For better or for worse, political parties are an accepted part of the American governmental system, but the image of the purpose of political parties hasn't always been as clear as it might seem in the current mass media-driven age. In fact, says Ball State historian James Connolly, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries there was a general questioning of how politics and political parties should work, what they should do, and who they served.

Connolly's research niche--the American political parties of the late 19th and early 20th centuries--is a natural fit for the agenda of Ball State's Center for Middletown Studies, which Connolly directs. The renowned research and archival center derives its name from sociological studies first conducted by Robert and Helen Lynd in the early 1920s in which the Lynds examined Muncie as Middletown, the archetypal small American city. "The Middletown studies were part of a larger effort in the early 20th century to redefine the United States in the face of massive immigration and class conflict," Connolly notes.

The period from 1840 to 1920 (an era labeled the "party period" by historians) is the subject of Connolly's forthcoming book, Democratic Visions: The Urban Political Imagination in the Industrializing United States, to be published by Cornell University Press. A National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Stipend award and a Gilder Lehrman Fellowship in the History of American Civilization have supported his research and writing.

"What I'm most interested in is how we made American politics work in a class-divided society," Connolly explains. His research focuses on the urban dimensions of party politics, particularly during the Gilded Age--a term coined by Mark Twain in the late 19th century. During this time, the urban poor turned to the political party for relief and services, and reformers depicted parties as "machines" that manipulated working-class immigrant voters without scruple. The changing face of the American voter influenced the way politicians worked to "get out the vote," says Connolly. "The process of defining democracy was particularly intense in urban areas with large immigrant populations and mass industrialization."

By the 1920s the American political imagination had come to grips with a plural society, viewing the political party as "a rogue, but an engaging rogue," he explains. The time of a romantic political ideal passed away with the end of the Progressive Era.

From Connolly's vantage point, today's political pundits look askance at notions of politicians being primarily concerned with lofty ideals and the general welfare. "We don't see 'the common good' as being so possible because we are used to seeing politics in less idealistic, more pragmatic terms," he says. "At the same time, you get a sense that people long for that innocent idealism. Look at our flirtation with Ross Perot--he made it sound very simple."

As for the present political climate, Connolly notes that the accepted concept of winning elections by appealing to groups of voters, whether "soccer moms" or "NASCAR dads," has not always been the case. "In the 19th century there was debate about whether or not appealing to special interest groups was okay," Connolly says. "Now we take it for granted that the political process is more about winning than it is about ideals."