A cyclical theory of modern political alignments

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd like to preface this message with a link to a thread on Democratic Underground, which serves as good an introduction to this idea as any other:

To simplify somewhat, this poster holds that political periods, at least in the modern era, are structured similarly: they are heralded in by a popular figure championing a new political paradigm (Roosevelt, Reagan), who are succeeded by a less popular and more 'mechanistic' figure with just enough effectiveness to continue to the old policies, but who is much more vulnerable to defeat (Truman, H.W. Bush); these 'bureaucrats' in turn find themselves displaced by moderate members of the opposition ideology (Eisenhower, Clinton), who themselves lead to a radicalization of the existing paradigm and its gradual dissolution (Johnson, W. Bush). And while there are certain elements in the two cycles of the twentieth century that differ from one another - Kennedy's role in the New Deal era has no corollary in our present Reaganist system - the similarities are there, I feel, and bear consideration.

The question in notions such as these, of course, is the placement of the Nixon-Ford-Carter years: it seems to upset the idea that political 'epochs' segue smoothly into each other. I am personally of the opinion that Nixon ought to have held the position of esteem among Republicans and conservatives generally that Reagan holds today; and while it's true that his economic policies were more liberal generally than Reagan's (and his support of liberal institutions like OSHA and the EPA certainly inveighs against his economic conservatism), it is certainly true that his rhetoric, his appeal to the 'Silent Majority', was the beginning of the end of the New Deal coalition. It seems to me that, had the Nixon Administration not ended in disgrace, that we'd have entered the conservative ('Reagan') cycle much sooner, with complete Republican dominance of Washington for the seventies, eighties, and most of the nineties, and we'd have entered a liberal re-alignment that much sooner.

Does that make Obama the Nixon-figure in this theory? I'd say so: Nixon was the first conservative political figure to strike a massive blow against the New Deal coalition; Obama seems to be the first center-left politician to demonstrate the inherent weaknesses of the Reaganite grouping.

Of course, there are parallels with both eras. Like Reagan, Obama's star seems to be ascending at the expense of a hugely unpopular incumbent President; but like Nixon he is running against a non-incumbent member of the dominant political party, who has largely subsumed the role of the President within the party (Johnson-Humphrey; Bush-McCain). Like Reagan, he has enormous charisma and has the ability to galvanize the masses, but again like Nixon, his proposed policies seem more pragmatic and remain located in the opposing (Reaganist) paradigm; just as Nixon was largely a moderate, Obama is more of a centrist than a traditional New Deal liberal, although like Nixon his rhetoric is relatively partisan.

Or perhaps this 'dialectical' mode of political history is bunk, and American politics really is more of a game of personalities than any back-and-forth swing of ideological sympathies. I'd be greatly interested in hearing the thoughts of the board on this matter.

Very good theory : I just would complete this analysis with most precisions :

	Description	First cycle	Second cycle	Third cycle	Fourth cycle
Period	The name I give to the period.	Progressive era	Keynesian era	Conservative era	?
Dominating party	Party who appears to win the majority of elections	Republican	Democrat	Republican	Democrat
Reformer	Someone who deeply change the country's politics. He is venerated by a generation of americans. His mandate is particularly long.	McKinley, T.Roosevelt	F.Rooseveelt	Reagan	Obama ?
Consolidator	A moderate who consolidates reformer's policies. He manages to create a consensus among the reformer's policies but is unable to be reelected.	Taft	Truman	G.H.W.Bush
Consensual opponent	A member of the non-dominating party who manages to be elected but on a very moderate program. He does almost no reform but is easily reelected.	Wilson ?	Eisenhower	Clinton
Accomplisher	A radical who pursues or improves reformer's policies. He is considered as an ultra-liberal/conservative by following generations. He generally ends his mandates deeply unpopular.		Kennedy, Johnson	G.W.Bush ?
Precursory	An exceptional politician who is able to durably destroy the dominating party's coalition, using particular political events. He does a first realignment, preceding reformer's action and permitting him to be elected later. However, he governs as a moderate and doesn't change a lot the political tradition.	Wilson ?	Nixon	Obama ?
Disastrous	A moderate of the dominating party who is expected to restore his dominacy but drammatically fails due to external events. He definitely disgusts people of the dominating ideology, preparing reformer's arrival.	Hoover	Carter	G.W.Bush ?

Now, the question is : who is Obama ? Is he the beginner of a fourth cycle or is he only the precursory of it ? Did he only destroy republican political dominacy or even conservative ideological dominacy ? We haven't yet the answer of this question, but probably we'll going to know it soon.

[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).

[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.