Political Factions, Parties & Orientations: The American Experience — Chapter 1

Washington at Valley Forge

(This is an analytical review of historical literature. It includes links to sources used, but it has not been “peer-reviewed” itself. I am posting it to provoke thought and further research.)

We’ve gained major insights into political psychology over the past few decades. I want to see whether those insights can help us understand the development of political parties. As a test case, I’ll use the history of major political factions and parties in the USA.

The analytical approach I’ll use is based on studies of “Right-Wing Authoritarianism” (RWA), “Social Dominance Orientation” (SDO), “Social Value Orientation” (SVO) and the Basic Values Theory of Shalom Schwartz. The general idea is that people have distinguishable preferences when they engage in social relations, whether the relations concern politics, economics or culture. Current research suggests that these preferences align primarily along two dimensions.

One dimension, RWA, concerns a person’s inclinations with regard to cultural traditions. People who identify as “Conservative” are inclined to seek preservation of established traditions and customs. At the other end of the spectrum, people who identify as “Liberal” tend to be open to cultural change, and often seek it.

The second dimension, SDO/SVO, concerns a person’s inclinations with regard to equality. In this case, people who identify as “Conservative” are inclined to seek and maintain inequalities and hierarchies (SDO) — especially in their favor (SVO). At the other end of the spectrum, people who identify as “Liberal” tend to seek social, political and economic equalization (SDO), as well as cooperation and collective well-being (SVO). These inclinations are commonly referred to as “political orientations,” because they specifically affect political preferences.

Experiments and surveys have found that these political orientations are associated with different values. In terms of Schwartz Basic Values,

• People with high RWA orientations have strong positive associations with the values of “Traditionalism” and “Conformity.” They have a substantially negative association with the value of “Self-Direction” [“Independent thought and action -- choosing, creating, exploring”].
• People with high Social Dominance Orientations have strong positive associations with the value of “Power” [“Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources”]. They have a substantially negative association with the value of “Universalism” [“Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature”].
• People who exhibit “proself” or “individualist” Social Value Orientations have positive associations with the Schwartz values of “Power” and “Achievement,” in the combination Schwartz identifies as “Self-Enhancement.”
• People who exhibit “prosocial” SVOs have positive associations with the Schwartz values of “Universalism” and “Benevolence,” in the combination Schwartz identifies as “Self-Transcendence.”
• People who identify as “Center-Right” have positive associations with the Schwartz values of “Power,” “Achievement,” “Traditionalism,” “Conformity,” and “Security.”
• People who identify as “Center-Left” have positive associations with the Schwartz values of “Universalism,” “Benevolence,” and “Self-Direction.”

The results don’t align perfectly, but I think the overlaps are clear. There is a social faction which places value priorities on “Power” and/or “Traditionalism.” Individuals with these value priorities typically identify themselves as “Conservative” or “Center-Right.” There is another social faction which places value priorities on “Universalism” and/or “Self-Direction.” Individuals with these value priorities typically identify themselves as ”Liberal” or “Center-Left.” These two social factions will conflict politically, because they have conflicting value priorities.

I want to see whether these political orientations and values can be traced in the history of the major U.S. political parties. I’m encouraged by Christopher David DeSante, who says that “…parties developed in America in order to translate individual values into outcomes that would benefit their members.”

I also want to see whether this history supports the observation by Cicero, Machiavelli and others that, wherever political factions can form, two main factions will arise, one representing the political, economic and cultural “aristocracy,” and the other representing the “common” people.

Let’s start with a view of the political stage just before the USA entered the world.

The location of a meeting of Tories, or British loyalists, just prior to the battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge in February, 1776, during the American Revolution [Commons photo, cropped & darkened]

U.S. history is often portrayed as if all the British colonists in North America rebelled against the crown in 1775. In reality, some did and some didn’t. Historian Robert M. Calhoon [A Companion to the American Revolution, Ch. 29] tells us that perhaps “40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority,” actively supported the colonial rebels. The number of colonists who opposed the revolution was smaller, but substantial, an estimated 15% to 20% of the White male colonists. In fact, the conflict has also been described as a civil war [Thomas B. Allen, 2010]. What could explain the violent differences between the colonial rebels and their opponents?

The colonial opponents of the revolution were called “Loyalists,” “Tories” or “Royalists.” Information about them is limited, but available records have led historians to a number of conclusions. Among those conclusions:

• “Thirty-two rich Philadelphians — twenty-one percent of the elite — openly favored independence in July 1776… Fifty-six rich Philadelphians — thirty-seven percent of the elite — chose to be “neutralists;”…Another fifteen percent of the elite — twenty-two men — demonstrated that they were “mild loyalists” by cooperating with the British…Thirteen of their colleagues, representing nine percent of the wealthy, were pro-British…” [Robert Gough, 1978, italics added]
• After the Revolution, “…about 15 percent of the Loyalists (65,000–70,000 people) fled to other parts of the British Empire….” The remainder [presumably about 85%] “…were generally able to retain their property and become American citizens.” [Wikipedia]
• “The departure of so many royal officials, rich merchants and landed gentry destroyed the hierarchical networks that had dominated most of the colonies.” [Wikipedia]
• “Tories supported the Crown, the role of the king as head of the church, and the traditional structure of a parliamentary monarchy;….” [Thomas B. Allen, 2010]
• “[Tories in the Old Colony Club of Plymouth] aspired to take advantage of their birth and station by gaining posts in the royal colonial government or benefiting from its largesse. This was the core of Tory power — the governors, the judges, the customs officials, and the bureaucrats who served the Crown. Radiating out from that core were Anglican clergymen and their leading parishioners — merchants, shipowners, landed gentry — who supported the idea of a British Empire that drew its supremacy from the Crown and dispensed its benefits upon the chosen in the colonies. They believed most of all in a well-ordered society….” [Thomas B. Allen, 2010, italics added]
• Historians Hull, Hoffer & Allen [1978], analyzed the writings of Loyalists and “Revolutionaries” in the New York colony based on personality scales. They found that the two factions did indeed score differently. The biggest difference was with respect to “Traditionalism,” with Loyalists scoring almost uniformly on this item. Using a modified scale, the historians discovered that Loyalists tended to score higher on “Submission,” “Conformity,” “Power Orientation,” “Hierarchical thinking/authoritarian aggression,” and “Order.” Revolutionaries tended to score lower on those items. In both factions there was a sizable number of individuals whose scores were middle-range, or moderate.
• Historian Leonard Woods Labaree [1948, Ch.6] believed that the American Revolution was a civil conflict like many others in Western civilization, “between the forces of liberalism and the forces of conservatism.” The forces of liberalism promote social change and the forces of conservatism resist it. Labaree believed the American Tories were conservatives. Concerning the characters of those who supported the British, he noted that:

▻ Many supported the British because it was in their self-interest to do so. This was especially true for Royal office-holders and many “leading men of property.”

▻ But there were also colonists with little or no property who supported the British. There was a portion of the colonists who could not accept a change in their way of life, even if it didn’t harm them economically. If nothing else, they felt a deep emotional attachment to Britain, its constitution and culture.

▻ Religion was also a motivator. The Church of England (“Anglican”) was obviously tied to Britain and its King, and most of its clergymen preached in favor of obedience to established authority. The Society of Friends (“Quakers”) weren’t tied to the Crown, but their pacifist beliefs inclined many of them against rebellion.

▻ Uncertainty was a factor for Tories. With revolution, the established order and established values would be lost. What would replace them?

▻ Many of those who eventually supported Britain had been Moderates previously. They had agreed with colonial assertions of civil rights, but they rejected extremist language and violent actions against British authority. As the conflict intensified between Crown and colony, Moderates were forced to pick a side, and some sided with the Crown.

How did the colonists who called themselves “Patriots” or “Whigs” differ from their Tory neighbors? Historians have found that they differed in several ways:

• Demographically, the Patriot/Whig faction included some of the wealthy colonists [Gough, 1978], but there are indicators of greater representation among the lower social orders. For example, the major anti-Parliament protests in Boston were organized by “The Loyal Nine,” a group including two brass-workers, two merchants, a painter, a jeweler, a printer, a distiller and a shipowner. [Richard Archer, 2010] They were soon known as “The Sons of Liberty.” To help them in the protests, they called upon two Boston “mobs” that had a history of brawling. The members of these “mobs” were said to be mostly “craftsmen, workers of lesser skills, sailors, apprentices, and boys.” Sons of Liberty groups also arose in Philadelphia, New York, Savannah and Connecticut. [Robert Middlekauff, 2005]
• Historian Carl Becker [1901] called the party which grew out of opposition to the British administrators “the popular party,” and the party which supported the British administrators he called “the court party.” According to Becker, the popular party was initially led by members of the colony’s propertied, commercial and professional class, but over time it came to be dominated by “mechanics and artisans,” led by the Sons of Liberty. Becker attributed the party conflict to “the coming consciousness of equality.”
• Historian Leonard Woods Labaree [1948, p.113] noted that “…Very few members of the local organizations known as the “Sons of Liberty” were members of the colonial aristocracy.”
• After Britain imposed restrictions on Boston, a Continental Congress was held in 1774. The 1774 Congress created a “Continental Association” to boycott British trade, and it mandated that “every county, city, and town” form a committee to identify and condemn boycott violators. This gave “plain farmers, laborers, seamen, artisans, apprentices, teenagers, and servants,” many of whom could not vote, a way to participate in politics. And they did, by tarring and feathering Tories. [Ray Raphael, 2012]
• Presbyterian and Congregational [Puritan-derived] ministers were almost all opposed British colonial policy, one reason being the possibility that the British would set up in America a bishop for the established Church of England. [Baldwin, 1928]
• Historians identify four individuals as having been major propagandists for rebellion by the colonists: John Dickinson, James Otis (Jr.), Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine.

▻ John Dickinson authored “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,” which began with the confession that he had a high regard for benevolence, the welfare of mankind and liberty [p.2]. His complaint was that British trade with the colonists had been mutually beneficial; now Britain was treating the colonists like slaves, to be taxed at will for her benefit.

▻ James Otis, Jr., wrote a tract titled “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” in which he argued that the colonists and their home-country relatives had equal rights under divine and natural law [p.42].

▻ Sam Adams believed the British government had failed to recognize that American colonists had equal rights under the British constitution [The Writings of Samuel Adams, Vol.1, p.45]. He also rejected the Anglican proposal to set up an American bishop for the Church of England, fearing it was designed to infringe upon American liberties. Said Adams: “The Design of the first settlers of New England in particular was to settle a plan of govt upon the true principles of Liberty in which the Clergy should have no Authority.” [The Writings of Samuel Adams, Vol.2, p.236] He later added, “Thanks be to God, there is not yet so formidable a junction of the secular and ecclesiastical powers in this country….” [Vol.2, p.272]

▻ Tom Paine authored a pamphlet titled “Common Sense,” in which he argued that America needed independence, partly because England’s only concern was how much advantage England could gain from America. In his pamphlet titled “Rights of Man,” Paine asserted that “all men are born equal, and with equal natural rights.” He also declared [“Rights of Man,” Part 2, Ch.5] that tax revenue should be used to help the poor, the elderly, and victims of accidents — not as a charity, but as a right. And in “The Age of Reason,” Paine directly challenged traditional religions and many of their claims.

• As discussed earlier, historians Hull, Hoffer & Allen [1978] analyzed the writings of Loyalists and “Revolutionaries” in New York for indications of differences in personality. They discovered that Revolutionaries tended to score lower than Loyalists on indicators of “Submission,” “Conformity,” “Power Orientation,” “Hierarchical thinking/authoritarian aggression,” and “Order.” But there were also many Revolutionaries whose scores were in the middle-range, or moderate.

Philip Dawe (attributed), The Bostonians Paying the Excise-man, or Tarring and Feathering (1774)

Pasting these pieces together, we get a fair picture of the two major factions and their differences, demographic and psycho-social.

Tory Loyalists were more likely to have been members of the political and economic elite of the colonies, though not exclusively so. They placed high values on British hierarchy and tradition, represented by the monarchy and the Anglican church. There was an inclination toward self-interest among those who could take advantage of their existing social status to obtain positions of Power. Their written records suggest tendencies toward “Hierarchical thinking/authoritarian aggression,” “Power Orientation,” and values of “Submission,” “Conformity,” and “Order.” Some could not accept change and uncertainty. These are values and orientations which modern research has found to be associated more with people who describe themselves as “Conservative” or “Center-Right.”

Whig Patriots, on the other hand, were more likely to have been members of lower status in the colonies, although their numbers did include some of the wealthy. They clearly placed greater value on equality and freedom from British tradition, as indicated by their opposition to monarchy and the Church of England. Written records suggest that, unlike Tories, they did not have tendencies toward “Hierarchical thinking/authoritarian aggression,” “Power Orientation,” and values of “Submission,” “Conformity,” and Order.” Writings of their major propagandists indicate high valuations of equality, liberty and mutual benefit. These are values and orientations which modern research has found to be associated more with people who identify themselves as “Liberal” or “Center-Left.”

It’s obvious that these two factions had conflicting values and political orientations. Their values and orientations had to have colored their expectations concerning social relations. That would include the issue of political rights for the American colonists: would they be treated like equals to their brothers in the mother country, or would they be treated like servants? British policies at the time reflected “mercantile” theory, which assumed that “colonies exist for the economic benefit of the mother country.” That’s a master-servant theory.

This was a political issue which did not allow for middle ground: the colonists would either be treated as inferiors in the relationship or they would be treated as equals, with equal regard for their needs and wants. As the British government pushed more taxes and trade restrictions on the colonists — to ensure that the colonies benefited the mother country — it would have upset more and more those colonists who placed a high value on equality and less value on maintaining traditions. Colonists who valued tradition and hierarchy to a greater degree might not have liked the added costs, but their values and orientations would have disinclined them to oppose the British government.

In my opinion, this history indicates the applicability and usefulness of the psycho-social perspective with regard to domestic politics. I’m not saying it explains everything. But opposing psycho-social orientations create opposing expectations for social, political and economic relations. I think that makes them an important and dynamic element in a social system, worthy of consideration.

This history also appears to support the observation by Cicero, Machiavelli and others that, where possible, two political factions arise: the faction of “the aristocracy” and the faction of “the common people.” In this case, the Tories or Loyalists represented the faction of the aristocracy, and the Patriots or Whigs represented the faction of the common people.

At this point in our story, the colonial faction of the aristocracy collapses over a critical domestic issue: will British colonists will be treated as equals or as subordinates in their relations with the home country? The more egalitarian faction, that of the “common” people, successfully rejects subordination by the British government. Now they take center stage in the formation of a new government for the colonies.

NEXT: New Parties, Old Patterns?

AFTERTHOUGHTS:

1. Some historians have noted that the colonial rebellion occurred during an economic downturn in the colonies. Edward Countryman [in Greene&Pole, 2000, Ch.23] believes that, without this condition, colonial response to the British actions “would have been muted rather than militant.” Nevertheless, it remains the case that colonists responded differently to these circumstances. Some defended the British administration, regardless. Those who argued for revolution — such as Dickinson, Otis, Adams, and Paine — didn’t mention an economic downturn as a reason for revolt. Perhaps because British colonial policies would affect the future of the colonies, as well. Also, their vehement objections to having an Anglican bishop in America had little or nothing to due with the economic conditions of the time.
2. Historian Bernard Bailyn [Ideological Origins of the American Revolt, 1967,p.307] mentioned an important observation by colonist Richard Bland [An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies, 1766, p.25]: “Rights imply Equality in the Instances to which they belong, and must be treated without Respect to the Dignity of the Persons concerned in them.” In other words, rights require equal treatment, regardless of social status. As Bailyn noted, this “subtly subversive” of “the traditional foundations of social orders….” Hierarchies expect inequalities of treatment, with more privileges for those traditionally perceived to have higher status. Each assertion of a “right” therefore subverts the existing hierarchy by pushing aside tradition and demanding equality of treatment in a particular matter.
3. As I was finishing this article, Amy Coney Barrett was being considered for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently, she has described her judicial philosophy as “originalist.” This is understood to mean that “…all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding ‘at the time it was adopted’.” [Wikipedia] I think Tom Paine made the best rebuttal. Apparently Edmund Burke had argued that Parliament had eternal primacy over British subjects anywhere, based on a declaration made by Parliament in 1688, roughly 100 years earlier. Paine responded: “I am contending for the right of the living and against their being willed away, and controlled and contracted for, by the manuscript-assumed authority of the dead; and Mr. Burke is contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living.” [“Rights of Man,” Part 1, p.8] As Paine said, only the living need to be accommodated.