Two Guesses

[J. J.]

The possibility of a realignment was the first topic on The McLaughlin Group this morning, "Issue One."  Most didn't think so.

[J. J.]

In general, a re-alignment produces changes in:

1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).

2.  Electioneering tactics (how a campaign is run). 

3.  Candidate recruitment (who runs).

4.  Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom).

5.  Formulation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).

Now, I would argue that there were changes in all of these after the 1978-84 realignment.

How these changes will work after the next re-alignment, I don't know.

Even in 1984, I did not expect everything that we saw in the post 1984 political world.

I obviously wrote this earlier.  There have been changes in numbers 2, 3 and 4.  I can't say that electoral behavior has changed.

And, with the debt ceiling vote, we have just seen number 5.  Some initial polling seems to be showing number 1, but I'm going to withhold judgment on that one.

[Person Man]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

[J. J.]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think there is about a 50/50 chance to see the end of racial politics.

[Smid]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think this very much is likely to be the result... people may even look back on Clinton as being conservative, since budgets under his presidency were in surplus.

[J. J.]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think this very much is likely to be the result... people may even look back on Clinton as being conservative, since budgets under his presidency were in surplus.

I've already made the point, on this thread (I think), that possibly excepting Obama, all major party presidential nominees since 1988 (inclusive) were more conservative that the nominees in 1976.

[Person Man]

That could be a reasonable assement. Support for abortion rights have more or less stabilzed with a small majority favoring the status quo after a brief anti-abortion resurgence. Gay rights have become increasingly popular and there is a fair chance that racial politics might be ending as well though Hispanics are increasingly maligned against the conservatives. However, it is becoming impossible to raise taxes and any and all spending is being increasingly scrutinized.  Maybe instead of a populist conservatism, there might be a populist libertarianism. 

[J. J.]

That could be a reasonable assement. Support for abortion rights have more or less stabilzed with a small majority favoring the status quo after a brief anti-abortion resurgence. Gay rights have become increasingly popular and there is a fair chance that racial politics might be ending as well though Hispanics are increasingly maligned against the conservatives. However, it is becoming impossible to raise taxes and any and all spending is being increasingly scrutinized.  Maybe instead of a populist conservatism, there might be a populist libertarianism. 

I think you are going to see Hispanics increasingly integrated into both parts and, if there is a realignment, probably moving toward the GOP.

Social issues might be in retreat.  Even my arguments against same sex marriages are actuarial, not societal or social.  I'm saying, it costs too much, not it destroys the moral fiber of society or is anti-family.

[Person Man]

So, could the model for the remaining part of the first third of the 21st century US's national polity be like Wyoming's state politics until recently. By this, I mean that it could be a reverse of the US's polity in the mid 20th century.

In the 1940s-1970s, the party of the State was the Democratic Party. They generally possesed 60% of congress and the Presidency for about half of the time and were built around a coalition of blue collar workers seeking more protection in the work place and from greedy employers as well as basic protections against poverty in unforeseen dire circumstances. However, half of that coalition was against civil rights and liberties and were generally Southern and the other half were big city constitutents that favored them. The anti-establishment Republican party was eventually established as the anti-civil rights conservative party and were eventually able to get back to power by absorbing the more conservative part of the Democratic Party through social issues.

Coming into the 2010s-2030s, the Republican Party will probably be the Government Party based on protecting the rights of citizens and companies from a large Government that can no longer be justified as we enter a time where America is declining as an Empire. America will basically look more like Wyoming in that it will mirror a rural place where people "leave and let live" and just try to work on their own lives and rejecting anything else as the childhood fantasy of a time where the country was powerful and the government function. There will be the rich people part of the party which would be socially liberal and fiscally the most conservative and the rural part of th pary which would be very socially conservative and only somewhat fiscally conservative. The minority Democratic Party's path to power would simply be on socially liberal Libertarian policies and politicians.

It is actually a very good analogy that the US in 2025 will be more like Wyoming in 2005 as the US in 1955 was more like Pennsylvania of 1990.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure of your analogies.  I would expect it to be the antithesis of a Bob Casey, Senior, who was big on antiabortion policies.  The driving force is not "social issues" with what we just saw happen with the debt ceiling.

I could see a more libertarian government coming.

[J. J.]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

I think you might be seeing the answer to your question in fool in a few months, though it is more apparent today.

[Person Man]

Well, that's what I am trying to say. The average "moderate" democrat will be more like Dave Fruedenthal than Bob Casey. Democrats, to have a voice, will have to ally with libertarian Republcians, not fiscally moderate pro-lifers.

[J. J.]

Well, that's what I am trying to say. The average "moderate" democrat will be more like Dave Fruedenthal than Bob Casey. Democrats, to have a voice, will have to ally with libertarian Republcians, not fiscally moderate pro-lifers.

Well, I think the social issue candidates will be in retreat.  A DINO, or conservative Democrat, like Casey, Sr., will be judged on economic issues.  Casey, Jr., as he now stands, will be seen less as a DINO.

[J. J.]

I don't think I ever mentioned it, but on July 22, 1984, for a course, I wrote a paper on if there was a realignment going on in America.  I took the position, yes, we were.

After the assignment was completed, the professor finally answered the question we all wanted to know, did he think there was a realignment.  He said no.  I got an A on the paper anyhow. 

I had another class with the professor that fall, and after the election, I asked if he thought we had a realignment.  He said yes.

It is extremely difficult to predict one, even while it is happening, though generally they occur at 30-50 year periods.

Some of the indicators are present, for 2010 being the precursor election, but they have present at other times, and no realignment occurred.  Just a loss for Obama would not alone signal a realignment.

[J. J.]

Here is a lecture from Walter Dean Burnham, Professor Emeritus in Government, University of Texas, one the realignment academics.  It is from 2006.

One of his predictions was wrong, but the last few minutes are quite telling.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/la_lecture_archive/vid1/index.html

[President von Cat]

I don't think I ever mentioned it, but on July 22, 1984, for a course, I wrote a paper on if there was a realignment going on in America.  I took the position, yes, we were.

After the assignment was completed, the professor finally answered the question we all wanted to know, did he think there was a realignment.  He said no.  I got an A on the paper anyhow. 

I had another class with the professor that fall, and after the election, I asked if he thought we had a realignment.  He said yes.

It is extremely difficult to predict one, even while it is happening, though generally they occur at 30-50 year periods.

Some of the indicators are present, for 2010 being the precursor election, but they have present at other times, and no realignment occurred.  Just a loss for Obama would not alone signal a realignment.

I don't understand. The last realignment was in 1980, for Republicans, and now you're heralding another one in 2012, also for Republicans? How can something get "re-aligned" for a party that it is already "aligned" for? If there is ever going to be such a thing, it'll happen for the Democrats.

[izixs]

Tis been growing thinking that there is not so much an alignment at this point of time and that there hasn't really been one since the late 60s. (Republicans becoming the party of the white south and conservatives while the Democrats becoming the party of everyone else in the south and liberals) And since then the shifts in voting patterns has not so much been a snap to a new alignment but a lethargic drain of natural constituencies to their respective parties and the evolution of the electorate on the demographic level. This has lead to high polarization as the first of these has come nearly to completion but also elections be determined by who shows up more and more as opposed to campaigning to convince everyone of all demographic groups. (Hence why I think threads about 'so and so should try to win <demographic/geographic X> are silly at this point)

Messaging and enthusiasm are the rule of the day. Getting a demographic on board with your party is incredibly difficult as they're almost always very solidly with the other party already and have been taught to distrust the messages coming from the other side. So the drain from one party to the other is either very slow or non-existant, and the shifts that are there are so slow and happening in different groups at the same time that having a solid election cycle or period of time where its clear to everyone in a demographic to shift to the other party is just not going to happen fast enough for a classical realignment.

We've gone from avalanches of people in one direction to people sloshing like liquid overall.

[J. J.]

I don't think I ever mentioned it, but on July 22, 1984, for a course, I wrote a paper on if there was a realignment going on in America.  I took the position, yes, we were.

After the assignment was completed, the professor finally answered the question we all wanted to know, did he think there was a realignment.  He said no.  I got an A on the paper anyhow. 

I had another class with the professor that fall, and after the election, I asked if he thought we had a realignment.  He said yes.

It is extremely difficult to predict one, even while it is happening, though generally they occur at 30-50 year periods.

Some of the indicators are present, for 2010 being the precursor election, but they have present at other times, and no realignment occurred.  Just a loss for Obama would not alone signal a realignment.

I don't understand. The last realignment was in 1980, for Republicans, and now you're heralding another one in 2012, also for Republicans? How can something get "re-aligned" for a party that it is already "aligned" for? If there is ever going to be such a thing, it'll happen for the Democrats.

A realignment deals with a change in a number of factors not necessarily party.  Both 1860 and 1896 were Republican realignments.

Go back and read page 1, and then look at the last line of what you quoted.  I'm looking at two things in 2012, has the realignment started, and who wins in 2012.  The answer could be "no" and the "Republicans."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't think I ever mentioned it, but on July 22, 1984, for a course, I wrote a paper on if there was a realignment going on in America.  I took the position, yes, we were.

After the assignment was completed, the professor finally answered the question we all wanted to know, did he think there was a realignment.  He said no.  I got an A on the paper anyhow. 

I had another class with the professor that fall, and after the election, I asked if he thought we had a realignment.  He said yes.

It is extremely difficult to predict one, even while it is happening, though generally they occur at 30-50 year periods.

Some of the indicators are present, for 2010 being the precursor election, but they have present at other times, and no realignment occurred.  Just a loss for Obama would not alone signal a realignment.

Well, it certainly was for Marin County, California. Ford, Reagan, Mondale, enough said.

[J. J.]

One fairly major change might be a reduction in the size of the military and military spending.

[Person Man]

One fairly major change might be a reduction in the size of the military and military spending.

Could this be a general incorporation of a theme surrounding the end of the Cold War? As in, with the loss of the risks associated with constant major threats, the role of the Government isn't going down some sort of new path of delegating itself out of existence but that the Government is simply going back to what was like before there were constant internal threats against America's prevailing economic microcracy and national security. And that this will generally continue until there is a country that is finally strong enough to go toe-to-toe with the US militarily and economically and/or there is a credible alternative created inside the United States by those who are losing out in the current corporately-controlled economic model. 

However, you do say that there is going to be some re-emphasis on economic issues and perhaps if Obama's entitlement and insurance reform laws are quickly repealed or judicially overruled, it would create a situation where the striking down of Health Care Reform becomes the Liberal version of what Roe v. Wade was with Conservatives. What that would mean is it would become this big huge impossible issue to amend the constitution or restack the Court with "Strict Constructionists" and that all candidates and judicial nominees would have to contend with this new litmus test. Essentially, everything else would go out the window. The only other way social issues could come to the forefront again is that Republicans or Republican judges actually do choose the next few very Republican years to implement the Religious Right's agenda. That could have tough reprocussions for a party that simply favors a "Majority of a Majority" approach on social issues in a country where there is a dwindling majority.

Basically, maybe JJs right, but it would depend on what the Republicans actually do with the next several years they are given. If they do something like cut the military, introduce a flat tax or privatize social security, they could be very succesful. However, if they do something like overturn Health Care Reform through SCOTUS or simply repeal it without enacting a more business-based way of getting Universal Coverage (94-95% + coverage rate) which doesn't create a system of effective tort immunity for medical professionals or if they do something else that simply makes the last few years totally meaningless, they will probably keep their position as America's "Default" Party, but the Democrats will probably get a huge window to win a couple of elections and pass through legislation or even constitutional amendments. (This is what happened with, among other things, the Income Tax) ..And if they overturn Roe (or make it irrelevant somehow), rescind funding to or openly oppose  important scientific inquiries that cannot be reconciled with their theology on which people have started to come to rely on, block DADT or somehow cause a new "Brown Scare" or in any other way use Big Government as a tool to "Keep America Pure", this realignment could be short-lived.

[J. J.]

Could this be a general incorporation of a theme surrounding the end of the Cold War? As in, with the loss of the risks associated with constant major threats, the role of the Government isn't going down some sort of new path of delegating itself out of existence but that the Government is simply going back to what was like before there were constant internal threats against America's prevailing economic microcracy and national security. And that this will generally continue until there is a country that is finally strong enough to go toe-to-toe with the US militarily and economically and/or there is a credible alternative created inside the United States by those who are losing out in the current corporately-controlled economic model. 

I think, once translated in American English, this might be a correct point.  The threat, and means for dealing with the threat, are now much different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Something like Obamacare has been Democratic policy since about 1948, so you may be right.  I have enough difficulty projecting out into the early 2010's, so I'm not looking at the longer term as of yet.

[J. J.]

One thing that we did see in NH that supports a change within the Republicans was a move away from the social conservatives, who, even collectively, did terribly.

The three leading candidates were Romney, Paul, and Huntsman, not known known as being hard right socially.  Paul, arguably, has a left wing stance on the military.

[J. J.]

We have seen a new development.

With Ryan on the ticket there is a very clear difference in philosophy between the Republican and Democratic Parties.  It is the role of government in the economy, and there is a polar contrast.

That will be a central macro-theme of the election.

[Person Man]

Could we simply be going back to the way things were between 1896, 1932 and 1964, where the big buzzwords were Unions, Crosses of Gold, Taxes, Social Security and Medicare? Is there a place with civil rights and cultural issues anymore or will the time where there will be electable Republicans from Boulder or Montpelier that are more culturally liberal than very electable Democrats from Macon or Boise? and will that mean that if these issues are less significant, that there will be less change based on them..or simply that these issues will have movement that are not among party lines?

And the reaction to the Akin thing about rape and abortion (with the conservative establishment squirming) contrasted to the reaction to some of De Mint comments about the homosexual community in 2004 (when he turned a tight race into one he ran away with) could show that the Republican Party is perhaps slowly and akwardly leaving the Religious Right's awakening tent when the preacher gets out the snakes,  jumping back in their 750s and GranTurimos, lighting their $80 cigars and getting back on the greens.


Would this be a map that would "seal" a realignment of this nature?

...and would this be the way back for any new Democrat?