Realignments in American history and whether one is feasible in 2008

[jackson_dem]

There has been a lot of talk about realignment today. It is important then to step back and look at past realignments and see what we can learn from them.

1800

Jeffersonian Democrats take over from the Federalists. The Federalists would be reduced to being effectively a regional party after this.

1828 Jacksonian Democrats take over. The Federalists had died off. Only the Democratic-Republican party, the party of Jefferson remained. It split into two group after the shady election of 1824. The split was between President John Quincy Adam's National Republicans and Andrew Jackson's Democrats. Jackson, who won the most electoral and popular votes in 1824, was elected in 1828 and the rest is history. The National Republicans eventually became the Whig Party. Jackson's party has lived to this day uninterrupted by any chasms or transformations.

1860 The Democratic Party dominated from 1828 until 1860. The Whigs had died off and the Republicans effectively replaced them. Th Republicans would then dominate for decades. This was obviously largely due to the Civil War.

1896 McKinley's Republican realignment. This is the one Rove looked to as his example. We forget we were promised unity and realignment eight years ago too.

1932 The Great Depression and FDR's New Deal kills the Republicans. The Democrats launch the era of probably the most progress in our history.

1980 Reagan ended the previous Democratic era of dominance. Since he won the Republicans have held the White House for 20 out of 28 years, controlled the Senate for 18 years, the House for 12, and turned the federal judiciary into a Republican playground.

Common threads between them

Of the six, five were the result of a major president. McKinely is the exception. If a realignment is to occur starting in 2009 that means we would almost certainly need to elect someone who would wind up being considered an all-time great president.

Turbulence helps. The turbulence of the early years of the state helped the Jeffersonians, the Civil War the Republicans, the Great Depression FDR's New Dealers. Do we have such a situation now? I don't think so but it is not as vital as having a major president, as things like 1980 and 1896 show.

It takes change. Party's go into the wilderness for a long time because their policies are not popular. President's do not just show up, make a few good speeches, utter happy words and create a new majority. Parties change their platform, either out of necessity, luck, or of an explicit desire to regain a majority. The latter is exactly what the DLC's purpose was/is. The Reagan Republicans were not the losers of the 1930's, 40's, and 50's. They were not Nixon Republicans. Likewise, the Democrats of the FDR era were not the Democrats of Grover Cleveland's time. This begs a question. Which policies are we willing to change in order to move from 48% in 2004 to 56% or 60% in 2016?

A realignment is likely in the offing due to demographic and economic changes occurring. Read the Emerging Democratic Majority. The question is more when it will happen. Besides, those trends will occur regardless of who we put in the Oval Office. Anyone who is selling themselves as someone who will be a realigning president, which as history shows, usually requires being one of the all-time major presidents, needs to give us a real plan of how he or she plans to accomplish it. Any New Deal?

[Vincardog]

1. of the 4 major candidates I can name two how would stand in the way of any major reforms. One who

would help them and one who would champion them.

[BootinUp]

2. There were movements behind the Reagan thing you seem to dismiss

the economic pressures that helped convince people to hack the upper tax brackets, and many good social programs. The fallout from the civil rights movement and 60's culture. Roe v Wade. Vietnam. These things contributed mightily. It wasn't just Ronnies personality.

[jackson_dem]

3. I know. Conditions for realignment have to exist unless there is a crisis

Without the things you mentioned there would have never been a President Reagan or a realignment in 1980. Is there enough happening to forecast a realignment in 2009? Great speeches and a sparkling persoana alone will not cut it, as you pointed out.

[BootinUp]

4. There is something building, its not up to the 1980 level imo

If the economy totally tanks like '79. The race and gender issues raised by the candidates is interesting but not really a realignment situation. So there is no sign that on social issues there can be much lasting change.

I don't see it getting there no. And thats why I am bothered by this line from Obama. It is clearly an attack on Dems and not much there to justify it imo. We are on a small head of steam from 2006, no reason to veer right at this time and dismiss the party approach from recent history and put up a candidate with a thin resume.