There’s been much speculation amongst us righty bloggers recently (some would say wishful thinking) that the Democratic Party may be in danger of going the way of the Dodo bird; that extinction of the oldest political party in the world may be just around the corner.

It isn’t just a matter of idle dreaming or rank speculation. There have been other instances in American history of political parties outliving their usefulness and dying an ignomious death.

The Federalist Party was the first political party in American history. It was formed out of the necessity to see the Constitution ratified in spite of opposition from some leading personalities of the Revolution. Such men as Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Mason spoke out against ratification. To counter the arguments of such persuasive men, Alexander Hamilton and other supporters of ratification formed a loose network of like minded correspondents to plot strategy during the ratification debates in the various states.

Later on, Washington (who abhorred factions) realized he needed the Federalists to counter opposition to his neutrality policy as it related to Great Britain’s war against Napoleon. The conflict between the admirers of the French revolution (Jefersonian democrats) and the British opposition to the “terror” (Federalists) dominated politics for all of the 1790’s.

The Federalists dominated political life in the early Republic—until Jefferson’s victory in 1800. The “Democratic Republicans” (later changed to Democratic Party) successfully portrayed the Federalists as representing the interests of the rich (something they apparently never tire of doing to their political opposition). While remaining a force in local politics in some northern states until the 1820’s, the Federalists gradually disappeared to be replaced by the Whigs.

The Whig party arose because democracy, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Established in 1834, the Whig Party was a reaction to the authoritarian policies of Andrew Jackson. “King Andrew,” as his critics labeled him, had enraged his political opponents by his actions regarding the Bank of the United States, Native Americans, the Supreme Court and his use of presidential war powers. The term Whig was taken from English politics, the name of a faction that opposed royal tyranny.

The Whigs were a diverse group. “Conscience Whigs” in the North united with “Cotton Whigs” in the South every four years to nominate a President. Beyond that, there was very little unanimity of opinion on just what a “Whig” was. Northern Whigs were either anti-slavery or, as in the case of Abraham Lincoln, against the expansion of slavery. They were also for “national improvements” like roads and railroads as well as for homesteaders and funding higher education.

Southern Whigs were, for the most part, political opportunists who saw opposition to the Democrats as a way to achieve power. While opposing Andrew Jackson’s expansion of federal power, their real interests were keeping high tariffs for their cotton and low tariffs on manufactured goods.

Clearly, such diversity of interests (reminiscent of today’s Democrats) caused unbearable strains between the two factions. While successfully electing Presidents in 1836, 1840 and 1848—accomplished by nominating war heroes William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor for the latter two cycles—the Whig party collapsed under its own contradictions in the election of 1852 over slavery. Replaced by the Republican party in the North in 1854, the Whigs died an irrelevant death following the election of 1856.

Are there lessons for the Democratic Party in the death of the Whigs? Joe Trippi thinks so. Trippi, Howard Dean’s campaign manager, wrote on 11/30/04:

“Meanwhile, Mr. Bush, received 50 million votes in 2000, and 59 million in 2004. He added nine million votes. That’s because Karl Rove had a plan and the campaign executed it brilliantly. But the problem for Democrats is not Mr. Rove; it’s that they’re doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That’s the definition of insanity.”

This accusation was made of the Whig party in 1854 by none other than Abraham Lincoln:

“Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong…”

More and more Democrats are leaving their party. The southern Democrat is an endangered species. Western Democrats have carved out privileged enclaves for themselves in states like Washington and Oregon where transplanted Californians, escaping the high taxes and congestion found further south, now seem bent on bringing those very same “benefits” to the great northwest. And Midwestern Democrats(outside of large urban areas) are deserting their party largely as a result of a feeling that liberals don’t appreciate the simple patriotism and love of country which has long been a staple of everyday life in rural America.

Here’s how one historian described the death of the Whig Party:

“Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held “conviction” for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with what after the Compromise of 1850 became the great issue of American politics, the expansion of slavery.” (Daniel Walker Howe, “The Political Culture of the American Whigs”)

Sound familiar? The “Great Issue” of American politics today is the War on Terror. Will the Democrat’s inability to deal with this issue become their undoing? Only time will tell.