"Realigning elections"

[J. J.]

J.J., how do you personally define a realignment?

It was defined, when I was in school as:

A set of changes that occur usually over a 6-10 year period, are durable (usually 36-40 years) and usually a result of a domestic crisis (the hyper inflation and stagnant growth of the late 1970's).

These changes include:

1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).

2.  Electioneering tactics (how the election is run)

3.  Candidate recruitment (who runs).

4.  Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom)

5.  Formation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).

(This is from a paper I wrote in 1984, and based on, among other things, the work of V. O. Key and his "critical elections.")

It does not necessarily mean that there was a shift in the party label of the group controlling Congress or the White House.  1986-1902 is generally considered to be a time realignment, yet all presidential elections, but two (same candidate) in the 36 years prior to that, were won by Republicans.  Likewise, in the 32 years after that,  all presidential elections, but two (same candidate) in the 36 years prior to that, were won by Republicans.  It's been argued that the Republicans of the latter period were much different than the Republicans of the first period.

[J. J.]

I want expand on some of these changes:


1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).

In the early 1980's we called them Yuppies; they have aged and turned into the Soccer Moms.  These are the the swing group, figure 25-55, that is the key swing vote.  It defeated GHW Bush in 1992 and arguably gave GW Bush his victory in 2004.  It's a key demographic and it''s not tied to a party.

You have also seen the social conservatives rise and solidly support the GOP.

2.  Electioneering tactics (how the election is run)

The big one.  1980 was the year that outside money, spent separately from began in earnest.  The American Conservative PAC was possibly the greatest force in creating a GOP Senate in 1980.  We saw the same thing with Soros last year.  We're seeing now the advent of "soft money."

3.  Candidate recruitment (who runs).  In a word on the presidential level, Governors.  7 of the last 8 presidential elections were won by Governors.  7 of the 8 eight previously were not won by Governors.  All eight were won by people that were Senators (5) or held a major Federal appointment prior to election (3).

4.  Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom).  I'd have to do much greater research, but it seems that the "chattering class" has become more Republican that it was in 1980.  I can point to three nationally known commentators prior to 1980, Safire (probably a moderate by today's standard), Buckley, and Reagan himself.  George Will had just entered the scene, doing some television commentaries (though he was writing since the mid 70's).  Would you care to list them today?

One group that lost national influence was big labor; it has lost elite status, which it pretty much had from the early 1930 through the 1970's.

5.  Formation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).

Here are some examples.  Free Trade, this was unthinkable in the 1970's, especially for Democrats.  Defense, from 1981 onward, we no longer looked at "containment" of anything.  Tax policy, okay the only figures I could find were on capital gains.  At the highest rates, in the late 1970's they were 70%; today the maximum rate is 20%.  There was an almost immediate reduction in 1981.  The public policy world has been turned upside down by the election of 1980.

That is a realignment.  Let me put it this way.  I was laying on the floor in front of the television at about 10:15 PM (EST) on November 4, 1980, when I flung my arms out and grabbed on to the carpet.  I turned to my father, who was sitting in his favorite chair and said, "Dad, did you feel that?"

He said, "Feel what?"

I said, "The entire country just shifted to the Right."    It's still there.

[A18]

The Republicans post-1876 were very different from the Republicans pre-1876. I don't know how the Republicans from 1877-1896 were any different from the post-1896 Republicans.

[Emsworth]

The Republicans post-1876 were very different from the Republicans pre-1876. I don't know how the Republicans from 1877-1896 were any different from the post-1896 Republicans.

Indeed, it was the Democratic Party that changed during the latter time period (moving dramatically from Grover Cleveland to William Jennings Bryan).

[J. J.]

You don't think that McKinley was greatly different from Ben Harrison?  Certainly in foreign policy, there was a difference of night and day.  The entire anti-international wing of the party collapsed; Reed voluntarily left office.

[A18]

Can you name one, consistent standard by which we can judge realigning elections?

There was a big difference between Harding and Taft on international issues as well, but no one calls 1920 a realigning election.

If shifts in party ideologies are the mark of realignments, then 1924-1928 is surely a realigning period. It was then that the Republicans became anti-state for the first time (a dramatic shift, for the party that once longed for a powerful federal government).

[J. J.]

There isn't one consistent factor.  That's part of it, a number of different factors occurring within the same 6-10 year period.

[A18]

I didn't say it had to be one factor. But what are the factors (the standard)?

[J. J.]

I didn't say it had to be one factor. But what are the factors (the standard)?

These are the ones I've posted:

1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).

2.  Electioneering tactics (how the election is run)

3.  Candidate recruitment (who runs).

4.  Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom)

5.  Formation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).

[A18]

1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).
1796, 1816, 1836, 1840, 1852, 1876, 1912, 1920, 1928, 1948, 1964, 1984

2.  Electioneering tactics (how the election is run)
1800 (smear campaigns), 1828 (voting requirements loosened), 1892 (secret ballot), 1896 (Bryan campaigning heavily in swing states), 1920 (women's suffrage), 1968 (Voting Rights Act), 1972 (26th Amendment)

3.  Candidate recruitment (who runs).
This changes every election or two

4.  Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom)
...

5.  Formation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).
1789, 1800, 1844, 1860, 1876, 1912, 1920, 1932, 1960 or 1964, 1980

[A18]

So I get 1896 only once, and I get 1920 three times (excluding #3 for each).

[J. J.]

1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).
1836, 1840, 1852, 1876, 1912, 1920, 1928, 1948, 1964, 1984

Not really.  1900, IIRC had an extremely huge turnout as did 1932 and 1936.  In 1948, you still had the same basic voting patterns.  Ever hear of the "New Deal Coalition?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are confusing a structural change or a change in law with who goes out to vote.  Who votes is different from who is eligible to vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, look at successful candidate recruitment.  7 of the last 8 of the last presidential elections were one by someone who was a governor.  1 of the 8 prior to that were governors (this occurred earlier and is considered a "proto-realignment." So was Al Smith's nomination in 1928.)

Also, you tended, in both 1978-84, and 1930-36 to have younger people elected to the House and Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing as dramatic as the changes between 1896-04, 1930-38, 1980-84.  Of course the greatest of them all was 1860.

[A18]

I.
The elections of 1932 and 1936 did not have "huge" turnout, much less "extremely huge." Turnout was higher in 1940.

It was in 1948 that the Solid South "broke."

II.
You said a change in how the election is run, not who votes.

III.
What an arbitrary rule for sorting elections into "realignment" categories. Whether we pick senators or governors is what you're looking for? Most of this just has to do with (a) Watergate: how we view insider and (b) people's Senate records becoming campaign issues.

IV, V.
What dramatic changes resulted from the 1896 election? The Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act are hardly dramatic, and I don't know that they can be fairly associated with the 1896 and 1900 elections, since voters didn't know they were getting Roosevelt's "progressive" agenda handed to them.

The end of Reconstruction is far more dramatic than anything that happened from 1896-1904. The civil rights movement was largely forgotten, as the parties moved on to new issues, such as wrestling with the tariff and civil service reform.

If you want real dramatic change, look at 1912-1920. Here you get the Federal Reserve System, the progressive income tax, the modern estate tax, the popular election of senators, women's suffrage, and the first state-run economy (World War I). Most of the "New Deal" was an extension of Wilson's so-called "progressive" agenda.

The changes from 1960-1968 also represented a tidal wave of reform: Tax cut, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, etc.

I wouldn't say all that much happened between 1980 and 1984. You got a large tax cut, yes. But I included it because the "Reaganite" vision has pretty much defined the last 25 years: free trade, tax cuts, deregulation of industries, inflation-targeting, welfare reform, New Federalism, the Rehnquist Court's recent limits on the Commerce Clause, etc.

[J. J.]

I.
The elections of 1932 and 1936 did not have "huge" turnout, much less "extremely huge." Turnout was higher in 1940.

It was in 1948 that the Solid South "broke."

Both are incorrect.  In 1920, you had about 26 million voters, in '24, that wen up by a million.  1928 had 36 million, but 1936 had 45 million voters.  Now, from '24 or '28 you did have new people permitted to vote and you did not have a greater than 60% increase in the VAP.  A greater percentage of the VAP voted, substantially greater.

1948 occurred for one election and did not encompass the entire South; you had a regional candidate that dented the New Deal Coalition, but this shifted back.  It wasn't a long term trend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said "Electioneering tactics".  A change in eligibility requirements is not " Electioneering tactics."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not hardly.  We tend to to vote for people with a certain background.  We suddenly stopped looking at people from the Senate or high administrative position in the Federal government to run for president, and began looking people that ran states. 

Records have always been part of the campaigns of the past century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps the emergence of the USA as a Great Power (militarily).  Strong support for the gold standard (which Bryan opposed) at the start.  Massive (for its day) governmental regulation under TR.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you were Black, yes.  If you were white, as most of the country was, no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Virtually none of the social welfare programs came out of this period.  It was TR's chosen successor, Taft, who drafted the direct election of Senators amendment and just after Taft took office that the XVI amendment was proposed (1909).  The latter was originally constructed as basically a tax on millionaires.  Those two are not part of Wilson's agenda, but were a result of the shift in the GOP, prior to Wilson.

Almost none of the "Social Contract Agenda" came from this period.

Even in terms of WWI, TR was one of the leading proponents of early entry, prior to Wilson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Medicare and Medicaid very good examples of expansions of programs that begun in 1935.  Even the bureaucracies that manages them  are the Social Security Administration and state run welfare offices, respectively. 

Yes, there were new policies, but beginning of most of these was in the period from 1930-36.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One thing that you've missed, which is telling, is Social Security.  Landon ran against it in 1936 and no nominee really challenged the status quo until Reagan came along in 1980.  Now, it's much more common.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one given just the numbers would pick out 1932 as the high point for this period.

1912: 58.8
1916: 61.6
1920: 49.2
1924: 48.9
1928: 56.9
1932: 56.9
1936: 61.0
1940: 62.5
1944: 55.9
1948: 53.0

As I said, 1940 was a year of higher turnout. Turnout was also higher in 1912.

After 1948, the South never voted as resoundingly Democratic again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er, the outgoing Cleveland administration also backed the gold standard.

Although the U.S. did emerge as a world player

As I said earlier: (a) the voters didn't know they were getting TR's "progressive" policies, since 1896 and 1900 can't be seen as realigning elections for that reason; (b) the World War I economy represented a far more drastic change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a change for everybody: the dawn of a new era. The issues changed, the bases of power changed (the South becoming solidly Democrat), and the Democrats would control the House of Representatives for all but 16 of the next 20 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not important. What's important is that the changes were more drastic than those of 1896-1900, by any reasonable definition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought you we were talking about changes in the electoral process, which is why I mentioned the 17th amendment.

The first post- 16th amendment income tax was approved by Wilson in October of 1913.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see what these have to do with anything. With regard to the second, it was Wilson that got it done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How did Reagan challenge the status quo on Social Security? He just raised payroll taxes (like most presidents since the 1930s).

[J. J.]

No one given just the numbers would pick out 1932 as the high point for this period.

1912: 58.8
1916: 61.6
1920: 49.2
1924: 48.9
1928: 56.9
1932: 56.9
1936: 61.0
1940: 62.5
1944: 55.9
1948: 53.0

As I said, 1940 was a year of higher turnout. Turnout was also higher in 1912.

Where do you get those numbers?  There Atlas figures don't show that.

After 1948, the South never voted as resoundingly Democratic again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They knew about in 1904 and certainly 1908 when they elected TR's successor.  The change occured.

Cleveland was repudiated by the Democratic Party in 1896.  Bryan, the nominee three times during this period, opposed it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not important. What's important is that the changes were more drastic than those of 1896-1900, by any reasonable definition.

[/quote]

Not hardly.  The change for the average voter occured in the mid-1930's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Amendment passed Congress on July 12, 1909.  Ratification occured in February 1913, about a month prior to Wilson being sworn in.  The change occured prior to Wilson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you understood the New Deal, you wouldn't ask thast question.  It was was the first large scale intrusion of the Federal Government on private lives.

Wilson was not a proponent of the war, and acturally used the slogan, "He kept us out of war," for the 1916 campaign.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reagan was the first president to restrict eligibility requirements, ending aid to children of recipients above the age of 18 and raising the retirement age.  No president or nominee (possibly excepting Goldwater) attempted that since 1936.  I'd have to really look at Goldwater's position.

[A18]

Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre, David R. Mayhew. Pages 71-74.

Staying the course does not qualify as policy innovation.

Then 1904 is the realigning election.

The Federal Reserve System completely revamped the nation's banking system. The average voter was not on welfare.

It isn't important when the constitutional amendment was passed. It's important when the progressive income tax was enacted.

If you understood World War I, you wouldn't make statements like that. The federal government imposed rationing, product controls, and price controls. It even socialized several industries.

So closing a few holes in Social Security is serious policy innovation? I'm afraid I can't agree.

[J. J.]

Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre, David R. Mayhew. Pages 71-74.

Staying the course does not qualify as policy innovation.

Then 1904 is the realigning election.

If you will look at my first post, you will note that it is a 6-10 year process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A sizable majority of the voters are in the Social Security system, or married to someone who is.  The Federal Reserve was initially designed to prevent financial panics, like 1907.  One of the  previous plans was devised by Sen. Aldrich.  http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/88-08/reg888a.cfm

This was basically a plan by bankers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's incredibly important when the politics changed to permit the passage of the act.  There is a lag, always, between legislation is adopted and when it was effective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of which were of limited duration and had no lasting effect.  Note that Harding won on a return to "normalcy."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was a lot more than closing loopholes.  This was a contraction of who would eligible for the largest (in terms of people effected) is about 45 years.  Social Security was called "the third rail of American politics."  Anyone who touched it, except to expand it, died a political death. 

I can still remember the aged Claude Pepper,  in the early 1980's, but a Senator from Florida in 1936, taking to the well to scream and about these "massive changes" in Social Security and invoking FDR.  This was major because it could not have been done for 43 years. 

Take a look at the commentary from that period.

[Gustaf]

Realignments are not confined to one election, but usually to a series of elections. 1896 was a veryimportant election because by nominating Bryan Democrats chose to define themselves as the party of the people, of the poor against a Republican elite. Upto that point I think it could have been possible for the parties to move in different directions (i.e. the Republicans becoming the left party and vice versa). By establishing the Democrats as the left party the Progressive element in the GOP was eventually stomped out, a process that really doesn't come to an end until LaFolette in 1924. A left-winged party would eventually be forced to back left-winged economic policies and oppose segregation, something that would eventually drive away the Dixiecrats.

But Emsworth definitely has a point; the elections are more symptoms than causes, obviously (though one could argue that the candidates can sometimes be important, such as Rockefeller v GOldwater or Bryan in 1986).