Two Guesses

[J. J.]

After checking my crystal ball, some pigeon entrails, my ouija  board, and my tarot cards, channeling both The Amazing Criswell and Orson Wells, and speaking to the Delphic Oracle, John Titor, the time traveler, and Trixie, who wears a halter top in January and stands at the corner of Broad and Poplar Streets in North Philadelphia, I'm prepared to make to vague, completely irrational predictions that will take months and years to be proven correct, if in fact they are:

1.  In 2008, a Republican will be elected President of the United States.

2.  By 2016, the US will be beginning or in the midst of, a political re-alignment.

You read it here first (or did you?).

[bullmoose88]

What sort of re-alignment?

[J. J.]

What sort of re-alignment?

Political.   I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

[bullmoose88]

What sort of re-alignment?

Political.   I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

Bah J.J. Bah.

[J. J.]

What sort of re-alignment?

Political.   I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

Bah J.J. Bah.

It's a roundabout way of saying, I have a gut feeling that politics will change dramatically in the next decade, that the 2010's will look like the 1980's or 1930's, but not this year.

[Χahar]

Interesting.

[CultureKing]

What sort of re-alignment?

Political.   I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

Bah J.J. Bah.

It's a roundabout way of saying, I have a gut feeling that politics will change dramatically in the next decade, that the 2010's will look like the 1980's or 1930's, but not this year.

So we will finally have three parties in the US:
The Greens
The Democrats
The Social Democrats

Good call   

[J. J.]

What sort of re-alignment?

Political.   I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

Bah J.J. Bah.

It's a roundabout way of saying, I have a gut feeling that politics will change dramatically in the next decade, that the 2010's will look like the 1980's or 1930's, but not this year.

So we will finally have three parties in the US:
The Greens
The Democrats
The Social Democrats

Good call   

I think it will be something dramatic, but I don't know what.  A few possibilities:

1.  An end to "racial" politics. (Good)
2.  A more authoritarian culture.  (Probably bad)
3.  Less religion in politics. (Good)
4.  More religion in politics. (Bad)
5.  A consensus on environmental issues. (Probably good)
6.  An end to "class warfare" politics. (Good)
7.  Division into class politics.  (Bad)

I don't know, but these are options.

[J. J.]

I have a advantage over most posters here; I'm old.  It gives me only a slight advantage, but I was around for the Reagan Re-alignment and was interested in politics then.

In July 1984, at the end of junior year in college, I had a class on American presidential elections; my class was assigned for the midterm to write a paper on if there was a political re-alignment.  After turning it in, our professor announced that he did not think there was a re-alignment.  In November 1984, after the election, he announced that he now believed that there was a re-alignment.


On July 22, 1984, I submitted a paper entitled Conservative Re-Alignment In America.

I concluded that we were completing a re-alignment and made four predictions:

1.  The re-alignment will take American politics in a conservative, though not necessarily Republican direction. (I would argue that WJC was more conservative than any president from 1961 to 1980.)

2.  The Yuppie will emerge as an important political group.

3.  Policy, especially economic policy, will be conservative.

4.  The parties will continue to lose influence.

I would argue that all four conclusions were correct (though you could argue that the parties didn't get too much weaker) and that those things pretty much explained American politics from 1980 until today. 

I'm suggesting that this pattern will be changing, perhaps as early as the next presidential election cycle (2012), probably no later than the cycle after that (2016).  I may not like it, but I think it is coming.

[Secretary Polnut]

Well... I think that's not mind-boggling.

It's about time for another re-alignment anyway.

[Sam Spade]

Reasonable.  I would agree that the parties have not become stronger, rather the country has become more polarized, and that polarization has fallen along party lines, not necessarily strengthening the parties (or something like that).

When are you going to know for sure, so I can plan ahead.

[J. J.]

Reasonable.  I would agree that the parties have not become stronger, rather the country has become more polarized, and that polarization has fallen along party lines, not necessarily strengthening the parties (or something like that).

When are you going to know for sure, so I can plan ahead.

If it's anything like like the last two, start looking at the off year elections.  My theory of a re-alignment period is that it takes 6 years.  In 1978, the Republicans scored some solid gains, and the newly elected Democrats elected were much more conservative.  That's the first sign. 

The second will be a radically different president and usually an electoral blowout.  Think 1932 or 1980.

[muon2]

Reasonable.  I would agree that the parties have not become stronger, rather the country has become more polarized, and that polarization has fallen along party lines, not necessarily strengthening the parties (or something like that).

When are you going to know for sure, so I can plan ahead.

If it's anything like like the last two, start looking at the off year elections.  My theory of a re-alignment period is that it takes 6 years.  In 1978, the Republicans scored some solid gains, and the newly elected Democrats elected were much more conservative.  That's the first sign. 

The second will be a radically different president and usually an electoral blowout.  Think 1932 or 1980.

I don't disagree, but I am curious as to why 2016, as opposed to 2012. Both McCain and Clinton could fit the role as the tail end of the current cycle of politics. Both Hoover and Carter were 1-term presidents before the respective realignments.

A second hypothesis would consider your former professor's view of current reality; he didn't see a realignment while it was happening. What if Obama is the nominee and sweeps in with an unusually large electoral vote this fall? Reagan was not expected to achieve the margin he did get in 1980. And 2006 can be looked at as a significant switch in Congress. Obama certainly has the big picture rhetoric one associates with a new political alignment, though it is premature to say if he would govern in a way that matches the words.

[J. J.]

I don't disagree, but I am curious as to why 2016, as opposed to 2012. Both McCain and Clinton could fit the role as the tail end of the current cycle of politics. Both Hoover and Carter were 1-term presidents before the respective realignments.

I think the House is less Democratic today than it was even after the 1978-84 re-alignment, so I'm not seeing a major change.

Another point is policy.  The Republicans, and the old bole weevil Democrats, made some massive changes, including a real reduction in tax rates and indexing.  Some of these, Kemp-Roth for example, were proposed in the 1979-81 period.  We've seen no real proposals from the Democrats in Congress; they seem to be adrift.

A second hypothesis would consider your former professor's view of current reality; he didn't see a realignment while it was happening. What if Obama is the nominee and sweeps in with an unusually large electoral vote this fall? Reagan was not expected to achieve the margin he did get in 1980. And 2006 can be looked at as a significant switch in Congress. Obama certainly has the big picture rhetoric one associates with a new political alignment, though it is premature to say if he would govern in a way that matches the words.

I need not remind you that Reagan lost in 1976, the first time he put forth the "big picture rhetoric."

I've got admit, some of this is gut reaction, but I think Clinton will be the nominee.  This isn't Obama's year, but he will have one, or two.

Keep in mind that I see re-alignments as being something other than a "short sharp shock," but as a period of change lasting about six years; I don't think we've yet started that period, but we are getting closer by the minute.  2016 is "in the midst of a re-alignment," which means it could begin as early 2010.  I just don't think it's starting in 2008.

[Frodo]

Wasn't there also a period of transition before each realignment?  Though 1984 may have been the election marking a realignment in which conservatism became a dominant philosophy and socio-political force, it can be argued that the preceding sixteen years from 1968 to 1984 was a period of transition as the old New Deal coalition disintegrated and liberalism became discredited. 

Similarly, 2008 could be serving the same negative role that 1968 did, marking the beginning of the end of the Reagan coalition and the discrediting of conservatism as a political philosophy, and the beginning of another period of transition before another political philosophy (whatever it may be, and whatever it may be called) arises as the dominant socio-political force in this country. 

[J. J.]

While we're on this subject, it could also be argued that though 1984 may have been the election marking a realignment in which conservatism became a dominant philosophy and political force, that the preceding sixteen years from 1968 to 1984 was a period of transition as the old New Deal coalition disintegrated and liberalism became discredited.  Similarly, 2008 could serve the same negative role that 1968 did, marking the beginning of the end of the Reagan coalition and the discrediting of conservatism as a political philosophy.  Yet, according to this time scale, it probably won't be until 2024 that a new political philosophy (whatever it may be) would arise as a dominant political force.  In other words, are we about to enter unto another sixteen year period of transition? 

In 1976 Carter, barely, re-assembled the New Deal coalition.  There was also no real change in  Congress, though two temporary blips in 1946 and 1952, which were reversed two years later.  It was marked by the influx of new voters, African Americans, which by 1984 were the most solidly Democratic component.

I would also note that many of the ideologies of New Deal realignment were incorporated from the Progressives and the Socialists.  IIRC, the Socialists said that they were no longer needed,  because Roosevelt had done what they wanted.

I would argue that every POTUS from FD Roosevelt to Carter (yes, even Nixon) was more liberal than every POTUS from Reagan through GW Bush (yes, even WJ Clinton).

[Nym90]

You certainly raise an interesting point about realignments; it's more about the culture and the views of the two parties themselves rather than one party becoming dominant. We may be seeing the beginnings of a progressive realignment with the Republicans nominating McCain, who it could be argued is the most liberal Republican nominee since Ford. Realignments result in both parties moving in one direction, such that the partisan balance doesn't necessarily change, but yet one side's arguments pretty much become accepted as true and both sides evolve to the new climate.

Other evidence of a progressive realignment could be the emerging consensus on the acceptance of global warming/climate change and for the need for alternative energy sources to replace petroleum, growing favorability towards national health care and increased taxes for the wealthy, increasing skepticism towards unrestricted free trade, etc. Also one could cite increasing acceptance/tolerance of homosexuals and a trend towards more support for gay marriage and/or civil unions, though that's a more long term trend.

[J. J.]

You certainly raise an interesting point about realignments; it's more about the culture and the views of the two parties themselves rather than one party becoming dominant. We may be seeing the beginnings of a progressive realignment with the Republicans nominating McCain, who it could be argued is the most liberal Republican nominee since Ford. Realignments result in both parties moving in one direction, such that the partisan balance doesn't necessarily change, but yet one side's arguments pretty much become accepted as true and both sides evolve to the new climate.

I do think it is cultural, absolutely.  I would argue that, mainstream, homosexuality and drug use were more accepted in the 1970's than in the 1980's and possibly even today.  I can give you one example.  Johnny Carson in the late 1970's very early 1980's would often make jobes about the band smoking pot.  After the mid-1980's he didn't and on reruns the jokes were censored.  That's just a small detail, but it is indicative.

As to McCain being more liberal, I would call him as conservative as RJ Dole or GHW Bush, but clearly, he's more than a few steps to the right of Nixon or Ford. 

Other evidence of a progressive realignment could be the emerging consensus on the acceptance of global warming/climate change and for the need for alternative energy sources to replace petroleum, growing favorability towards national health care and increased taxes for the wealthy, increasing skepticism towards unrestricted free trade, etc. Also one could cite increasing acceptance/tolerance of homosexuals and a trend towards more support for gay marriage and/or civil unions, though that's a more long term trend.

I think a lot of things are probably not going to go in that direction, but the environment is one where there may be an emerging consensus.  A broader acceptance of personal relationships may be one.

I don't know what will happen, but I expect changes (including some I probably will not like).  I actually think that we could go into a much more restrictive society or a more divided one.

I am suggesting that we watch for these changes.  I don't think we'll being to see them in this cycle, but in the next one, we might.  Muon might be right, it could have started and even the nomination of Obama, on the ticket, may be a sign.  I don't think that will happen, this time.  That part of my guess we'll be able to see by November.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

The two ideas you gave us seems to me, at least, that there are two real possibilities-

- A new progressive era of class politics and victorian culture

-A return to the Great Society era of the 50s and 60s

[Frodo]

The two ideas you gave us seems to me, at least, that there are two real possibilities-

- A new progressive era of class politics and victorian culture

I sincerely doubt THAT is ever going to happen. 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

What is being hinted at when "authoritarian culture" is spoken of?

[J. J.]

What is being hinted at when "authoritarian culture" is spoken of?

Nothing is being "hinted at."  I'm saying that it is a possibility to see an erosion of individual rights and a more pervasive federal government.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

...such as...

[J. J.]

...such as...

I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

It's too early to tell, but it is possible.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

...such as...

I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

It's too early to tell, but it is possible.

So, just "big government" in general....with the uncertainities being on social issues. Heck, social issues might not change at all... just economic ones.