Political parties have undergone profound transformations since their inception, both in the United States and across the globe. These changes reflect the evolution of societal norms, economic priorities, technological advancements, and ideological shifts. Understanding how modern political parties diverge from their origins necessitates an examination of the principles upon which they were established and the contextual forces that have reshaped them.

The Origins of Political Parties

Political parties were not part of the original blueprint for democratic governance. In fact, the Founding Fathers of the United States expressed deep skepticism about the rise of factions. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, warned against the “mischiefs of faction,” fearing they could subvert the public good for private interests. Despite these apprehensions, parties emerged almost immediately as mechanisms to organize political competition and governance.
In the early years of the U.S. republic, two primary factions crystallized into parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, championed a strong central government and a modern financial system. In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, emphasized states’ rights and agrarianism. These parties were rooted in clear ideological distinctions and regional interests but lacked the rigid structures and expansive platforms of contemporary parties.
Globally, early political parties often formed around revolutionary movements or narrow class interests. In Europe, parties such as the British Conservative and Liberal parties evolved from parliamentary factions. Similarly, socialist and labor parties emerged in response to industrialization and workers’ rights movements. These early parties were generally ideologically driven, reflecting the specific concerns of their time.

Evolution of Political Parties Shift from Ideology to Pragmatism

One of the most significant shifts in political parties is their transition from strict ideological adherence to a more pragmatic, voter-centered approach. In the United States, this transformation was evident by the late 19th century. The Democratic and Republican parties, which supplanted the earlier Federalist and Whig parties, began prioritizing electoral success over strict adherence to founding principles. For instance, the Republican Party, founded in the 1850s on an anti-slavery platform, shifted its priorities over time, aligning with business interests and later becoming the party of limited government and social conservatism. Similarly, the Democratic Party, originally rooted in Jeffersonian agrarianism and Jacksonian populism, evolved to champion civil rights and progressive policies by the mid-20th century.
This shift is not unique to the United States. In Europe, traditional socialist parties, which once represented the working class, have moderated their platforms to appeal to broader constituencies. This pragmatism often blurs ideological lines, prompting criticism that parties lack a coherent vision.

Centralization and Professionalization

Modern political parties are far more centralized and professionalized than their predecessors. Early parties were loose coalitions of like-minded individuals. Today, parties operate as highly organized entities with national committees, dedicated fundraising arms, and sophisticated marketing operations. The rise of mass media and digital technologies has accelerated this trend, enabling parties to target voters with unprecedented precision.
This centralization has diminished the influence of local party organizations and grassroots movements. In the 19th century, local party bosses wielded significant power, particularly in urban centers. Today, power is concentrated in national leadership, which sets the agenda and controls resources. This shift has alienated some voters, who feel disconnected from party elites.

Influence of Money and Media

The role of money in politics has profoundly shaped modern parties. In the United States, the rise of Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs, coupled with landmark decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), has made fundraising a central focus for parties. This reliance on large donors and corporate contributions often skews priorities away from grassroots concerns.
Media has also transformed party dynamics. In the 19th century, parties relied on partisan newspapers to disseminate their messages. Today, the 24-hour news cycle, social media, and algorithm-driven platforms have created an environment where sensationalism often overshadows substantive debate. Parties have adapted by embracing sound bites, slogans, and image-based campaigning, which can oversimplify complex issues and polarize public opinion.
Divergence from Founding Principles

Ideological Shifts

Both major U.S. parties have strayed from their founding ideologies. The Republican Party, originally the party of abolition and civil rights, became the party of the “Southern Strategy” in the late 20th century, aligning with conservative white voters in the South. Conversely, the Democratic Party, which once championed segregation in the South, transformed into a coalition of minorities, urban progressives, and liberal intellectuals.
Globally, many parties have similarly drifted from their origins. For example, Britain’s Labour Party, founded to represent working-class interests, has often faced internal conflicts over its ideological direction, particularly during the leadership of figures such as Tony Blair, who embraced a centrist “Third Way” approach.

Populism and Polarization

Modern parties are increasingly shaped by populism and polarization. Populist movements often emerge within or alongside established parties, challenging traditional elites and norms. Donald Trump’s rise within the Republican Party exemplifies this trend, as does the influence of figures such as Bernie Sanders on the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.
Polarization further exacerbates the divergence from founding principles. In highly polarized environments, parties prioritize opposition to their rivals over policy innovation. This zero-sum mentality undermines the collaborative spirit that early parties often embodied, particularly in parliamentary systems where coalitions are necessary for governance.

Fragmentation and Realignment

The rigidity of modern party structures has led to fragmentation and realignment. In many democracies, traditional parties face challenges from new movements and independent candidates. In the United States, third-party efforts such as Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign or the Green Party’s environmental advocacy highlight voter dissatisfaction with the two-party system.
In Europe, the rise of far-right and far-left parties reflects discontent with centrist politics. Movements like France’s National Rally or Greece’s Syriza have capitalized on economic and cultural anxieties, forcing traditional parties to adapt or risk obsolescence.

The Impact of Technology and Globalization Digital Campaigning

The digital revolution has transformed how parties operate. Social media platforms enable direct communication with voters but also amplify misinformation and echo chambers. Data analytics and artificial intelligence allow parties to micro-target voters, raising ethical concerns about privacy and manipulation.

Globalization and Transnational Issues

Globalization has introduced new challenges that parties must address, such as climate change, migration, and international trade. These issues often transcend traditional ideological boundaries, requiring parties to adopt nuanced positions that may conflict with their historical platforms.
Modern political parties are far removed from their origins. While they were once ideologically driven and locally oriented, they have become centralized, professionalized entities focused on mass appeal and electoral success. The influence of money, media, and technology has further reshaped their priorities, often at the expense of grassroots engagement and ideological coherence. Polarization, populism, and the complexities of globalization continue to challenge traditional party structures, prompting realignment and innovation.
Despite these changes, political parties remain indispensable to democratic governance. They organize competition, aggregate interests, and provide a framework for policy-making. The key challenge for contemporary parties is to balance pragmatism with principle, ensuring they remain responsive to the evolving needs of the electorate while staying true to their foundational values.

AUTHOR

Aiman Benjamaa

©2025 Long Run News. All rights reserved.

1/17/2025 9:16 a.m. This story has been updated to reflect that the Israeli Cabinet has voted to approve the ceasefire deal.

A prisoner exchange and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was reached Wednesday, President Joe Biden announced. But, after “many months of intensive diplomacy” between the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar, the deal they devised would require Israel to give away the farm, leaving them no leverage to ensure that all their hostages are safely returned. “It’s a terrible deal for Israel,” complained Frank Gaffney, president of the Institute for the American Future. “I fear that it amounts to a victory for Hamas.”

The details of the deal have not been published, but according to reports, the ceasefire agreement would occur in three phases.

In the first phase, Israel would release 100 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences (a.k.a. “pedigreed jihadists,” Gaffney stated) and 1,000 other prisoners not involved with the October 7 attacks, and Hamas would release 33 hostages in return. “I’m getting some signals out of Israel that this is not the best deal for Israel,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “I’m told the ratio is 50-to-1 for every hostage.”

These lopsided prisoner exchanges would be spaced out over a six-week ceasefire — an unexplained delay that left Perkins “a little puzzled” — during which time Israel would pull its military out of all the populated areas of Gaza and allow hundreds of aid trucks to enter the Gaza Strip, bringing humanitarian aid and tens of thousands of temporary homes.

In the second phase, the two sides would declare a permanent end to the war, and Israel would withdraw the rest of its forces from Gaza. Hamas would also release more hostages in exchange for more prisoners.

In the third phase, Hamas would return the rest of the hostages, including the remains of those it killed. In return, it would get “a major reconstruction plan for Gaza,” in President Biden’s words.

To review, Israel would have to pack up and go home before getting the hostages it came for, and Hamas would not only have its pre-October 7 autonomy restored, but it would get its own personal Marshall Plan, and spring 50 terrorists per hostage.

What an odd way to punish its terrorist atrocities! What an odd way to deter future iterations.

Unfazed by these particulars, Biden declared he was “deeply satisfied” that a deal had been reached — likely so he can claim credit. “We got the world to endorse it,” he boasted. Given how the world feels about Israel, that should be a warning sign.

“I think it’s, in some ways, worse than the plan … that Joe Biden put together” last year, said Gaffney. By agreeing to this deal, Israel would be “effectively surrendering the entirety of Gaza to the people who perpetrated this horrific attack on October 7th,” and who have “been at war with Israel … from the inception of this terrorist organization and will be until it is put out of business.”

“All of the progress that Israel has made to root out Hamas, to deprive it of resources, to close its infrastructure … will essentially be undone because they will be allowed to have the run of Gaza again,” warned Gaffney.

And all of this assumes that Hamas will keep up its end of the agreement through all three phases. But that might be the least likely outcome, based on its past behavior and genocidal hatred of Israel. “Hamas broke ceasefires with Israel in 2003, 2007, 2008, and nine times in 2014,” listed National Review’s Jim Geraghty, not to mention a terrorist shooting during a ceasefire in 2024.

Over the past year, Geraghty continued, “Hamas either rejected ceasefire proposals or hostages-for-prisoners trades, walked away from the table, or refused to restart negotiations in the months of December, January, February, March, April, May, June, and July 2024. … Hamas has proven a bad-faith, bloodthirsty, irrational, and self-destructive negotiator at every step in this process.”

The deal is so bad for Israel that it could put Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in trouble domestically. “The Left has, of course, wanted his head on a pike for a long time,” said Gaffney, but “there are a lot of people now on the right who feel that all of this is for naught — all of the war efforts — if this [deal] is allowed to go forward.” Throughout the war, Israel has maintained its sovereign right to self-defense, which involves the right to react to the ongoing threat posed by Hamas, a terrorist group operating from within its borders.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have come out against the deal; while aligned with Netanyahu, they control enough votes to destabilize his coalition. “This could cause his governing coalition to implode,” Perkins exclaimed.

If fact, it seems that Netanyahu himself was reluctant to agree to the deal, until he met with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s incoming special envoy to the Middle East. The Biden administration’s State Department spokesman Matthew Miller confirmed that input from Trump’s team was “absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line.”

“Bibi [Benjamin Netanyahu] basically had his knees broken” by Witkoff, said Gaffney. “He took what Donald Trump meant as leverage on the Hamas terrorists, putting them on notice that if the hostages were not released … by the time he came to office … all hell would break loose. Now, that was intended to be pressuring Hamas. Instead, Witkoff — and the Biden team, of course — turned this into leverage on Bibi Netanyahu.”

In fact, Gaffney suspected Witkoff of showing more loyalty to Qatar than to Trump. Witkoff said “that ‘Qatar is doing God’s work in these negotiations.’ I think he might have meant Allah’s work, because what has been done, I think, is not in the service of Israel,” he alleged. “This is a man who may work for Qatar, but I don’t honestly think he’s worked effectively for Donald Trump or the interests of the United States, to say nothing of Israel.”

Trump initially celebrated the “EPIC” ceasefire agreement that “could only have happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies.”

But Gaffney cautioned that Trump might not have the full picture. “I hope that the president, Donald Trump, will think better of this as he learns more about what’s been done,” he said. “I’d be a little surprised if President Trump knew when he put [Witkoff] in this position that he had actually done a $600 million hotel deal with the nation of Qatar.”

The Israeli cabinet approved the deal “after examining all political, security, and humanitarian aspects, and understanding that the proposed deal supports the achievement of the war’s objectives, the Ministerial Committee for National Security Affairs (the Political-Security Cabinet) has recommended that the government approve the proposed framework..”

Netanyahu accused Hamas of creating a “last-minute crisis” by making additional demands over the identity of the prisoners Israel will release. Netanyahu explained the deal Israel agreed to “gives Israel veto power over the release of mass murderers who are symbols of terror,” but Hamas now “demands to dictate the identity of these terrorists.”

Instead of approving the lopsided ceasefire right away, Israel launched overnight airstrikes against 50 terrorist targets in Gaza. Hamas-aligned sources claimed that the airstrikes killed at least 75 people — most of whom were probably terrorists. In a statement, the IDF confirmed the death of Muhammad Hasham Zahedi Abu Al-Rus, a terrorist who participated in the October 7, 2023 massacre at the Nova Music Festival.

The world may be ready to move on from Hamas’s atrocities, but Israel will not — cannot — rest secure until the Hamas threat within their own borders has been eliminated.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.