I'll start off here by noting that this isn't a commentary on any political party, or any candidate, but rather an observation on an item of history, and a trend.
On Monday the local newspaper, The Casper Star Tribune, runs articles from its predecessor papers which look back on the news of former eras. This past Monday, this being the political season, the paper ran a couple of old articles noting the fortunes of the Socialist Party and the Progressive Part, in the second decade of the 20th Century. In both instances the newspaper heartily endorsed what it thought was the growing popularity of those parties. While not adopting the platform of either, it noted with approval some of the concerns that those parties featured in their platforms, and noted with approval that the parties were growing in size.
On the same day, in the editorial section, the paper joined in with Chris Henrichsen in criticizing the current leadership of the present Wyoming Democratic Party. Henrichsen, who is competing with Cynthia Lummis in what is for him a doomed effort to obtain the position of Congressman from Wyoming, complained recently, in a Tweet (and as I don't Tweet, or even look at Tweets, people who are interested in that Tweet will have to look for it elsewhere) that the local Democratic Party needed new leadership. The reason for his complaint was that he recently was present at a Democratic fundraiser in Jackson Wyoming, which was apparently held to raise money for Montana Democratic Senator John Testor. Testor is apparently in a tight race this year, and so the Wyoming Democrats determined to help him out with a fundraiser in Teton County, which of course is not only near Montana, but which is likely to draw more Democrats, and more importantly more Democrats with more surplus money, than other Wyoming counties. The basis of Henrichsen's complaining Tweet was that he wasn't allowed to speak at the fundraiser even though he was there and he's actually a Wyoming candidate. The Tribune agreed with him. I have to say, that I agree with him and the Tribune.
The Tribune, and Henrichsen, went on to complain that the Democratic leadership in the state was anemic and effectively doing nothing for local candidates. I'll leave that issue to the Democrats, but in keeping with the theme of this blog noting long-term changes, here's a truly remarkable one here in the state. Wyoming effectively is a one party state at present. But it hasn't always been by any means. That would likely be a huge surprise to most Wyomingites who were born post 1980 or so.
Prior to 1980, more or less, Wyoming had a fairly active, if in the minority, Democratic Party. And of course the party was significant enough recently that it was still able to elect a Governor, that being Dave Freudenthal. Freudenthal, however, was an exception even in his own time in being alone in the Executive branch as a Democrat and he fairly frequently made it known that he was independent of the national party. The last Wyoming Governor who could count on there being a few other Democrats around was Mike Sullivan, who is now several governors back. Sullivan went on to serve in the Clinton Administration as the US Ambassador to Ireland. Within the last 15 years or so the party has all but died in terms of a legislative presence. This year there are quite a few seats they are not even running a candidate for and the primary election is the real race for many seats, as there are multiple Republicans running for the same seat in the primary but the winner will face no real opposition in the general election, if any opposition at all.
But this wasn't always the case.
The Republican Party has always been the majority party in Wyoming. This is true going all the way back to statehood. In part, that's true due a historical accident. Wyoming became a state in 1890, and given that it was on the northern plains, and given that the Civil War had occurred only 25 years prior to that, it would have been almost impossible for the state to have started off with a Democratic majority. Outside of the South, the Republican Party dominated in most regions following the Civil War, and that continued on for several decades. The party, however, was not a completely unified party, and it had not been anywhere in the US since about 1864. From about 1864 up through 1919, the party was divided internally between a "liberal" wing (in modern parlance) and a more "conservative" wing. This reflected itself in different ways over time, but the point is that the GOP wasn't really a conservative party so in some ways looking back to that era isn't particularly instructive. The Democratic Party, from some point way before the Civil War, up until the election of Woodrow Wilson, was a "conservative" party, however. So there to, a person cannot look at the Democrats of 1890, or 1900, and really compare them to the Democrats of 1990, or 2000. It just wouldn't make sense. And it is not the point of this post to actually discuss modern politics anyway.
Republican Francis E. Warren, Wyoming's first state Governor.
What is revealing, however, is that the state had a real Democratic party in 1890, and thereafter for many, many decades. Staring in the 1890s, moreover, the State actually had a Populist Party. The Populist were a serious third party that reflected the values of the Progressive Movement, a major "liberal" movement of the era which had an enormous impact on 20th Century politics after it evolved into the Progressives.
John E. Osborne, Wyoming's first Democratic Governor, who served from 1893 to 1895. The scandal of Republican Governor Amos Barber's association with the Johnson County Invasion was a factor in his election.
Populism was relatively small here, but the Progressive movement was not. The Progressive Party took the values of Populism, as well as a host of other well developed "liberal" concepts, some of which would be quite radical even today, and succeeded from the Republican Party, where they were struggling from control. The motivating factor in that, and the creation of the party, was Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 decision to run for President against William Howard Taft, the incumbent. Taft took the GOP nomination, and the Progressives bolted, forming their own party. That rift really gave rise to the the proto-Republican Party we have today, although not really in a purely recognizable form. Oddly enough, it also gave rise to the modern Democratic Party we can recognize somewhat, as the Democratic Party, sensing an opportunity, also adopted Progressive values that year. Outside the South, that converted the Democrats into a "liberal" party.
In Wyoming the Progressive Party, lead as it was by Theodore Roosevelt, was a popular party, and at that time left leaning parties were gaining some significant Wyoming interest in any event. Joseph M. Carey, a very significant Wyoming politician who was serving as Governor at the time was one of the founding figures of the Progressive Party, so, while Theodore Roosevelt never became the Progressive Party President, Joseph M. Carey was a Progressive Party Governor. It would surprise most Wyomingites today that Wyoming actually had a third party Governor at one time. It might be even more surprising for some to learn that when Carey went out, in 1915, a Democrat, John B. Kendrick came in.
John M. Carey, left, 1912.
As surprising as those things might be, the articles noted by the Tribune on Monday, falling in around 1912, would be even more surprising. As noted, the Socialist were gaining adherents. They'd remain on some Wyoming ballots until at least World War Two. During one Presidential election of the 1930s the Socialist candidate would actually outpoll the Republican and the Democratic candidates in Sweetwater County, reflecting the views of the heavily unionized mine workers there at that time.
John B. Kendrick, Wyoming's second Democratic Governor, following Republican, then Progressive, Joseph M. Carey. He resigned when he was elected to the United State Senate in 1916.
Since World War Two this has all changed, of course, as it has in most of the country for that matter. The Democrats remained a serious contender for decades after the war, and the state sent some Democrats to Washington, such as Lester Hunt, Gale McGee and Teno Roncolio. Those days, however appear to be all but over, at least in the current era, reflecting a serious decline in Democratic fortunes in the state in the 1990s. The Star Tribunes article urging a change in the leadership of the Democratic Party has some good points, but at present Democratic fortunes here are so low that perhaps it matters very little what the Democrats currently do. Indeed, perhaps reflecting their lack of ability to field candidates, the are some small local third parties for the first time in eons and, more significantly, there appear to be some internal rifts in the Republican Party.
At any rate, the point of all of this is not to endorse one party over another, or to even analyze their current fortunes in the state. I'm not even suggesting anything regarding the current election, or any of the candidates running from any party. Rather, in keeping with the focus of the blog, the point is to look at the state in the past and track some changes. Here is an enormous one. Wyoming today is effectively a one party state, with the real contest in many elections being the primary election. This wasn't always the case.