planning and intervention.
• Post-war reconversion: Instead of dismantling the wartime state, the focus was on "reconversion," adapting its structures to post-war needs, leading to programs like the GI Bill and new domestic agencies.

9. This new regime is defined by populist politics and a vastly expanded, bureaucratic state.

What we now have is an entirely new regime, which deserves to be called the Second Republic of the United States.

Populist political culture. The Populist-Bureaucratic regime is characterized by public affairs increasingly defined by voices outside traditional party structures. The media, advocacy groups, experts, bureaucrats, and judges claim to speak for specific social interests or the broader public, leading to a more fluid and ideologically charged political landscape. This shift is reflected in:

• Decline of party loyalty: Voters are less bound by traditional party affiliations, leading to "dealignment" and a rise in independent voters.
• Rise of issue-based politics: Issues like civil rights, environmentalism, and abortion gain prominence, often cutting across traditional party lines.
• Media and advocacy influence: Television, talk radio, and advocacy groups become powerful shapers of public opinion and policy, sometimes eclipsing party influence.

Expanded bureaucratic state. The American administrative state, long anticipated, became a permanent reality, relying on government agencies and courts to define and enforce public policy. This expansion was driven by:

• Increased federal spending: Non-defense spending became a permanent, significant portion of federal outlays.
• Proliferation of agencies: New regulatory and welfare agencies emerged, addressing a wide range of social and economic issues.
• Bureaucratic mindset: Government operations adopted a managerial, corporate, and military-expert approach, with a new vocabulary of acronyms and technical terms.

Tension and accountability. This new regime, while achieving significant accomplishments (welfare state, civil rights, defeat of fascism and communism), also generated concerns about democratic accountability. The self-protective mechanisms of bureaucracy, the perceived inefficiency of large government projects, and the "unanticipated consequences of purposeful social action" led to declining public trust in government. This tension between an active, bureaucratic state and popular, representative government became a central challenge for the presidency, Congress, and the courts.

10. The modern judiciary became a powerful, interventionist force in the Populist-Bureaucratic era.

The primacy of Congress and the parties was challenged not only by a more populist politics and a more autonomous bureaucracy but also by a more assertive judiciary.

Judicial activism and populism. The courts, traditionally the "least dangerous branch," transformed into a powerful, interventionist force from the 1960s onward. Under Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger, the judiciary set new standards for civil liberties, civil rights, criminal justice, and social issues. This "progressive constitutional revolution" was characterized by:

• Expanded rights: A shift from individual rights to group rights, with broad interpretations of constitutional protections.
• Policy-making role: Courts moved beyond traditional case resolution to actively shape public policy, often filling voids left by the political system.
• Structural due process: Judges adopted a bureaucratic, oversight role, imposing administrative requirements on state and local governments.

Erosion of precedent and increased litigation. The new judicial style often treated precedent as less binding, relying instead on social science research and a wide evidentiary net to justify policy-driven decisions. This contributed to:

• Explosive growth in lawsuits: The American population filed millions of lawsuits annually, far exceeding other developed nations.
• Product liability transformation: Courts moved towards stricter liability standards for dangerous products, leading to massive awards and a quasi-administrative role in regulating industrial society.
• Blurred separation of powers: Judges became more like bureaucrats, and the judiciary's policy-making encroached on legislative and executive prerogatives, raising questions about democratic accountability.

Backlash and political contention. The judiciary's bold agenda, particularly on issues like school desegregation, criminal rights, and abortion, generated significant political backlash. Critics viewed these decisions as the work of an unelected elite whose values clashed with the electorate. This led to:

• Contentious appointments: Judicial nominations became highly politicized, reflecting the ideological divisions in society.
• Limits on judicial power: Despite its assertiveness, the courts faced inherent limits in implementing policy, as seen in the slow progress of school desegregation and housing reform.
  The judiciary's expanded role, while addressing previously neglected social groups, also intensified political conflict and highlighted the challenges of governance in the populist-bureaucratic regime.

11. Despite populist and bureaucratic shifts, the two-party system and core institutions endure.

But the tempering forces in American public life must not be ruled out. Predictions that there would be a reactionary turn in the wake of the Vietnam defeat were not fulfilled, unless (by a stretch) the rise of Ronald Reagan a decade later is proposed as evidence.

Resilience of the two-party system. Despite the rise of extra-party voices like the media and advocacy groups, and the erosion of traditional party loyalties, the two-party system has demonstrated remarkable continuity. While "dealignment" has made voter preferences more fluid, the major parties remain the primary units of American political life, adapting to new cultural and political realities rather than being displaced. This is evident in:

• Ideological sorting: Parties have become more ideologically cohesive, with a clear division between a Republican South/Southwest and Democratic coastal states.
• Party resurgence: Both parties have regained organizational strength, fundraising capacity, and influence in policy generation, often leveraging new technologies like the internet.
• Containment of dissent: Third-party movements, despite occasional strong showings, continue to be absorbed or marginalized by the major parties.

Enduring institutional framework. The core institutions of American government—the presidency, Congress, and the bureaucracy—have also adapted to the populist-bureaucratic regime, maintaining a dynamic equilibrium. While each branch has at times asserted "imperial" tendencies, inherent constitutional checks and the complexities of governance prevent any single branch from achieving unchecked dominance. Key aspects include:

• Adaptive presidency: Presidents like Reagan and Clinton crafted personae that transcended traditional party lines, appealing to a broader electorate.
• Autonomous Congress: Members became more entrenched and independent, but party polarization and the need for legislative action still drive institutional behavior.
• Bureaucratic checks: The vast bureaucracy, while powerful, remains subject to oversight from Congress, the courts, and a multitude of advocacy groups.

Quest for equilibrium. The American polity continues its "ongoing quest for equilibrium" amidst constant cultural and economic change. While political polarization and ideological confrontation are prominent features of the modern landscape, the long history of American public life suggests that forces for compromise and a vital center often prevail. The inherent instability of a populist political culture is balanced by the constitutional bias towards coalition building and the nuanced views of most American voters on hot-button issues.

Last updated: February 28, 2026