The beginning of the end for one or both national parties

The Democratic and Republican parties have been around for a long time. Their size and power together with the collusive stranglehold they have on American politics have kept them going for nearly two centuries. They've survived for so long, in fact, that people forget that they haven't been around forever -- that other major parties have come and gone. But now maybe their time, too, is approaching.

What we're seeing today resembles the presidential election of 1824, in which Andrew Jackson, the most popular man in America, won the popular vote. But he didn't win the electoral vote, which meant the House of Representatives -- aka the Establishment -- got to choose the president. It chose not Jackson, but John Quincy Adams, who'd lost the popular vote to Jackson. Adams then awarded Jackson's chief opponent in the House, Henry Clay, the coveted post of secretary of state. Jackson supporters cried foul: A corrupt bargain, they claimed, had denied the presidency to the candidate with the most votes.

The Jackson men didn't take this lying down. Instead, over the next several years, they laid the foundations of a new political party designed to make sure that Jackson won in the 1828 rematch. Thus was the Democratic Party born.

The Jacksonians' plan was simple: As the party's name suggested, it revolved around more democracy. Jackson being so popular, the idea was to enfranchise as many voters as possible (except for blacks and women, of course -- the Democrats didn't want to be too democratic, which might undermine the power of the white male Establishment). This would make sure that Jackson would easily win the 1828 popularity contest. It worked.

As part of this new system, the national convention system evolved. Now, instead of being nominated by a handful of party bigwigs, candidates were chosen by convention delegates. But for nearly a century, these delegates were chosen not by the voters, but by members of state party conventions, who in turn were chosen by local conventions. This multi-stage process allowed party bosses -- i.e., that pesky Establishment -- to game the system. It was more democratic than the old system of the congressional bigwigs choosing their party's nominees -- but "more democratic" isn't necessarily "democratic."

Case in point: In 1968, when Hubert Humphrey got the Democratic nomination, he did so without even participating in a single primary. He was what passed for the Old Guard, and the Establishment nominated him rather than permit upstart Gene McCarthy to translate his primary victories into a nomination. In the wake of this, feeling the heat, both the Democrats and Republicans began placing more emphasis on the importance of the primaries. Again, the new approach was more democratic, but not necessarily democratic. (You don't believe me? One word: Superdelegates.)

Which leads us to the current mess. More people are voting for Donald Trump in the Republican primaries than for anyone else. Yet, as recent events in Colorado show, it isn't about democracy as far as the Establishment is concerned. What we're seeing from the Trump supporters in consequence is akin to the Jacksonians' reaction in 1824. Call them what you will -- elitists, rules mechanics, party bosses -- but whatever their label, they are blocking democracy, not facilitating it. The same thing is true, though not as clear-cut, in the Democratic Party. This is oligarchy.

But it isn't the Democrats, yet, who are facing the imminent destruction of their party. The Republicans, on the other hand, are careening toward a replay of the 1912 election. In that campaign, firebrand former President Theodore Roosevelt had Republican voters' support, but the Establishment (it does seem to crop up a lot, doesn't it?) denied him the nomination by convention engineering, giving it instead to incumbent William Howard Taft. Result? The Roosevelt people bolted, creating a third party that outpolled Taft in both the popular and electoral votes -- and ensuring the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

This is obviously where the Republicans are heading. It's been obvious for months. Yet every wing of the party seems hell-bent on this scorched-earth approach (If my Republican doesn't win, NO Republican wins). The Establishment (them again) hints that it prefers an Establishment Democrat in the White House next year -- Hillary Clinton -- to a non-Establishment Republican (Trump, or even Ted Cruz). Thus the Establishment, in its lust for business as usual in Washington, shows its utter addiction to power and its contempt for true democracy. This attitude is so blatant that, unlike 1912, the Republican Party itself may not long survive the 2016 election. And Democrats, take note: Indications are your time is coming as well.

Of course, the Establishment's power, the resources it commands, are vast. The parties have hung on this long for a reason. In recent decades they've used their power to damage our nation's economy perhaps past the point of saving. (News flash: still-rising $19 trillion national debt that nobody in Washington talks about.) But maybe the people -- that vast, dangerous, destructive animal -- have finally realized that this is a shell game.

Is this election just a flash in the pan? Once Hillary has won, will the voters shrug and resign themselves to a new era of business as usual? Or is this the beginning of the end for one, or both, of our two major parties?

Buckner F. Melton Jr. teaches at Middle Georgia State University.

This story was originally published April 14, 2016 at 9:31 PM with the headline "The beginning of the end for one or both national parties ."