A cyclical theory of modern political alignments

[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".

[Person Man]

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

[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..

[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.