historical data on US party competency

[gib65]

The US has been around for about 230 years now. That's enough time to do a retroactive study on how well each of the two dominant parties have faired. So I'm wondering if any such studies have been conducted. In other words, is there any correlation between which party is in power and how well the US is doing at that time. I guess the best way to measure this would be in economic terms, but you could also do it in terms of other things like relative crime rates, global opinion towards the US, warfare/peace, etc.

[ParanoiA]

The US has been around for about 230 years now. That's enough time to do a retroactive study on how well each of the two dominant parties have faired.

 

I'm not sure you could really tell without half a million variables to be worked out. One party may be in power during a time the previous party's policies are still in effect. Also, consider that neither party can really fully implement their ideology, which could feedback negative results due to incomplete dynamics. For instance, how can conservativism really be measured for success when entitlement programs are still in place? How can liberalism really be measured when large portions of the market remain unregulated?

[CDarwin]

The US has been around for about 230 years now. That's enough time to do a retroactive study on how well each of the two dominant parties have faired. So I'm wondering if any such studies have been conducted. In other words, is there any correlation between which party is in power and how well the US is doing at that time. I guess the best way to measure this would be in economic terms, but you could also do it in terms of other things like relative crime rates, global opinion towards the US, warfare/peace, etc.

 

Right off the bat I feel I should note that the United States hasn't had the GOP and the Dems for 230 years. The Democratic Party traces it's ideological roots back to the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson who opposed Hamilton and the Federalists. The Republican Party is much more recent, just barely antedating the Civil War. It arose out of the abolitionist members of the defunct Whig Party (which itself arose specifically to oppose Jackson's Democrats).

 

The platforms of the two parties have also changed dramatically. The Democrats used to be the party of limited government, whereas the Republicans used to be the party of abolition and punishing the South.

[Pangloss]

The above two posts are perfectly valid, but I think there's also a real simple answer to the question: Yes. This sort of thing is done all the time as part of promotional campaigns. It's typically done by subject matter, so for example you'd see a study showing how the economy fared under Democrats versus Republicans, or tax revenues, or civil liberties, and so on.

 

My suggestion would be to hit the web sites of some of the larger special interest groups, such as AARP, NOW, NRA, AAA (yes, the auto club -- they love statistics), AMA, etc. You can also hit some of the web sites for the federal agencies for corroberative historical data (some of them are remarkably easy to use).

 

This page may be helpful:

http://usspecialinterestgroups.com/

 

If you find anything interesting please feel free to pass it along here.

[Sisyphus]

I'm sure this sort of thing is done all the time, but I'm also sure it has almost no value, for the reasons discussed above. There are too many other variables, and parties change too much over time to get any kind of meaningful answer.

[Pangloss]

I agree, although I think there is marginal value in the fact that neither party stands out as "better" in the big picture.

[iNow]

I agree, although I think there is marginal value in the fact that neither party stands out as "better" in the big picture.

 

Indeed. Nor do party-based actions of the past serve to offer any any valid indication of the efficacy of party-based actions in the present or future.