{"id":562,"date":"2020-08-11T09:23:21","date_gmt":"2020-08-11T09:23:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/"},"modified":"2020-08-11T09:23:21","modified_gmt":"2020-08-11T09:23:21","slug":"building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/","title":{"rendered":"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force"},"template":"","class_list":["post-562","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"This is part 5 in a multi-part series examining ways to build an inclusive democracy for the 21st century.","featured_image":null,"article_type":162,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"68\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":555}"],"related_issues":[109,417],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"Introduction<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAs noted, the second innovation of democracy revolved around the transformation of conflict from a force of oppression to one of innovation.\u00a0 The Founding Fathers understood this task was essential to the success of the new republic.\u00a0 Madison articulated a system of checks and balances as a cornerstone for the United States.\u00a0 He suggested that if power could be distributed in different branches of government as well as throughout the broad interests in society, tyranny by powerful groups could be avoided.\u00a0 How this would work in practice remained unknown.\u00a0 While the constitution gave force to a separation of power among the judiciary, legislative and executive branches, it was harder to see how a free-for-all among competing interests \u2013 geographic, economic and ideological \u2013 would translate into political action.\r\n\r\nPolitical parties emerged as an antidote to that free-for-all.\u00a0 They provided an organizational structure to ensure conflict occurred horizontally through soft competition and without threatening the stability within government.\u00a0 These practices quickly took hold over the course of the first few election cycles of Congress.\u00a0 By the election of 1800, political parties were well established as a force within government.\u00a0 Although parties within the broader electorate would take several decades to form, parties quickly gave structure to competition among political leaders within government.\u00a0 This initial step ensured the United States found stable footing to launch. This essay will look at the actions of the Founding Fathers during the first few cycles of Congress to understand why political parties arose and how they came to stabilize democracy.\u00a0 It will also describe the leading theories of party formation.\r\n\r\nA New Outlook<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAfter ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the United States held its first national election. \u00a0At this time, the only popular election at the federal level related to the U.S. House in Congress. \u00a0Article I of the Constitution apportioned one U.S. House seat for every 30,000 inhabitants in a state. \u00a0The President was chosen by presidential electors at the state level.\u00a0 State legislators selected members of the U.S. Senate.\u00a0 Less than 2% of the U.S. population voted in this election.\u00a0 In other words, participants in the first election represented a small fraction of society, trending toward wealthy landowners who ran in similar social circles.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, those who found themselves at the reigns of the new government saw their role as public officials in a fundamentally new way.\u00a0 Their position of authority did not result from fealty to a central power.\u00a0 Instead, political leaders owed their position to the support of peers in an election.\u00a0 And they would stand for election again in two short years.\u00a0 Their \u201csuccess\u201d would depend on continued support from their constituents. \u00a0And the newly elected officials came to office with a range of perspectives, reflecting the diversity of views throughout the nation.\u00a0 Some had opposed the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 Others supported it but had very different positions on how much power federal government should have.\r\n\r\nMadison\u2019s evolution as a politician reflects the new mindset taking place among leaders operating in a representative democracy.\u00a0 When advocating for adoption of the Constitution, he opposed a Bill of Rights as a distraction to the task at hand.\u00a0 However, when campaigning for his first term in Congress in an Anti-Federalist district in Virginia, he committed to support such a document.\u00a0 Once in office, he worked vigorously to deliver on his promise, drafting and shepherding the Bill of Rights through Congress.\u00a0 Did his evolving views reflect a deeper appreciation for the need to amend the Constitution or simply a desire to get re-elected in a district specifically drawn for an Anti-Federalist? What\u2019s clear is that Madison, like any other successful politician, demonstrated through action an increased alignment with his constituents.\r\n\r\nThe other dominant figures in U.S. politics at this time would feel similar pressures in the new government.\u00a0 Washington was now president, John Adams, vice president, Hamilton, treasury secretary, and Jefferson, secretary of state.\u00a0 While they did not have to face the voters directly like Madison, their continued viability in public life would depend on support from peers in the electoral college or from state legislators who did face election. \u00a0These key figures brought with them a vision for this nation.\u00a0 Living in northern, urban centers, Adams and Hamilton saw the future through a prism of emerging industries, shop keepers and a merchant class.\u00a0 Living in the South, Jefferson and Madison viewed the nation\u2019s future grounded in small towns and agriculture.\u00a0 Despite their personal wealth, built largely through inheritance and the labor of enslaved people, Madison and Jefferson espoused policies that supported the interests of small farmers, planters and \u201ccommon folk,\u201d including expanded suffrage (for white men). \u00a0Even if these leaders did not have to stand for reelection, they knew their ideas would not advance without public support.\r\n\r\nUnstable Majority<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn his landmark book, Why Parties?,<\/u> John Aldrich describes the formation and rationale for parties. \u00a0After relaying a number of theories to explain the utility of political parties, he provides several examples from history to illustrate these theories.\u00a0 He focuses on the first three terms of Congress to demonstrate why political parties solve fundamental problems facing officials within government.\u00a0 Essentially, political parties brought coherence to policy debates and a framework to decision making by individual lawmakers.\u00a0 While this process heightened conflict, it also channeled such conflict into action that produced tangible outcomes.\r\n\r\nAs seen with the debate over the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers were split on the question of how powerful the new federal government should be.\u00a0 Aldrich terms this question as \u201cthe Great Principle\u201d because it shaped so many of the key policy decisions in the early years.\u00a0 The stakes on these policies were particularly high because the framers understood the outcome of these debates would serve as important precedent for future leaders.\u00a0 Some matters related directly to this principle and others did not. Nevertheless, members of Congress would increasingly see every issue as a contest over the Great Principle, particularly as political parties took shape.\r\n\r\nApart from the Bill of Rights, Hamilton drove the policy agenda during the first few terms of Congress.\u00a0 Hamilton advocated the creation of a national bank and high tariffs to protect fledging domestic industries.\u00a0 He also advanced a plan for the federal government to assume state debts, knowing that it would give bondholders a stake in the new nation and would weaken the role of states.\u00a0 These issues would frame the policy debates facing the newly elected leaders.\u00a0 Although there were no political parties at this time, a majority in Congress could be identified as having Federalist sentiments. \u00a0Therefore, Hamilton had the potential for a working majority in the First Congress.\r\n\r\nAn analysis of the first two terms of Congress reveals significant instability in voting blocs.\u00a0 Votes reflected a variety of different alignments, including sectionalism, pro- and anti-administration views and issue specific sentiment.\u00a0 In other words, votes in the first two Congresses did not follow set patterns.\u00a0 Despite Hamilton\u2019s majority coalition, the votes did not reflect such as majority.\u00a0 The votes on assumption of state debts reflects the chaotic voting patterns early on.\u00a0 The first vote on assumption failed in April 1790 by two votes.\u00a0 There were 14 different vote counts recorded at different times.\u00a0 A number of members switched votes.\u00a0 Few state delegations voted in lock step on this issue even though many of the delegations shared common views on policy.\r\n\r\nAldrich describes a meeting in June 1790 during the First Congress.\u00a0 Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton met for dinner.\u00a0 Congress had reached an impasse on Hamilton\u2019s fiscal plan as well as the location of the new capital.\u00a0 They agreed to trade votes to break the impasse.\u00a0 Jefferson and Madison would support the assumption of debt in return for Hamilton\u2019s agreement to situate the new capital on the banks of the Potomac.\u00a0 Two months later, Congress approved measures largely along the lines agreed to that evening.\u00a0 The impasse was broken.\r\n\r\nBefore those votes, many began to worry whether the fledgling nation could muster sufficient unity to move forward on important issues.\u00a0 The lack of predictability and structure for making decisions remained a large question mark.\u00a0 Anyone who serves in office or works with elected bodies understands that vote trading is a last resort.\u00a0 It marks a failure of process because officials forego principle for expediency.\u00a0 Instead of reaching consensus through compromise, officials suspend their beliefs in return for opponents who do likewise.\u00a0 Vote trading is a betrayal to those who supported them based on principle.\u00a0 That Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton agreed to such a deal underscores the instability of votes in Congress prior to political parties.\u00a0 Aldrich writes this is \u201cwhat one would expect to happen in a government without stability-enhancing institutions, facing problems that many or all care deeply about and foundering on the absence of equilibrium.\u201d\r\n\r\nSearching for Equilibrium<\/strong>\r\n\r\nComing into the Second Congress, most members could be labeled as either a Federalist or Anti-Federalist (the latter taking shape as \u201cJeffersonian-Republicans\u201d).\u00a0 After nearly losing the vote on assumption, Hamilton approached this session determined to turn his majority into consistent votes. \u00a0Although Hamilton could not enter the chamber\u2019s floor, he could observe from the gallery and had lieutenants who would caucus with him and coordinate votes.\u00a0 When asked to provide a report to Congress on the economy, Hamilton used the opportunity to advance a significant policy agenda, including a system of taxation, a mint and a national bank. The mint passed easily, but the bank prompted a showdown between Madison and Hamilton with President Washington siding with Hamilton.\r\n\r\nBy the end of the second session of Congress, Jefferson and Madison realized they needed more like-minded members if they were to prevail on legislative matters. \u00a0Therefore, they began working on a strategy to win seats in the Third Congress.\u00a0 Madison and Jefferson traveled to New York during the summer of 1792.\u00a0 They met with Aaron Burr and George Clinton, both foes of Hamilton.\u00a0 Some speculate they discussed an alliance of agrarian interests in the South and disaffected groups in the North.\u00a0 Separately, Madison provided financial support to a friend so that he could retain his position as editor of the \u201cNational Gazette,\u201d a partisan newspaper supporting the Republicans.\u00a0 Through \u201ccommittees of correspondence,\u201d the Republicans organized a coordinated campaign and managed to win a majority of seats in the Third Congress.\r\n\r\nTo understand how party formation impacted the behavior of members in Congress, Aldrich and others have analyzed roll call votes during the first three congresses.\u00a0 Of course, party affiliation remains the subject of debate.\u00a0 Nevertheless, researchers can discern clear patterns in voting among individual members.\u00a0 They defined a \u201cparty vote\u201d as one where a majority of one party opposed a majority of the other party on that vote.\u00a0 They found in the First Congress that two out of ten key votes were party votes.\u00a0 By the Third Congress, eight of ten key votes were party votes.\u00a0 Aldrich concludes:\r\n

\"\u2026 it is reasonable to conclude that parties arose out of the step-by-step strengthening of factions into political parties as a means of avoiding the consequences of voting disequilibrium and, in particular, setting a clear pattern of precedents on the revealed power and energy of the new national government.\u00a0 That is, parties emerged out of disequilibrium to resolve ambiguity inherent in the new constitutional order and to win on the great principle.\"<\/p>\r\nIn other words, political parties brought cohesion to various factions.\u00a0 They provided clarity to Madison\u2019s concept of checks and balances.\u00a0 The free-for-all among a multitude of interests would be channeled into constructive political action through the creation of enduring institutions committed to broad principles and guaranteed by the loyalty by their members.\r\n\r\nGiven the critical role played by parties in managing conflict a productive fashion, many conclude democracy cannot exist without multiple parties. \u00a0A no-party state or a one-party state is by-definition undemocratic. V.O. Key\u2019s landmark 1949 book, Southern Politics in State and Nation<\/u>, makes that point.\u00a0 Some contend the intraparty factions within the Democratic Party in the South prevalent up until the 1970s connected government policies to citizen interests.\u00a0 Key disagreed.\u00a0 He argued the lack of continuity in identity and leadership prevented these intraparty factions from being held accountable by voters.\u00a0 They simply lacked the \u201ccollective spirit\u201d and sense of \u201cjoint responsibility\u201d required to advance a sustained agenda.\u00a0 In sum, competitive political parties are a necessary condition for a healthy democracy.\r\n\r\nPolitical Party as Social Organism<\/strong>\r\n\r\nTheories abound to explain the formation of political parties.\u00a0 One of the more popular lines of inquiry applies economic theory in the name of Social Choice Theory.\u00a0 This theory looks at how preferences are translated into outcomes.\u00a0 Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel Prize winning economist, posited his \u201cimpossibility theorem\u201d in 1951, the same year Maurice Duverger published his empirical study, Political Parties<\/u>.\u00a0 Arrow\u2019s theorem says no method of choosing can guarantee that collective preferences reflect the summation of individual preferences.\u00a0 Political scientists have applied this theorem to individual legislators seeking a legislative outcome within the context of a majority voting procedure.\u00a0 The problem lies at the individual level. When A and B join forces to support outcome X, C can always make a better offer to A through an alliance to achieve outcome Y.\r\n\r\nThis phenomenon injects an element of chaos into coalitions among individuals who are focused on a single issue.\u00a0 Such coalitions or alliances remain subject to re-trading.\u00a0 To overcome this centrifugal pull, theorists point to \u201cstructure-induced equilibriums.\u201d\u00a0 One such example is a \u201clong coalition.\u201d In this case, A and B agree to vote together on a range of issues over the long haul.\u00a0 Even though C may offer A a better deal on a particular issue, A is better off over the long-term by remaining loyal to B.\u00a0 In this way, political parties solve the instability of individual behavior operating in a majority voting system.\u00a0 I raise this theory to share an important perspective on the formation of political parties, but also because it has relevance later in the discussion of electoral systems.\r\n\r\nWhile economic models can shed light on human behavior, we can get to the same result through insights into social adaptation.\u00a0 As noted, democracy arose at a time when humans understood the benefits accruing to society by distributing decision making away from central authorities.\u00a0 These distributed systems created a market for new social organizations.\u00a0 Adam Smith described this transformation in social behavior in Wealth of Nations<\/u>.\u00a0 Joint enterprises, including political parties, arise in response to the decisions of individuals in a marketplace. The call and response between consumer and producer create an efficient distribution of resources and goods to meet the demand of the market.\r\n\r\nThe new system of government adopted with ratification of the constitution created a demand for actions responsive to the electorate \u2013 even one as small as that in 1789.\u00a0 In this case, action would take the form of legislation addressing economic, foreign policy and other needs.\u00a0 Those carried into office by direct election and appointment responded to this new environment.\u00a0 Certain individuals emerged as leaders, including Hamilton and Madison, and advanced policies to address needs expressed by the electorate. These policies revealed \u2013 sometimes remotely and sometimes directly \u2013 philosophical differences in how strong a federal government this nation should have.\u00a0 Within a few short election cycles, these leaders realized that by cooperating with like-minded colleagues through an enduring organization they had a better chance of realizing their agenda.\u00a0 Group competition formed quickly to meet market demand as expressed by the electorate.\r\n\r\nConclusion<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIt is easy to understand why political parties get a bad rap.\u00a0 The image of a lawmaker acting on her conscience to arrive at \u201cthe right answer\u201d is powerful.\u00a0 Washington certainly hoped the new republic would operate that way.\u00a0 Parties by nature provoke conflict \u2013 often in uncomfortable and ugly ways.\u00a0 Nevertheless, political parties provide a means to crystallize issues, principles and distinctions.\u00a0 Within a legislative setting, they offer a framework for holding members accountable on votes that lead to outcomes.\u00a0 This behavior prompted by parties honors the sentiment of voters even if it means at times ceding control to another group considered abhorrent.\u00a0 It is of little consolation, but consolation nonetheless, to know that the opposing group is situated within a framework of abiding commitment to the nation as embodied in the U.S. Constitution.\r\n\r\nIn this way, political parties provide a stabilizing force for those in government.\u00a0 Parties helped the country avoid fragmentation that likely would have resulted in despotism \u2013 the fate that befell prior efforts at democracy.\u00a0 As importantly, political parties generated legislation that allowed this nation to coalesce and prosper while resolving important differences over principle.\u00a0 That\u2019s not to say political parties perform this same role in a toxic environment.\u00a0 As mentioned previously, parties can cross into hard competition under certain circumstances and destroy democracy.\u00a0 Those circumstances will be addressed later.\u00a0 The next essay will examine how political parties solved an important problem related to the first innovation of democracy:\u00a0 how do you capture the collective intelligence of individuals when they have little to gain personally from participation in elections?\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nMack Paul is a member of the state advisory board of Common Cause NC and a founding partner of Morningstar Law Group.<\/em>\r\n\r\nParts in this series:\r\n\r\nIntroduction: Building Democracy 2.0<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 1: What Is Democracy and Why Is It Important?<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 2: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 3: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 4: The Rise and Function of Political Parties \u2013 Setting the Record Straight<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 5: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 6: Parties and the Challenge of Voter Engagement<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 7: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 8: Rousseau and \u2018the Will of the People\u2019<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 9: The Dark Secret of Majority\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 10: The Promise of Proportional\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 11: Majorities, Minorities and Innovation in Electoral\u00a0Design<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 12: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 13: Building Democracy 2.0: The Uses and Abuses of Redistricting in American Democracy<\/a>"}}]},"yoast_head":"\nBuilding Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force - Common Cause North Carolina<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause North Carolina\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/\",\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force - Common Cause North Carolina\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-11T09:23:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause North Carolina\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force - Common Cause North Carolina","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/","name":"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force - Common Cause North Carolina","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-08-11T09:23:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-how-political-parties-turned-conflict-into-a-productive-force\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Building Democracy 2.0: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/","name":"Common Cause North Carolina","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}