A cyclical theory of modern political alignments

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

There is no "grand" cyclical theory of political alignments.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Does anyone else here agree with the parallels between President Obama and Richard Nixon?

Yeah, I've started thinking about that with his management of the Health Care bill. Nixon campaigned as a conservative, and won with the support of the "moral majority", yet governed as a moderate or even as a liberal. It's the exact opposite with Obama.

Also, Nixon was reelected in 1972 because his opponent was perceived as too radical and erratic. the same could happen in 2012 (even though Obama won't win in a landslide).

[Frodo]

Does anyone else here agree with the parallels between President Obama and Richard Nixon?

Yeah, I've started thinking about that with his management of the Health Care bill. Nixon campaigned as a conservative, and won with the support of the "moral majority", yet governed as a moderate or even as a liberal. It's the exact opposite with Obama.

Also, Nixon was reelected in 1972 because his opponent was perceived as too radical and erratic. the same could happen in 2012 (even though Obama won't win in a landslide).

Also, wasn't Nixon's re-election victory a lonely one, with practically all the resources that could have gone to fellow congressional Republicans instead flowing to his re-election campaign?   

[Frodo]

Is anyone else beginning to see the similarities between the 2011-12 Republican primary campaign and the 1971-72 Democratic race?  Edmund Muskie (much like Mitt Romney today) was widely seen as the establishment favorite to win the nomination (and the most likely to beat President Nixon, based on polling results) -and in the end, it was George McGovern who was picked instead.  

Could Ron Paul (assuming he doesn't become just another ephemeral 'flavor of the month') be the George McGovern-in-waiting of the Republican Party?  

[phk]

Again, there's no such thing as a realignment or realignment theory.

There's times when one party does good and the other bad, and the reverse.

It's just how things have worked as the two-party system has existed.

[Person Man]

Perhaps history doesn't repeat itself but there could still be patterns. I am beginning to think that what happens has to do not with personalities, percieved realities, visceral responses or cycles. Instead the real predictable change comes with how people (or at least the educated Middle Class and Elites) have come to view the physical world and therefore what they consider the "Scientifically Correct" way of viewing the world. It is also possible that it becomes pervasive beyond the sophisticated circles through their control of the culture. This, in turn, makes it possible for even the less sophisticated circles to grasp the change in perception that has been grasped through a new understanding of the material world.

A model for this could be the emergence of a new understanding of physics, biology or applied science or philosophy that makes it possible to think in a certain way and to work in different ways. These new understandings allow business people, scientists and statesmen to have access to a new way of thinking and doing things. Old ideas begin to seem to be incorrect and inefficient and those in charge seek a better way of living the "Good Life".

An example of this could be our country's Founding Fathers. Before the Enlightenment, the dominant way of thinking was through deductive logic and thus the arbitrary will of those who had the resources to determine the axioms of the day. However, with the Enlightenment, came inductive reasoning, the scientific method, liberal economics and Newtonian physics. These ideas helped shaped Young America and the ratification of the United States Constitution. The fundamental ideas that were indoctrinated into this founding generation was that things can be keep stable through the ideas of action and reaction, gravity and other Sophmore Math (Calculus and Linear Algebra) and Freshman Science ideas (Physics and Chem 101). They also learned that what was "right" and "good" were not preordained but someone who was smart, capable and alturistic enough could learn what these things were and implement them. This was the age of Civic Republicanism and it dominated Western and American thought for 50 years.

Eventually, a more dynamic approach to thinking and doing were concieved of in the 19th century. Things such as the Railroad and Electricity, Evolution and Atomic theory changed the basic Newtonian ideas of the educated elite. This dynamic transformation got people thinking about things from Eugenics, Corporations, Communism and Emancipation. Eventually, we got the Civil War, the Progressive Revolution and the entire period of various Republican factions dominating Washington between the Civil War and Black Monday.

This idea not only explains older times in our history, but explains the New Deal, Morning in America and either the next era, be it "Change We Can Believe In" or "The Contract with America" or whatever the Republicans' battle cry is besides "Anyone but Obama".

[J. J.]

Again, there's no such thing as a realignment or realignment theory.

There's times when one party does good and the other bad, and the reverse.

It's just how things have worked as the two-party system has existed.

I totally disagree.  I would note, however, that there is often an ideology shift, as there clearly was in 1930-36 and to a lesser extent in 1978-84.

I would argue that Obama is probably to the right of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, at least slightly.  He is, in reality, a product of the last realignment.

[Person Man]

...and that's coming from a Republican. Are we truly a 20th Century Country facing 21st Century problems?

[Foucaulf]

Perhaps history doesn't repeat itself but there could still be patterns. I am beginning to think that what happens has to do not with personalities, percieved realities, visceral responses or cycles. Instead the real predictable change comes with how people (or at least the educated Middle Class and Elites) have come to view the physical world and therefore what they consider the "Scientifically Correct" way of viewing the world. It is also possible that it becomes pervasive beyond the sophisticated circles through their control of the culture. This, in turn, makes it possible for even the less sophisticated circles to grasp the change in perception that has been grasped through a new understanding of the material world.

This is very obscure to me. Are you saying that the public sphere is the primary driver of modern history? If so, two main complaints:

— Per Habermas, the public sphere was relevant in the 18th Century, but would gradually give way to the "mass nature" of modernity. Even if your so-called middle class were dedicated to the pursuit of reason in the heady colonial days, the middle class of today want lower taxes and a consistent level of welfare. Do they do this out of scientific thinking, or rather out of a reaction to an uncertain world?

— Not even Habermas dared to believe his theory was a driver of "history". Your theory implies history is driven by the Bourgeois, and the lower classes only gain agency through their machinations. I find that very contemptuous of you, not to mention factually questionable. How do you explain events like the Civil Rights movement, which was a lower-class action in support of worn concepts like "justice"?

[Person Man]

Perhaps history doesn't repeat itself but there could still be patterns. I am beginning to think that what happens has to do not with personalities, percieved realities, visceral responses or cycles. Instead the real predictable change comes with how people (or at least the educated Middle Class and Elites) have come to view the physical world and therefore what they consider the "Scientifically Correct" way of viewing the world. It is also possible that it becomes pervasive beyond the sophisticated circles through their control of the culture. This, in turn, makes it possible for even the less sophisticated circles to grasp the change in perception that has been grasped through a new understanding of the material world.

This is very obscure to me. Are you saying that the public sphere is the primary driver of modern history? If so, two main complaints:

— Per Habermas, the public sphere was relevant in the 18th Century, but would gradually give way to the "mass nature" of modernity. Even if your so-called middle class were dedicated to the pursuit of reason in the heady colonial days, the middle class of today want lower taxes and a consistent level of welfare. Do they do this out of scientific thinking, or rather out of a reaction to an uncertain world?

— Not even Habermas dared to believe his theory was a driver of "history". Your theory implies history is driven by the Bourgeois, and the lower classes only gain agency through their machinations. I find that very contemptuous of you, not to mention factually questionable. How do you explain events like the Civil Rights movement, which was a lower-class action in support of worn concepts like "justice"?

Oh I see. This has more to do with thise sounding derrogatory to the masses than an actual attack on the theory. You see, sometimes changes in thinking actually helps those at the bottom. For example, more dynamic thinking in the latter half of the 19th century gave rise to the concept that the flipside of "survival of the fittest" may be that as the environment changes, the first may become last and the last may become first. Just because a person, family, or group of people are not fit now does not mean that they won't be "fit" in the future, as the envirornment changes to play up their strengths. You can see how this could give rise to "New Deal"-type thinking.

The public demands for low taxes and a high safety net also show this theory. If general community thinking had not changed since the Mid-20th Century, then our reactions to stress would not have changed, either. A possibility is that these changes were brought on by growth of science and applied science in fundamentally uncertain feilds, such as Quantum Mechanics and the computer technology based around. As those in charge have fewer answers, so does everyone else as the race to find new answers to live our lives by heat up..

[Jerseyrules]

Well I guess in that order there's Jackson the Prophet, Van Buren the Bureoucrat, Harrison the interregnum, and Tyler the disaster; then for the Whigs perhaps Harrison the prophet, Clay the bereoucrat, Tyler/Polk the interregnum, and Fillmore the Disaster

[Foucaulf]

(Apologies for taking a week to respond.)

Oh I see. This has more to do with thise sounding derrogatory to the masses than an actual attack on the theory.

Can they not mean the same thing? The Russian Revolution was not fought by novelists, nor was the Civil Rights movement the work of a few. Purposefully ignoring the people's history does weaken your theory.

You see, sometimes changes in thinking actually helps those at the bottom...

But those old patterns in thinking were imposed on the bottom by a ruling elite to justify unnatural oppression. Subsequent shifts in thought could be thought of not "helping" the bottom, but by reversing the malice towards them.

The needs of the lower class could be simple: peace, bread and land and all that. And why should those needs be less legitimate than the idealism of the upper classes? It is the upper classes who, witnessing the conditions of the poor, adjust their way of viewing the world. Many times this is enough, and the theories which follow only serves to quiet the ivory-tower intellectuals who disagree.

If general community thinking had not changed since the Mid-20th Century, then our reactions to stress would not have changed, either. A possibility is that these changes were brought on by growth of science and applied science in fundamentally uncertain feilds, such as Quantum Mechanics and the computer technology based around.

I'm not sure I understand this, but I'll try.

People do possess a set of values, but those values may not line up with their needs. It is also possible that those in the upper classes uses "scientific thinking" to justify their oppression. But the lower classes are smart enough to realize such thinking is pointless when they face constant oppression. When push comes to shove, the situation of the now trumps abstract thought.

As those in charge have fewer answers, so does everyone else as the race to find new answers to live our lives by heat up..

By this point I think you're conflating political history with "History", and the former is only a part of the latter. Maybe that was what I was confused by.

Even with that said, there's more than one way to react to a decaying society. One way is to build a theory, a platform or a catchy slogan - this is the modern, political way to do things. Historically though the more frequent option is to revolt first and ask questions later. Since the American electorate does not live on the brink of poverty, it is possible for them to indulge in empty thinking. If things turn for the worse, then Americans will care far more about how their life will be today than what research can do for them years later.

[Skill and Chance]

Bump!

Any new thoughts on this?  I guess the given theory would be:

2008 to about 2016 = Great Depression

Cycle Begins

Bush = Hoover/Carter (complicated because he got a 2nd term...)

Obama = FDR/Reagan  (plausible if he wins 2008-style again, as there are now fewer swing voters)

Romney = Wilkie/Mondale (with much closer popular vote, but similarly out of touch)

2012- Obama wins by roughly the 2008 margin

2013- New Recession

2014- Senate goes R

2015-16- Robust economic growth resumes

2016- Rural Dem (H. Clinton/Warner/Schweitzer) defeats Tea Party R

2017- Republicans drop opposition to universal health care, moderate on abortion

2020- Northeastern or Hispanic Republican defeats Rural Dem

2022- Dems finally win the House back

2024- Moderate Republican wins big against boring Dem

2022-28- Major bipartisan environmental/infrastructure legislation

2028- Southern Dem (Castro???) wins narrowly and then embarrasses him/herself, economy enters deep recession

2030 or 2034- Dems lose Congress in a disastrous midterm

The next cycle begins with a fire-breathing libertarian president in 2032 or 2036


Plausible?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The way I've been viewing it for some time now, Reagan/Bush were FDR/Truman, Clinton was Eisenhower, Dubya was JFK/LBJ, so that means Obama is Nixon (campaigning as a conservative/liberal but governing as a moderate, facing opposition from a hostile congress, winning reelection because the opponent is perceived as radical and out of touch). If this pattern continues, a moderate republican should win in 2016 but lose reelection in 2020 to a progressive democrat who would mark the beginning of a left-wing realignment.

Far from being scientific, of course. But that's an interesting scenario to consider.

[J. J.]

Does anyone else here agree with the parallels between President Obama and Richard Nixon?

Yeah, I've started thinking about that with his management of the Health Care bill. Nixon campaigned as a conservative, and won with the support of the "moral majority", yet governed as a moderate or even as a liberal. It's the exact opposite with Obama.

Also, Nixon was reelected in 1972 because his opponent was perceived as too radical and erratic. the same could happen in 2012 (even though Obama won't win in a landslide).

There actually wasn't a Moral Majority in 1968-72, and you didn't have a Evangelical Christian movement tied to the Republicans until 1980.

Actually, I have been saying that there was likely a realignment coming between 2012 to 2016 since January 2008.

[Person Man]

But it wouldn't be a pure realignment as it would be simply a resassertion or abortive realignment. Or it could simply be a recomposition of a governing coalition from one that looks like the Mississippi Republican Party to one that looks like the Wyoming Republican Party. Where the central dogma issues (like abortion) switch with the issues that are "up to debate within the establishment", (like spending).

...and this would only be confirmed if Romney does at least as well as Obama done in 2008, anything less where Republicans "pick up the marbles", would simply prompt the Democrats to "rebuild" and simply complain until the average voter is open to the fact they made a mistake in voting for Romney, McConnell and Boehner in 2012.

Sooner or later, there will be a true realignment, whether its in years or decades, that transitions America into a truly global society.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why do you people have to turn everything into pseudoscience?

Look, as any student of history worth his salt knows you can easily pick a series of data on a similar subjects arbitrarily, compare with some other data and... Ta Dah!... there's a pattern.

Let's study a very early pattern in US presidential history:

George Washington (F) 1789-1797
John Adams (F) 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson (DR) 1801-1809
James Madison (DR) 1808-1817
James Monroe (DR) 1817-1825

Now let's remove all context for a minute (like for example that Monroe didn't even face a challenger in 1820) and look at this pattern - only once did a president not serve the two full four-year terms. There were only 5 presidents in 36 years. Now I suppose looking at this (and remember we are being context-free here) you could deduce a few things such as, for example, the electoral system of Early America was very stable, incumbents rarely lost and there was strong continuity over the period. Of course, Early America was not very stable (much less stable than most people now realize) but those sort of things have other ways of manifesting themselves than mere election results (and have to consider "the meaning" the presidency had in this period which is quite different to now).

Now let's imagine that Obama is re-elected (we require no great imagination for this) and survives until 2017, that gives us:
Ronald Reagan (R) 1981-1989
George H. Bush (R) 1989-1993
Bill Clinton (D) 1993-2001
George W. Bush (R) 2001-2009
Barack Obama (D) 2009-2017

It's the exact same pattern*. LIKE OMG THAT MUST MEAN SMTHING!!111eleven!!11

So then what similarities are there between the Early presidency of the first five presidencies and those of the 36 year period between 1981-2017. Clearly we must deduce something about these two periods that didn't exist at any time between 1825 and 1981. This must have some statistical significance, right?

I'm now going to wait and see who can figure out what it is because honestly I have no idea. So alignment fans, please explain...

* (Yes, I know J.J the pattern of the political parties is different. You don't need to tell me, what you need to inform me what that actually means).

** (I could think of one or two if I were so inclined, which I'm clearly not. But they are rather unfashionable thesis about American politics, so I suspect that nobody will list them).