Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996

by John Gerring

Is American politics ideological or relatively consensual? Do the American parties differ from one another &, if so, how? Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996 is a synthetic history & analysis of the ideologies of the major American parties from the early 19th century to the present. It's the only book currently in print that attempts such a broad treatment of the subject & that is empirically grounded.
List of Figures & Tables
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Existence of Party Ideology
1. Arguments
2. Rethinking the Role of Ideology in American Party Life
The Whig-Republican Party
3. The National Epoch (1828-1924)
4. The Neoliberal Epoch (1928-92)
The Democratic Party
5. The Jeffersonian Epoch (1828-92)
6. The Populist Epoch (1896-1948)
7. The Universalist Epoch (1952-92)
Conclusions: Sources of Party Ideology
8. What Drives Ideological Change?
Epilogue: 1996
Appendix: The Search for a Method
Selected Bibliography
Index

Genres: Politics, American History, Political Science, Nonfiction, History

352 pages, Hardcover

First published September 13, 1998

About the author

John Gerring is Professor of Political Science at Boston University, where he teaches courses on methodology and comparative politics.

Reviews

[Ethan Wellerstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This fascinating and quantitative study of party ideology in America led me to reexamine the role ideology plays in current politics, history, and historiography. Gerring's analysis is very comprehensive, enjoyable to read, and deeply though-provoking.

[Kevin Purnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

10/10 will return

[Samuel P · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Gerring's master contribution to the American political science field. Again, this is another perfect example that academic-level books need not be unreadable and stupidly repetitive (looking at you, Baumgartner and Jones 👀). Lastly, it was fun expanding my vocabulary while reading as Gerring flexed his mastery of the English language. However, he might have used 'shibboleth ' and 'mammon' one too many times.