Realigning election?

[OSR stands with Israel]

^ Eh, the southern Democrats were basically shoved aside all throughout reconstruction and the pro northern industrial business policies held sway over that era as the southern Democratic stronghold never caught up to the North in terms of political and economic power. I just don't really see the Democratic south getting anything they wanted out of that era beyond the ending of reconstruction (which actually screwed them economically).

Plus we only had two southerners from 1860-1932: Andrew Johnson (who was a poor President, got impeached, and never won a national election), and Woodrow Wilson (who technically was governor of New Jersey before he ran for President).

From 1873-1896 neither party got anything

[President Johnson]

I think it will be 2024 towards the Democratic Party. Trump narrowly gets reelected in 2020, but four years later the Democratic nominee will beat the Republican candidate (not Pence) by decisive margin. The new president will pass universal health care, free colleges and nother social democratic policies. The Republican Party then will lose three or four elections in a row and moderate itsself to reclaim power with a moderate hero.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ Eh, the southern Democrats were basically shoved aside all throughout reconstruction and the pro northern industrial business policies held sway over that era as the southern Democratic stronghold never caught up to the North in terms of political and economic power. I just don't really see the Democratic south getting anything they wanted out of that era beyond the ending of reconstruction (which actually screwed them economically).

Plus we only had two southerners from 1860-1932: Andrew Johnson (who was a poor President, got impeached, and never won a national election), and Woodrow Wilson (who technically was governor of New Jersey before he ran for President).

From 1873-1896 neither party got anything

The policies of the gilded age by and large favored the GOP and their northern industrial base.

[The_Doctor]

The big reason for the realignment is that the shift from supply side economics where we favored low inflationary rates and corporate growth will swing towards growing the disposable incomes of consumer, to power economic growth. Weak economic growth is because there was too much pressure placed on the wage growth of consumers (and also explains the lack of inflation despite healthy economic growth and tight labor markets).

Since 2000 wages have been stagnant and since 2000 too, economic growth has been middling, rather than a true economic boom. We've had "expansions" but they haven't been economic booms - middling recoveries from the dotcom bubble burst of 2001 and the Great Crash. A lot of what I just said above is the big reason for it.

One reason the Republican majority is struggling so much is that the GOP platform forecloses any meaningful way to raise consumer incomes, beyond tax cuts and if tax rates are low, that really forecloses other measures to raise consumer incomes sizably and on a sustained level. If they had a solution, we would be looking at the second half of the GOP era starting now. But voters know that the Trump + Reagan GOP is unable to deliver on this front, so a lot of them voted for the Democrats, as a result. (This is probably how I explain the 35% - 40% of whites voting Democratic  in 2016).

Democrats will push universal college tuition and single payer to free up the disposable income of millenials and Generation Z folks who will then spend to stimulate the economy. I don't think automation will become a huge challenge (but will present a growing challenge) until the 2040s. But that's probably a "second half of the Democratic realignment" problem.

(Universal college tuition, by the way, forestalls automation as an emerging problem for a bit by creating the supply for the existing demand for high tech and high skilled jobs).

This is - and it's wild, I know - is probably what the elections of 2020 and 2024 and 2028 will be fought over. 2020 would probably be the opening bell for this debate which would either culminate in the Democratic White House's re-election in 2028 (or if the Democrat wins in '20 and it's a realignment, 2024).

[The_Doctor]

And no, restricting immigration won't solve the problem. The labor pool is structured in such a way that there's a lot of supply at the lower end of the skills pool and not enough on the higher end of the skills pool. This is because 66% of Americans don't have a college degree. This is one reason for so many $15 wage movements around a ton of cities. Also illegals make up 11 million out of 330 million. So yeah.

Structuring trade deals to benefit low income workers is a nice idea but the benefits of protectionism has never ever been proven in a post-industrial economy. (It mainly benefited us when we were scaling up from the Industrial Revolution).

In short, the GOP are screwed without a major platform overhaul and that means the Northern GOP would need to take power from their southern and interior cousins. which isn't happening barring a string of major Democratic wins.

[Virginiá]

The big reason for the realignment is that the shift from supply side economics where we favored low inflationary rates and corporate growth will swing towards growing the disposable incomes of consumer, to power economic growth. Weak economic growth is because there was too much pressure placed on the wage growth of consumers (and also explains the lack of inflation despite healthy economic growth and tight labor markets).

Since 2000 wages have been stagnant and since 2000 too, economic growth has been middling, rather than a true economic boom. We've had "expansions" but they haven't been economic booms - middling recoveries from the dotcom bubble burst of 2001 and the Great Crash. A lot of what I just said above is the big reason for it.

I'm just curious, but if the party found a way to temporarily stray from its roots and implement the economic policies they need rather than the ones they want, couldn't that party rule far, far longer than the usual cycles would suggest? This obviously would assume that economics is the primary reason why parties rise and fall, but I wonder if the economy is constantly kept in a decent state (and from the consumer's view, not just experts and elites), wouldn't the primary focus shift to other things, like various social issues? If so, it's not hard to imagine 'softer' realignments that are might also be more regional.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ That's difficult because congress is run by old men who are incredibly stubborn and not into doing new things. "It worked in 1980, why can't it work now?" is the mindset of many concerning macroeconomic policy in our congress today, including many Democrats.

But in some instances that has happened. Teddy Roosevelt (unsurprisingly the youngest person to ever serve as President) did implement a good deal of reforms which were not in line with the policies of the Lincoln-McKinley GOP majority. Maybe that's why they served longer than any other majority?

[Virginiá]

^ That's difficult because congress is run by old men who are incredibly stubborn and not into doing new things. "It worked in 1980, why can't it work now?" is the mindset of many concerning macroeconomic policy in our congress today, including many Democrats.

But in some instances that has happened. Teddy Roosevelt (unsurprisingly the youngest person to ever serve as President) did implement a good deal of reforms which were not in line with the policies of the Lincoln-McKinley GOP majority. Maybe that's why they served longer than any other majority?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall it being mentioned a number of times that they were already slowly cracking up after (or during) Woodrow, but yes, if you stabilize the economy and make people have faith it, so long as they associate that with your party, I imagine it would allow for longer dominance. They have less impetus to demand change, and the opposition has less of an argument as to why they should be in power.

It seems like a tricky thing to balance, though, like you alluded to. They are old and resistant to change, and that is even before you factor in the fears of of being primaried for straying from traditional party policy. However, given the right circumstances and the right leaders it can be done.

I'm just glad the Republican Party was never this smart

[The_Doctor]

A solid question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To answer this, well, remember what goes into a realignment. First, you have to pick up the pieces of the old alignment. Then you have to spend decades building the voter coalition. The Goldwater and Southern folks built decades creating an array of think tanks, voter groups, and an ideology to stitch it all together. Given the decades of work and our Constitutional system in promoting stability above all else, I think that it's very hard for a party to flip on its head and change its mind. We're seeing this in real time with Trump; Trump has different ideas of how to govern but the GOP coalition is in a totally different headspace and is forcing Trump to govern as a typical Republican.

Realignments usually happen when the need for changes outstrip a party's acceptable parameters for enacting policy. The 1920s would have rather dropped dead than enact the New Deal. There's a bit about how labor was crucial to the Democratic hegemony and economic growth in the middle of the 20th century; the Lincoln-McKinley GOP hated unions. The 1970s Democratic Party was horrified for 12 years straight into 1992 at Reagan's ideas.

Absent economic issues, a party might be able to experiment around the corners (becoming more hawkish) in regions and that's certainly true. But I think realignments are economic first and foremost and about a national path. The farmers and the frontiersmen needed a free hand to explore and settle the West (it's no accident that Jefferson took the Louisiana Purchase unconstitutionally and then doubled down on it by sending the Lewis & Clark expedition). The Industrial GOP cracked down on unions and enacted fairly pro-business policies (only going so far to keep their voter base placated by just enough (trust busting in 1904 etc)).

I don't think it's possible for a party to shift direction majorly after a realignment occurred. The biggest fluidity occurs leading up to the realignment and maybe the confirming election. The Civil Rights movement dominated the confirmation election of John Kennedy and the northern businessmen reoriented the GOP in 1896 towards McKinley's pro-bausiness policies.

The only instance I know of a party that really shifted from its roots and realigning path was Teddy in 1901. And Teddy became President because of assassination and won re-election by virtue of being a popular incumbent. After him came Taft and Harding and Coolidge. And even then so, TR was limited in his reforms compared to the Wilsonian and New Deal reforms. 1912 is an important year because the GOP establishment could've proven that year they were open to Teddy. (He won more primaries, actually, but yeah). But they stuck with the conservative McKinley-esq Taft.

The current Trump GOP tried to explore options but a major stumbling block is that a ton of Republicans, establishment, donors, and base are rooted in the 1980s and are extremely hostile to populist noninterventionism (which is way too close to McGovernism in many ways). The ongoing civil war between Trump and the GOP establishment is testimony to this (as is the fact the GOP establishment has basically made Trump come to heel; Trump never had the TR esq mandate to force the GOP to follow him).

[The_Doctor]

Basically, watch Bannon's tax reform attempt to place a "4" in front of the tax rate for the richest and there's your answer. The screaming from Paul Ryan, the Chamber of Commerce, Club for Growth, the vast majority of small business Republicans, and on and on will fill up Pennsylvania Avenue (both ends) until Bannon backs down. Not coincidentally, these groups were ideologically formed in the interregnum between the New Deal and Bush 43, so the height of the Goldwater - Reagan ideological revolution.

[Virginiá]

Basically, watch Bannon's tax reform attempt to place a "4" in front of the tax rate for the richest and there's your answer. The screaming from Paul Ryan, the Chamber of Commerce, Club for Growth, the vast majority of small business Republicans, and on and on will fill up Pennsylvania Avenue (both ends) until Bannon backs down. Not coincidentally, these groups were ideologically formed in the interregnum between the New Deal and Bush 43, so the height of the Goldwater - Reagan ideological revolution.

Right. I guess that's what I figured, that my question was kind of like, "what would happen if gravity stopped existing everywhere TD went?" Interesting things would happen, but gravity is never going to stop existing like that

Although in this case I would argue that if the president had the will, was smart enough and could muster just enough influence, they could probably pull it off if they got the opposition party on board. In that case, you might only need marginal support from your own party. They'll hate the president for it, but it'll "right the ship" and possibly allow them to enjoy even more time in power than they would otherwise (and of course they would be too stupid and egotistic to realize that)

[uti2]

There won't be one anytime soon.

1980 was no realignment.

You could argue that there wasn't a particularly strong Party realignment, but there definitely was a solidification and rise of neoliberal politics.

How did the western world go from this in the late 1970's:

1. Debtor’s paradise (high inflation eats away privately held debt)
2. Sustained inflation
3. Labor share of national income at an all time high
4. Corporate profits at an all time low
5. Strong unions
6. Low inequality
7. National markets
8. Weak financial sector and weak central banks
9. Strong confesses/parliament (strong fiscal policy)

to this today:

1. Creditor’s paradise (since inflation is either low or non existent)
2. Secular disinflation
3. Labor share of national income at an all time low
4. Corporate profits at an all time high
5. Weak union
6. High inequality
7. Globalized markets
8. Strong Financial sectors and strong central banks
9. Weak/hated congress/parliaments (weak fiscal policy-reliant on monetary policy)

Without a reprogramming of our software?

All of those trends in the late 1970's didn't just reverse on a whim. They were down through governmental actions spanning from Reagan-Bush II. Nixon's measures didn't do a damn thing to lower inflation, beef up corporate profits, or increase inequality throughout the 1970's (they all kept trending the same way they had been before he took office to when he left office) and Carter's measures were incredibly tame compared to the ones undertaken by all of his successors.

The Reagans and Thatchers of the world changed the game.

Richard Nixon cut social programs, endorsed free trade, began the earliest deregulation measures, and dissolved the monetary system that was the backbone of Keynesian economics (that he did so in the name of Keynesianism just shows his economic ignorance). Ford and Carter accelerated this process and Reagan even more so. It's true that they didn't have the immediate effect desired because they were so small-scale, but by 1973 every Western government was committed to the themes of fiscal austerity, deregulation, and free trade whether it was governed by "left-wing" or "right-wing" parties. For example, the Callaghan Labour government of 1977-1979 was far more conservative on economics than any British government since the Conservative Baldwin governments of the 1930s. Of course, it's true that the reason the neoliberal measures in the 1970s were of a smaller scale than in the 1980s and especially the 1990s. Yes, Reagan certainly anted up the pressure, but it was already the consensus. If we were to argue an election solidified neoliberalism, it would actually be not Reagan but rather Carter in 1976.

I disagree that unions were strong in the 1970s - this decade is when weak leadership, collapsing membership, outsourcing, and failed strikes became the norm as Michael Goldfield noted his 1987 book The Decline of Organized Labor. A sign of what would follow.

Pointing to Nixon, Ford, and Carter's super small scale neoliberal measures as the beginning of the Reagan Revolution is like saying 1932 wasn't a realignment because Wilson and Teddy implemented smaller scale progressive politics before FDR came along. It's missing the bigger picture and the importance of the Reagan Revolution itself and why 1980 was a critical election.

Again, all of the macroeconomic trends that predated Nixon and Ford continued on during and after their administrations. They weren't even speed bumps in the lead up to stagflation and the high inflation late 70's: they continued much of the same New Deal style consensus politics. Where was the neoliberal consensus if they continued the same macroeconomic trends? They had Democratic congresses that were still primarily geared towards New Deal full employment policies (and who weren't willing to go full on with a neoliberal agenda until Reagan came along). Not even Carter could work well with his own Party in the late 70's because the neoliberal consensus on how to fight stagflation and high inflation hadn't been established yet.

The neoliberal era began with Reagan and the GOP-southern Dem coalition in congress which worked with Reagan to get his agenda through unlike the way they treated Nixon, Ford, and even Carter. 1980-Today we've been targeting price stability, whereas from 1945-1979 we had been targeting full employment.

A significant parallel between Reagan and Obama is that both sent moderate members of their parties packing to the other side. Reagan with the Rockefeller Republicans, and Obama with the Blue Dog Democrats.

Obama was basically the embodiment and fulfillment of Mcgovern's platform. Mcgovern's main left-wing positions that were considered scandalous were his social positions on issues such as drugs and gay rights, he was not that Left-wing on economic issues. There was always a strain of thought representing Obama-style ideas in the Democratic party, just as there was for Reagan (Taft), Lincoln (Henry Clay), and FDR (Jennings Bryan).

There is simply no historical strain of thought representing sanders-ism in the Democratic party. People want to link FDR to Sanders, but that betrays the historical process. Reagan was a very different president from the likes of Lincoln and Coolidge. These developments didn't come out of a void, they were simply embodiments and fulfillments of long-standing factions within the parties.

Sanders is even totally unlike Howard Dean, Dean is closer to Obama. The closest parallel to Sanders is a third-party candidate in the make of someone like Eugene Debs.

[dw93]

Unless a Democrat of the Clinton/Obama ideology gets nominated and beats Trump (or Pence), then 2020, IMHO, is when the next realignment will happen.

If Trump runs again and wins, it means Trumpism is the new norm in the GOP and throughout enough of the Country to where the Democrats will adjust accordingly. If Trump runs again and loses to a Democrat of the Sanders/Warren mold (at least in that mold in an economic sense), and flip both houses of congress at the same time, the Democrats will be the dominant party, and the GOP will be in the same position the Democrats were in in the 1980s.

[Ye We Can]

Just to add on to this thread, a realigning election, imo, doesn't mean the nation swapped majority parties, just that the defining issues and coalitions were changed.

You saw this certainly in 1896; while the GOP were already the majority party the major issues moved from sectionalism and industrialization (The Gilded age politics) which dominated from 1860-1892 to class conflict and internationalism brought on by the rise of rural populism in response. The GOP retained majority status but it was definitely a different era of politics onward from 1896 to the New Deal.