"Realigning elections"
J-Mann:
Fascinating! Thanks for posting.
I'll have to say that any argument against a cyclical theory is strong. There are definite changes and swings in voting patterns and the ideologies thrust into the government, but they have much less to do with a certain time period or a pendulum-type swing from one party to the other than they have to do with meeting the public needs of the moment. Sometimes we political scientists read far too deeply into things.
A18:
Quote from: J-Mann on October 14, 2005, 02:31:53 PM
Fascinating! Thanks for posting.
I'll have to say that any argument against a cyclical theory is strong. There are definite changes and swings in voting patterns and the ideologies thrust into the government, but they have much less to do with a certain time period or a pendulum-type swing from one party to the other than they have to do with meeting the public needs of the moment. Sometimes we political scientists read far too deeply into things.
So, taking this into account, what elections would you classify as realigning?
J-Mann:
Quote from: A18 on October 14, 2005, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: J-Mann on October 14, 2005, 02:31:53 PM
Fascinating! Thanks for posting.
I'll have to say that any argument against a cyclical theory is strong. There are definite changes and swings in voting patterns and the ideologies thrust into the government, but they have much less to do with a certain time period or a pendulum-type swing from one party to the other than they have to do with meeting the public needs of the moment. Sometimes we political scientists read far too deeply into things.
So, taking this into account, what elections would you classify as realigning?
I've always considered realignments to be more a product of the public's perception that their government is failing them rather than a generational or cyclical shift. I won't go back too far, but certain realignments are fairly obvious:
1932 -- definitely a rejection of Republicans, not because the market crash and depression were their faults, but because they happened to be in power when it happened. Democrats came in and "saved the day," so to speak, with a massive load of social programs that propped up the ailing public. Instant popularity and loyalty.
I don't know that there was any shift that I could categorically recognize between 1932 and 1980. Reagan's election in '80 was the shift toward conservatism that has lasted until today. The big government programs that were started in the New Deal era didn't seem to be working and the public was turned off with Democratic leadership with regards to international relations. Republicans capitalized on that and in came a conservative realignment.
It's a difficult question to answer, really. We can see trends in almost any election we look to, but as the article proved, those trends can be discounted. The post-WWII era can be said to have a sort-of cycle -- eight-in and eight-out, but that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny either.
I'd be interested to know if you've got an opinion on it one way or the other. It's tricky, no doubt, and you'll always be able to find political scientists who disagree.
A18:
I agree with this quote:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Emsworth:
I do not feel that there is any such thing as an election that suddenly realigns the populace. The election is not the cause of the realignment; rather, it is the result. The realignment has already taken place, over several years; the election is but a symptom.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page