Two Guesses

[Beet]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

[Beet]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

[Beet]

I'm having a harder and harder time seeing dramatic shifts happening. I'm increasingly beginning to think that there is going to be an exhaustion or backlash against 'change' and against political participation in general. Political interest has been rising since 2000, based on three events: the 2000 election, 9/11, and the Iraq war.

Alongside the rise in political interest has been a concurrent rise in idealism. Barack Obama's candidacy is highly idealistic, and can only be seen as some sort of pinnacle. It is hard to see something more idealistic than Obama's campaign this spring yet at the same time still in touch with reality. Therefore, idealism has nowhere to go but down, and therefore political interest nowhere to go but down.

That does not mean a decrease in civic participation, but right now the zeitgeist is with being involved in politics, and when the zeitgeist is with you, that is when you beware.

[Beet]

This is an uprising. It will be put down or it will succed.

That is also a legitimate way to put it.

Look, all I am saying is that there seems to be a demand for 'change' and a rising time of participation and idealism. These periods of rising tide come in two types: a large substantive shift, or a false dawn.

The 1960s was a perfect example of false dawn. A generation that seemed to be so politically motivated ended up wasting itself on drugs and taking consumerism and cynicism to new heights, and voter participation to new lows. That was because the basis of the supposed shifts was weak.

The 1830s were a perfect example of a real substantive shift. Voter participation surged in 1828, and then continued to rise all the way through 1840, and it stayed high until the Civil War. During this time a new party system existed and a more democratic process occurred. There was something more substantive happening in 1828 that was not happening in 1960. And the way to see if an 'uprising' will succeed is look for that substance and see whether or not it is there.

[Beet]

I suppose it's a bit like comparing apples to spark plugs to speak of such radically different eras together,

That depends on what your standard of comparison is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would get into the causes and reasons behind the the rise and endurance of the second party system. We all know what there was in 1960: an inspiring new President, soaring rhetoric, surging youth interest in politics, though not necessarily through participation by traditional means. In the 1820s and 1830s there was an expanded franchise, growing literacy, and the first efforts to organize parties a sense approaching the modern.

[Beet]

That's a great way of putting it...but our nation is so much more different than it was in 1960 and 1828. There has to be a real dawn here. I mean, what could happen with two false dawns in a row. We are still reeling from Kent State, Vietnam and the collapse of the labor movement. What else could happen? - I will ask this-


WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN?

In the book, Freedomnomics, Dr John Lott writes on page 173:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By "costly" and "easy" regulations, he is referring to regulations that make it easier or harder to cast a vote (for example, requiring voters to provide ID before voting).

It may be that the thirst for change in the 1960s dried up with the election of Richard Nixon. Rather than motivating young liberals to vote, it may in fact have reinforced a perception that their vote didn't count. Perhaps people were discouraged by the electoral loss of the Democrat candidate.

If this is the case, claims of voter fraud in Florida and Ohio in the past two presidential elections may actually harm the cause of the Democrats, because it is telling people that their vote doesn't count - that it doesn't matter whether or not they vote because the 'establishment' will ensure that a particular candidate will win regardless. It is typically those on the losing side that are discouraged from voting.

This message, I think, would be particularly re-inforced if McCain wins against Obama in November. A Republican win would probably discourage young people from participating in elections over the next few years, maybe even the next decade. It would particularly discourage them if a Republican win was coupled with further allegations of vote fraud. Indeed, it's probably best to tighten voting controls outside of the electoral cycle so that it isn't necessarily linked to one candidate's victory or the other. 

In addition, groups of voters may simply not be in the habit of voting. Newly enfranchised groups in history have traditionally started out with lower turnout rates that only increased over time. This is a constant problem for younger voters, because younger voters are always "newly enfranchised" at age 18. This suggests that young people need to be "pushed" in the time before they become eligible to become interested in politics. The visit of a Presidential candidate to a high school, for example, or mock debates and elections; and finding other ways for teens to be involved instead of voting.

What I do like about the increased interest of today's younger people in politics and government- and not just from Obama but since 2000- is that there is essentially none of the radicalism and 'intellectual pilgrimmage' toward bankrupt totalitarian regimes that characterized and discredited the 60's movements.

But there are other low turnout groups too. Groups with lower than average turnout-- single people, poorer people, people with less knowledge about politics, new citizens, people in the south, people who haven't lived in one place for a long time-- tend to be the same types with a lesser stake in society, or who feel they have a lesser stake in society.

Undoubtedly, also, many voters may feel that politicians don't speak to them truthfully or with a straight attitude, or that politicians are only concerned about the wealthy and those with money.