2008: A Realignment in the making

[mddem2004]

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.

[mddem2004]

Began it before... finished it afterward.

[mddem2004]

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...

[mddem2004]

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

[mddem2004]

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.

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...