Talk Elections

The following is an editorial I submitted to my local newspaper
                        ------------------------------
Now that the selection process is underway to choose the next president, it is interesting to see how "change" is the watchword  of the various campaigns this election. With the exception of possibly Gov. Mike Huckabee, it appears only Senator Barack Obama got it right in looking at the political tea leaves and determined, above all else, the electorate is yearning for a president who can bring about  fundamental "change" in Washington.

All the candidates except Obama initially touted their respective "experience" to lead the nation as the rational as to why they should be the next president. Now, after Obama's impressive initial win in Iowa and his message of "change" resonated, all the candidates are retooling their message touting that they are the real agent of "change".

And if history is any indicator, this country truly will witness "Change" in the making this election.

Every thirty to forty years or so our country has experienced what is known as a political 'realignment'. In 1828 it witnessed the founding of the Democratic Party and the Jacksonian "Era of the Common Man". In 1860 it witnessed the rise of the Republican Party to national prominence that led to the "Gilded Age". The 1896 election ushered in the "Progressive Era" and the reforms under Theodore Roosevelt. In the depths of the "Great Depression", 1932 saw the election of FDR and the age of expanded centralized government and the welfare state. In reaction to the social upheavals of the 1960's and the Vietnam War, the 1968 election witnessed a realignment that led to the conservative "Reagan Era" that espoused smaller government, less regulation, and a reaffirmation of Family Values.

In each of these realignments various segments of society coalesce around a common theme of
governance to produce a majority, or mandate, from the people that history has shown lasts several decades. And as a pendulum swings, realignments are at least in part reactions against the excesses of the previous theme of governance. And not all 'realignments' (IE 1896, 1968) are immediately recognizable when they occur. Control of the various branches of government, and even the White House may change occasionally within a "realignment", but one party retains dominance over the other throughout its respective era.

It is my view that the 2006 midterm election will be viewed as the prelude to a new "realignment" that will be self evident in the 2008 presidential election. The conservative era that began with the 1968 election, was best characterized by the Reagan years, and saw its zenith of power with the change in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994, has come to an end.

I base my views on the following: In 2004 the Republican Party controlled the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, had a 28 to 22 majority of state governorships, and a 22 to 17 majority in both houses of state legislatures (10 states had split controll and Nebraska has a unicameral legislature). Every level of government nationwide had a Republican majority.

After the 2006 midterm election, only the White House with a Lame Duck president remained in Republican hands. The very definition of a 'realignment'.

Noted political scientist Alan Liechtman of American University states that political campaigns and to some degree even the candidates themselves do not matter in determining which party will controll the White House, what matters is the performance in governance. With a seemingly unending and unpopular war, and a quickly souring economy, in my view it is difficult to see how the Republican Party can retain controll of the White House this November, no matter whom emerges as the Democratic nominee.

What is less clear is precisely what this new governing coalition will look like. But if what we have seen so far in 2006, as well as in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 is any indication; single women, those of the post Baby-Boom generations, voters who do not identify strongly with either major party, and those who want to reform a highly dysfunctional Federal Government that's been besieged by bitter partisanship will play a prominent role. 

In such an environment, Senator Barack Obama should do very well.

Interesting article. Too early to say if we're seeing a realignment. You seem to have written this pre-New Hampshire, am I right?

Began it before... finished it afterward.

I see. Don't know whether we'll actually get "change" though. Just because a candidate says it...

That's very true, and precisely what form that change will take - if any - is yet to be seen.

But further reasoning that we are indeed in the midst of a realignment that I did not include in the editorial (for lack of space) are:

Only the most partisan of Republicans would argue they do not face a very very tough election in 2008, both for structural reasons and ideological/philosophical ones as well. And in my view 2008 will be a follow on to the tsunami that swept them out of office in 2006, probably less dramatic but will only serve to solidify Democratic gains in 2006.

Just structurally speaking they have more seats up for reelection in the Senate and Gubernatorially, and in the House many of the races that are shaping up to appear they'll be in play are Republican held. Further, the Democrats at every level hold a significant advantage financially and its highly doubtful that will change before November.

Ideologically - its my view the conservative "Regan Era" and what held it together has run out of steam as a governing philosophy. For example:

Deregulation for certain segments of society is now viewed as a very bad idea (ie Energy and California 2000-01).

Supply side economics (not as a theory but how it was applied in reality) saw massive tax cuts to the wealthy and subsidies for large corporations without concurrent cuts in spending by the Federal Gov. The result has been a massive increase in the national debt, and debt maintenance as a percentage of the Federal budget. I'm not saying the tax cuts both under Reagan and Bush did not stimulate the economy, but without cuts in spending the resultant deficits have clearly retarded the long term benefits the tax cuts could have had on sustained growth.

Further, tax cuts that benefited the upper income levels have served to only exacerbate the disparities between not only the wealthy and the lower incomes - but between the wealthy and the "middle class".

We have also seen, despite Mr. Huckabee's rise to stardom, the gradual but very real decline in the influence of the Religious Right (ie Pat Robertsons Moral Majority, etc). Still a very potent force in the Republican Party but much less so more broadly.

And we have seen at least a partial return (a very welcome sign for the Democrats) of fiscally conservative, socially moderate, rural white blue collar males back to the party (Blue Dog Democrats). Virginia's Gov. Tom Kaine and North Carolina's Heath Schuller (sic?) are prime examples of this.

And finally, more narrowly, we have seen the complete repudiation held by some of the far right that international institutions are more of a hindrance than a help in the conduct of foreign policy. These institutions, as frustrating as they may be sometimes, promote this countries national interests far more effectively than any "go it alone" policy this country may adopt.

In a word, the rational for Republican governance has run out of steam...

The GOP has run out of steam, but is there an alternative? ...and what happens if there is none?

No doubt McCain would be a very strong candidate if the electorate wants change.

There's always an alternative to the GOP ....

but he voted with Bush like 85%, if not 90% of the time. I don't see how that is change.

The other 10%?

I know many democrats who at the very least like and respect McCain. They remember all the times he went against Bush. Face it, the Democrats are NOT running against George W. Bush this fall.

But, they are running against the ideology that created this fiasco in time. A lot of dems respect Huck, but would never vote for him. Same thing for Hillary. Even Newt tipped his shovel to her.

On the issues Americans care about, McCain is just Bush's term #3.

He'll keep us in the disastrous, hated war in Iraq.

He'll continue saber-rattling with Iran, possibly starting another war that American do not want.

He's another economic conservative, at a time when Americans want expanded healthcare and have grown distrustful of big business and corporate welfare.

It will be very easy to paint McCain as another Bush. Just older and an even worse debater.

I completely disagree. McCain is probably slightly better at debating. But seriously McCain is NOT the candidate of change, how exactly is he going to change anything? If you think about it he really would not change that many policies or even how our government is run and also he is an old hand in politics and usually these aren't the type of people who enact major reform.

So, is 2008 a now or never election for the U.S., where Americans vote for change or for starting our drawn-out suicide?

It's not automatically the case that a united government of the opposing party to the prevailing one equals a realignment.

Look at Jimmy Carter. Not also the facts that the Democrats controlled the House all the way until 1994.

The thing is, any administration of any stripe can be "change".

The thing is Obama is talking about change as an idea, Clinton is talking about it as processes. The really big difference in my view is presentation. I know a lot of Obama people will hate hearing this... and no doubt will disagree, but Obama and Clinton are virtually line-ball on most issues - I think Clinton will bring about change , so will Obama. Obama is making people believe in change as an ideal - essentially creating an appetite for his policies. Clinton is getting to that point straight away - which has hurt her with the public.

McCain as CHANGE?!?! The guy with the 90% support of the Bush program? He stood up to Bush on the "surge" and torture... and oh my didn't we hear all about it. He's recruited a lot of Bush 2000/2004 people. Where it really matters, not the issues the Reps bring up to distract people - because God knows Gay marriage is SO much more important than healthcare, he's more or less on pegging with Bush.

Actually, he did stick anti-torture riders onto quite a few bills a while back.

You know, perhaps you're comparing the guy with Bush because you're scared he might win...

I singled out the issues he's differentiated with Bush. McCain, for obvious reasons, has had the issues of torture in his leglislative past.

I'm comparing him to Bush because he's affixed himself so hard to the Bush agenda you'd need industrial strength solvent to remove him. Yes, McCain is the republican I fear most - but as I said, he's not untouchable as some would like to think - he's vulnerable.

I agree to your statement, but not as it applies to my case that we are in the midst of a realignment.

For me the biggest proof of this is the depths to which party control has changed. At the state legislature level, before the 1990's the Republicans have not had majority control in both houses since the 1930's (the exact date I cant quote you). And if Im not mistaken (and someone please correct me if this is not the case) but the same I believe is true for a majority of the governorships.

As far as the Dems controlling the House till 1994, that re-enforces my point. That was the height....the zenith.... of the conservative realignment marked by the 1968 election. It was then (1994 or shortly thereafter) that the Republicans gained a majority of Governorships as well as a majority of both Houses at the State level that they have not had since the 1930's.

At the state level, because there are 7382 legislative seats, it changes majoritys far slower than at the national level, and is a clearer measure as to who the majority party truely is nationally because it is the closest form of representation to the people themselves we have.

Different brances of government will often change party controll within a particular Alignment... but when it is at EVERY level of government... its pretty hard to dismiss that.... the conservative Republican era in this country is done.

Should the Democrats take the White House in 2008, and I believe the odds are heavily in their favor to do so, they will now be the dominant party in a majority at EVERY LEVEL of government, whereas the Republicans were the dominant party at every level just prior to the 2006 mid terms.

That is a sweeping comprehensive change that is pretty tough to deny in my book...

Might be done, might not be. Too early to tell, one way or the other. For all we know, the next Democratic President could end up having a scandal that makes Watergate look like small fry. Not saying it will happen.

Take a look at the UK. There was a massive change in British electoral politics in 1997. Didn't equal a policy realignment.

As much as one might try to read into the shift in party control, said shift has not been through a shift in ideological predominance.  In fact, I would argue that the only reason it occurred was by the relaxation of ideological orthodoxy on the part of the Democrats (e.g. Heath Schuler, Brad Henry, and Bob Casey, Jr.).  As such, I can not see the basis upon which an ideological shift would occur, unless shift were just a move to reunite the Christian Humanists (i.e. Evangelicals, the few remaining neo-Cons, Compassionate Conservatives, etc.) with the Secular Humanists under the Democratic Party and allow the Classical Liberals (i.e. Paleo-Conservatives, Economic Conservatives, Libertarians, etc.) to regain dominance over the Republican Party, such a shift might actually be a welcome change for me.  Especially since it would, albeit with some (~2-3 cycles) time lag, push a good number of the Coastal Suburbanites who vote Democratic for social issues (despite their economic interests) back to the GOP and end the cognitive dissonance pervasive throughout the modern political landscape whereby the big government vs. small government on the social scale is allied with its opposite on the economic scale; i.e. it would fix what's the matter with Kansas, while at the same time fixing what's the matter with California.

2006 was not a vote for a new ideology, it was a vote against the incumbent Republicans.

I sure hope there's a realignment.

If anything, I'm getting bored of our current electoral college map.

First, Presidential cycles have run on 32 - 36 years cycles.  While this is not fixed, no explanation has been offered for the last cycle (in your explanation) for lasting 4 - 8 years longer than past cycles.

Second, there has been a historical trend for the party emerging as a majority Presidential party to nominate someone in the prior cycle who encapsulates the essence of the new majority, but who is in that election defeated massively.  Look at Goldwater in 1964, and Smith in 1928 as the two most recent examples.  So, how was the Kerry candidacy significantly different from Gore?

Third, historically the northeast has been the lagging political bulwark of the ancien regime, whereas the "heartland" has been the region which has provided the change.  Right now the northeast is pretty solidly liberal Democrat.

Fourth, it is in the nature of things for people to be dissatisfied with the status quo (and Bush has done a lot to increase that dissatisfaction).  That does not mean that people are for just any change. 

"But if what we have seen so far in 2006, as well as in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 is any indication; single women, those of the post Baby-Boom generations, voters who do not identify strongly with either major party, and those who want to reform a highly dysfunctional Federal Government that's been besieged by bitter partisanship will play a prominent role. "

The above is not a coalition. :)

I think we can see 2008 as a year where the American voters will break away from the traditional media and focus on the Internet, since I personally think that the elections will have a big meaning in the future thanks to the Internet. Also, I think we can see a movement towards an opening of the 2-party system and the inclusion of 1 or 2 viable third parties. Something like Perot tried to do in the '90s but just didn't care. We also might see a focus on where the candidates stand on issues and vote for a candidate based on this and not any other thing. 

I tend to agree with MDDEM on the realignment argument.  Another indicator is how "extreme" a Party becomes as it begins to face decline.  Question in my mind, has the extremist Religious Right become the dominate force in the GOP and how is that like the "extremist" Liberals associated with dominating the Democratic Party in the late 1970's?  In other words, has the GOP swung too far Right???

I also detect a change in NC that may have been foreshadowed in the 2004 election.  The state is now a majority "urban".  However, if there's a drag to the Right it may be reinforced by newcomers (Floridians, southern Californians, suburban Northeasterners, rural Pennsylvanians and Ohioans...) who seem to be more Conservative than even natives!

Just some random thoughts...

Is it possible that the result in 2004 would have been different (and thus the current cycle ended four years ago, were it not for the events of September 11, 2001? It seems to me that what happened was so out of the ordinary, that it may have changed the ordinary cycle.


Perhaps the fact that Kerry did not differ from Gore could be seen as proof that the cycle was coming to an end, but that it was artificially prolonged by September 11. Might it not suggest that Kerry would have won and that Gore was the Goldwater or Smith candidate who was just that one term before their time, had it not been for the war on terror?

I can't disagree with your third point, Carlhayden, and I agree with your fourth point.


I guess the underlying premise of your question on whether the GOP has swung "too far right" depends on your perspective. I don't think the GOP has swung too far right from my ideological perspective, but perhaps it has moved further to the right of the majority of voters, which is really the question that you're asking.

If I remember correctly, one of the strategies credited with winning Bush the 2004 election, was the evangelical vote - drawn out by ballot questions regarding gay marriage. That would suggest to me that perhaps it is leaning further to the right than it has in the past. It might also reflect social conservatives, feeling that the political landscape is beginning to lean more to the left, have been more motivated to maintain the status quo. I don't know the political landscape of the late 70s well enough to compare. In that instance, did the "extreme liberals" who dominated the Democrats have one final gasp before being overwhelmed by a middle-ground surge to the Republicans, or did they rise up only after the change had taken place? (I love Jeane Kirkpatrick's "Blame America First" speech as an example of how moderate Democrats were pushed into the Republican Party by the "extreme liberals" - http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/GOP.speeches.past/84.kirkpatrick.shtml ).


I think there is some overlap amongst the above - voters not identifying strongly with either party may well be sick of bitter partisanship. Many of these voters may belong to post Baby-Boom generations. We may be seeing this shift due to generational change, as the younger generations see the ways in which the previous generation has failed and attempt to compensate by swinging the pendulum the other way - perhaps too far the other way, which leads to failures and in another 30 years or so, the next generation will swing the pendulum again. This could well explain why political cycles typically last for about 30 years or so.

I think the other point to note is that within one political cycle, both parties may move in the same direction - which can explain why different parties can hold the White House within the one cycle. Politicians in both parties, after all, are fairly astute at seeing which way the wind is blowing.

That's exactly what I was thinking, Angry Weasel. The Gilded Age Republicans still would have been members of the Republican Party, but their strength within the Republican Party became less as more moderate/progressive members joined (mainly as society shifted to become more moderate/progressive), thus allowing moderate republicans to take the White House, following a more conservative Republican. If McCain wins the nomination and then wins in November, that could well be another sign of a realignment.

...or it could just mean realignment from more traditional conservatives to what you could call neo-cons, moderate domestically, but very hawkish. I could be better, it could be worse than what we have now.

First, in looking at policy, Nixon was closer to FDR than Reagan; so was Eisenhower.

I view re-alignments as 6 year affairs. 

1858-64

1894-1900

1930-36

1978-84

Yes. I'll give you that...but it was Nixon who touted his conservatism and started the Burger Court. Maybe 1974-1980? 

The Courts don't prompt electoral re-alignments.

Not their decisions, but when a president runs on stacking the court to the right and wins where he couldn't have before...you may have a re-alignment. In fact, I would say that the Court's behaviors signal when a realignment has occured.