Nonpartisan League founder A. C. Townley had a simple strategy to elect NPL members to state office in North Dakota. It relied on getting members to ignore their old political tribalism while taking advantage of others. Townley figured out that he could make use of a very recent development, the primary election of party nominees, to take over both major parties. Townley’s thinking was, why try to start a third party when, using the primary system, he could more easily take over the old ones?
[This is part four in a series on lessons to be learned from the history of the Nonpartisan League. If you missed the previous three, here is part one, here is part two, and here is part three.]
After organizing a large group of farmers into the NPL, a dues-paying organization with its own media operation, the next step was selecting candidates. At local NPL meetings members were selected to run for state office regardless of their previous party affiliation, although the majority ran as Republicans in Republican-dominant North Dakota. In Democratic-leaning states, the NPL mainly ran Democrats. All that mattered was that they pledged to support the shared goals of the NPL. From “Political Prairie Fire” by Robert Morlan:
[E]xtreme care was utilized in the selections, and candidates were picked with little regard for party affiliation, which, as the Leader remarked, was “as immaterial as the way he wears his whiskers.” [...]
A political convention had met, with an almost unprecedented singleness of purpose, to endorse candidates to run on the tickets of both major parties. While there was only one Democrat among the group running for state office, there was a better spread among legislative candidates: 98 Republicans, 21 Democrats, and 2 Socialists had been selected in the district conventions, and it is interesting to note that while many districts were solidly Republican and a few had endorsed all Democrats, there were numerous cases of both Republicans and Democrats selected in the same districts, and one of the Socialist candidates had been put up in an otherwise all Republican district. Nonpartisanship was apparently working, though the idea was still too much for the Herald to grasp. Known Democrats at the Fargo convention had spoken publicly in favor of Republican candidates and vice versa! “Why,” it asked plaintively, “is it the business of a Democrat to interest himself in the selection of Republican candidates?”
The direct primary had been put in place in North Dakota only a few years before, in 1912. Using this new development to take over the existing parties had two main advantages.
First, it allowed the NPL to leverage its numbers for maximum effect. Fewer people voted in the primary election, so it took fewer votes to win. Also, among other Republicans at the time, labeled the “old gang” by the NPL, there was a sharp divide between the Progressives and Stalwarts. This divide split the non-NPL Republicans, further reducing the number of votes it took to win a plurality in the primaries.
The other advantage of taking over the existing parties through the direct primary system is that it allowed the NPL to play on other people’s tribal identity to the existing party system. The state was so Republican that it was almost inconceivable that voters would not support the Nonpartisan League’s Republican candidate for Governor after he won the party primary. The NPL candidates in the general election won not just the votes of the NPL supporters. They benefited from holdover, traditional party-line voters.
The NPL basically became a shadow political party within the established party system. The NPL membership voted for candidates regardless of party, because they were supporting the NPL-endorsed candidate in each race. Once in office, these NPL members’ true loyalty was to the NPL and not to their official parties. NPL legislators met in their own special bipartisan caucus to decide legislative action. They used major party lines just as a tool to get elected and to advance the goals of the NPL. Through this strategy, the NPL managed to seize control of the state government in 1918 and enact the bulk of its platform.
Similar to the way that the Anti-Saloon League played both parties against each other using a traditional balance-of-power role, the NPL also embodied the political credo of the famous rail tycoon Jay Gould: “In a Republican district I was a strong Republican; in a Democratic district I was Democratic, and in doubtful districts I was doubtful. In politics I was an Erie Railroad man all the time.”
By creating a dues-paying membership with its own media source, with zealous political loyalty to the NPL and not the political parties, the NPL created an army of voters who could maximize its leverage by taking advantage of the new direct primary system. It was a great example of strong organization combining with a smart plan to exploit new opportunities and lead to victory.
Lessons for today
In many ways, I think, the emergence of the direct primary inhibited the development of third parties in American history. Along with our first-past-the-post, single-member- districts election system, it stabilized the Democratic/Republican dynamic, despite the fact that the parties have sometimes flipped sides on important issues.
Direct primaries mean that almost all the same intense organization required to establish a new political party can as easily, or even more easily, be used to take control of the existing parties. Winning as a third party requires somewhere around 35 to 50 percent of the general election vote. Winning the primary of the dominant political party in a district requires gaining only about a quarter or less of the votes it would take to win as a third party or independent candidate. If the vote could be properly divided, it would probably take an organization half as many well-directed members to have two candidates win both parties’ nominations in the primary than it would take to get one candidate elected in November as an independent.
Political parties only stand for what their elected representatives stand for. The NPL showed that a well-organized group of voters can use the primary system to reshape one or even both major parties in its own image. After all, farmers were the bulk of North Dakota’s population, so the major political parties should have been very pro-farmer.
About 100 years ago, progressives were a real force in the Republican Party, because that is the party they voted for and ran candidates in. Now progressives are a force in the Democratic Party for the same reason. Neither party was or is inherently progressive. They are only that way because that is the party progressives use to advance their political and policy goals.





15 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
So Jon, what are the odds of anyone at the national level being able to apply the NPL lessons today?
And again thanks for the continuing education.
low probably
“Political parties only stand for what their elected representatives stand for.”
Wouldn’t that be nice!
Of course in Washington today elected representatives take their orders from the party bosses who fund their campaigns.
the party bosses are often elected members of the party.
Hmmm.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this NPL series, the AntiSaloon League series, etc. But it seems to me that when I look into my memory, and see where FDL has been previously effective (Accountability Now with Halter, keeping the PO alive in the HIR debates, etc.), plus seeking the new-funding paradigm, all of that put together has led me to think that FDL is testing the methods, struggling to articulate the new paradigm and put some action around it.
Even with the chances being “low probably.” :)
There is a big gap between learning lessons and adopting tactics from previous groups and being able to pull off what the NPL did on a national level.
No argument from me there.
There’s a fine film about the Non-Partisan League called “Northern Lights.” Saw it when it first came out back in 1978 and asked my elderly sources in the NYC Socialist politics of the time if they knew of the League but they didn’t.
Great post Jon. Unfortunately, were not all farmers. I’m a gardener does that count?
it is sad that we lack the unity of a shared profession with a shared set of concerns. It makes political organizing difficult people don’t easily see how some things should be important to the entire middle class.
That’s pretty much what I was thinking as I was reading this series. We don’t all have the same source of income, or the same vocational issues. We have an interest in certain issues, but how that interest is expressed and how important it is can vary a lot from person to person. We’re more like the NRA than the NPL, but we’re not really like either.
Tea Party activists are doing just what is described in this post.
Great post Jon.
We may lack the unity of a shared profession, but not that of shared concerns, and the further the major parties drift from truly serving the people, the closer we will get to organizing around those concerns: the middle class issues you mention.
I’ve been surfing Wikipedia a lot lately and reading about Emma Goldman (“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”), credit unions, and the Haymarket affair, among other things. At first blush these may seem only loosely affiliated or totally unrelated, but all – and many others – point to just how close America came, at the turn of the 20th Century, to becoming a vastly different, far more people/freedom/worker-oriented society, only to have the effort largely (though not entirely) quashed by a combination of fear mongering and historical revision. That formula has been faithfully followed ever since, successfully enough to work up ’til this moment.
I believe a little more firmly every day that if change is truly to come to our society, it will be through general strikes and other worker uprisings. The women’s movement allowed Business to benefit beyond its most optimistic hopes. Think about it: The one-salary household of the 40s, 50s, and most of the 60s, in which one spouse worked and the other stayed home, has given way to two-paycheck households which – despite doubling the hours worked outside the home (tripling is more like it, truth be told) – are so deeply in debt that saving is impossible.
This means Business is getting TWICE the amount of work performed for roughly the same cost in terms of “present day” dollars. (It’s probably closer to four times that, when both the longer hours we work and technological advances which did not exist prior to the 70s are factored in.)
For example, let’s say that in 1960 it took one man one day to produce one widget, and the y dollars that man earned allowed him to pay his family’s bills and save a little, while his partner stayed home and raised kids, did the housework, etc. Today, employers pay both partners roughly the same y, attested to by the fact that it now takes two paychecks to live what constitutes a similarly comfortable lifestyle. In other words, today’s y, the earnings of two, is barely enough to cover the household bills and almost never enough to save anything. So with 80 hours, plus the longer hours we work, plus the advanced technology utilized in the workplace, employers have gained production capacity to a ridiculous extent, enabling them to produce perhaps four widgets (or more) per day – at the same “real” cost (to them) that it took to produce only one, 50 years ago.
Revolt, if it comes, will come from the workers – and a huge basis for it will be higher wages, fewer hours, free healthcare, free education through college, and an end to industries which unduly threaten our environment.
Jon. Thank you so much for this series. This one resonates with my experiences in hoping to find ways for our local progressives to gain more power by becoming dominant in my and area county Democratic Parties which are so weak in my area. Unfortunately most of the good politicians are Blue Dogs and the good Progressives more “diffuse.” But I think its a if not the place to begin..
I swear if I were younger and hadn’t had to take out a couple of years to be sick I still could have gotten something going. It is there and open, I am certain in many of the red state Democratic Parties. Organizing Progressives as the NPL did over regions and nationally I do think could give us more voice.
I love this series for the hope it gives me.