Some historians have recently challenged the “party period paradigm,” the vi

游客2024-01-10  24

问题     Some historians have recently challenged the “party period paradigm,” the view, advanced by McCormick and others, that political parties—especially the two major parties—in the United States between the years 1835 and 1900 evoked extraordinary loyalty from voters and dominated political life. Voss-Hubbard cites the frequency of third-party eruptions during the period as evidence of popular antipathy to the two-party regime. He correctly credits third parties with helping generate the nineteenth century’s historically high rates of voter turnout by forcing major parties to bolster supporters’ allegiance, lest minor parties siphon off their votes, and with pushing policy demands that the major parties ignored. Formisano stresses the pervasive record of nonpartisan and anti-party governance at the local level, and women’ s frequent participation in nineteenth-century public life, prior to their enfranchisement, in nonpartisan and antiparty ways as evidence of the limitations of the party period paradigm. Yet McCormick would deny that the existence of antiparty sentiment during the period undermined the paradigm, since he has always acknowledged the residual strength of such sentiment during the nineteenth century. In any case, the strength of the paradigm is its comparative thrust: the contrast it draws between the period in question and earlier and later political eras. [br] The primary purpose of the passage is to

选项 A、correct a common misconception about a historical period
B、identify a feature of a historical period that has often been overlooked
C、challenge the validity of evidence used to support a claim
D、discuss certain challenges to a particular view
E、account for a particular feature of historical period

答案 D

解析 A项文中未提及common。B项overlooked在本文中无法得知。C项本文没有质疑任何的证据,只是质疑了麦考密克的观点。E项本文重点不在于描述一个时期。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3349646.html
最新回复(0)