What was the last election of the 5th party system/first election of the 6th?

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Discuss. I'm totally undecided on this, so I'd like to hear your opinions.

[Skill and Chance]

Not in favor of realignment theory in general, but to the extent there are very lasting trends, I would focus more on who the parties appealed to vs. how well they did in a particular set of elections:

1896-1948: Industrial laborers overtake farmers, rise of organized labor/social class based politics, Dems begin building a new base, end of the Civil War era.  At first it seems odd to group the 3 consecutive Republican landslides together with 4 consecutive Democratic landslides, but FDR was really just a supercharged version of the Bryan coalition.

1952-1988: The suburbs become politically significant for the first time, New Deal reforms firmly entrenched despite one-party Republican rule, the former laborer class feels economically secure for the 1st time.

1992-present: For the first time, the Democrats win by reaching out to suburban managerial voters.  Republicans work to build a rural base surprisingly quickly.   

IMO, it's hard to argue that we aren't still living in the post-1992 era.     

[Agonized-Statism]

Breakup of the New Deal Coalition, 1968. Carter was a deregulationist, nothing like the New Dealers.

[dw93]

Breakup of the New Deal Coalition, 1968. Carter was a deregulationist, nothing like the New Dealers.

True that Carter was the first to dabble in financial de regulation. That said, if you look at the electoral map in 1976, Carter's victory looked like that of a New Dealer (winning the South plus parts of the Rust Belt and parts of the Northeast). Nixon also governed far more moderately than he would've liked to, and in some ways governed to the left of the three Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton, Obama) that came since. I would say Reagan was the start of the 6th party system as he left the country far more conservative than he found it, something Nixon, despite his best efforts, was never able to achieve.

[Agonized-Statism]

Breakup of the New Deal Coalition, 1968. Carter was a deregulationist, nothing like the New Dealers.

True that Carter was the first to dabble in financial de regulation. That said, if you look at the electoral map in 1976, Carter's victory looked like that of a New Dealer (winning the South plus parts of the Rust Belt and parts of the Northeast). Nixon also governed far more moderately than he would've liked to, and in some ways governed to the left of the three Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton, Obama) that came since. I would say Reagan was the start of the 6th party system as he left the country far more conservative than he found it, something Nixon, despite his best efforts, was never able to achieve.

Carter's map was a fluke because he was a good 'ol boy, and southerners then tended to jump at the chance of electing a southerner. True that Reagan was more effective at implementing his brand of conservatism than Nixon, but Nixon had the southern strategy that characterizes the GOP of the 6th Party System and forever changed the GOP with the law and order platform. Note that he cut back on the Great Society and the space program. I think what happened here is that there was a "hiccup" in the realignment because of Watergate, but Democrats squandered their advantage and Reagan carried it on.

[Roll Roons]

Breakup of the New Deal Coalition, 1968. Carter was a deregulationist, nothing like the New Dealers.

True that Carter was the first to dabble in financial de regulation. That said, if you look at the electoral map in 1976, Carter's victory looked like that of a New Dealer (winning the South plus parts of the Rust Belt and parts of the Northeast). Nixon also governed far more moderately than he would've liked to, and in some ways governed to the left of the three Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton, Obama) that came since. I would say Reagan was the start of the 6th party system as he left the country far more conservative than he found it, something Nixon, despite his best efforts, was never able to achieve.

Carter's map was a fluke because he was a good 'ol boy, and southerners then tended to jump at the chance of electing a southerner. True that Reagan was more effective at implementing his brand of conservatism than Nixon, but Nixon had the southern strategy that characterizes the GOP of the 6th Party System and forever changed the GOP with the law and order platform. Note that he cut back on the Great Society and the space program. I think what happened here is that there was a "hiccup" in the realignment because of Watergate, but Democrats squandered their advantage and Reagan carried it on.

I feel like Carter sweeping the South (apart from VA and OK, which are atypical in the context of the region) was the last gasp of the "Solid South" as part of the Democratic electoral map. The realignment was definitely underway, but his nomination allowed the New Deal coalition (of which the South was a key part) to remain on life support for one last election.

[dw93]

Breakup of the New Deal Coalition, 1968. Carter was a deregulationist, nothing like the New Dealers.

True that Carter was the first to dabble in financial de regulation. That said, if you look at the electoral map in 1976, Carter's victory looked like that of a New Dealer (winning the South plus parts of the Rust Belt and parts of the Northeast). Nixon also governed far more moderately than he would've liked to, and in some ways governed to the left of the three Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton, Obama) that came since. I would say Reagan was the start of the 6th party system as he left the country far more conservative than he found it, something Nixon, despite his best efforts, was never able to achieve.

Carter's map was a fluke because he was a good 'ol boy, and southerners then tended to jump at the chance of electing a southerner. True that Reagan was more effective at implementing his brand of conservatism than Nixon, but Nixon had the southern strategy that characterizes the GOP of the 6th Party System and forever changed the GOP with the law and order platform. Note that he cut back on the Great Society and the space program. I think what happened here is that there was a "hiccup" in the realignment because of Watergate, but Democrats squandered their advantage and Reagan carried it on.

I feel like Carter sweeping the South (apart from VA and OK, which are atypical in the context of the region) was the last gasp of the "Solid South" as part of the Democratic electoral map. The realignment was definitely underway, but his nomination allowed the New Deal coalition (of which the South was a key part) to remain on life support for one last election.

That's what I was trying to get at with my response, but even in 1980 Reagan's closest states were in the south and I think even in 1984 some of Reagan's closest states were southern states.

As for the "hiccup" Anarcho-Statism mentioned,  even without Watergate, I don't think the country would be as conservative as it got with Reagan. Sure Nixon gave us the law and order platform and the southern strategy, but it was Reagan that really made the religious right a force in American politics, it was Reagan (and to a lesser extent Carter) that ended Keynesian economics in America, ushering in economic neoliberalism, while Nixon was the one that said "we are all Keynesians now" and place (abet in a very half assed fashion) price and wage controls. Reagan also created disdain for poor people in this country in a way that Nixon never did. Hell, the Democratic party became more conservative (outside of some key social issues) for having Reagan, the Democrats got more liberal for having Nixon, and that was even before Watergate.

[Agonized-Statism]

I feel like Carter sweeping the South (apart from VA and OK, which are atypical in the context of the region) was the last gasp of the "Solid South" as part of the Democratic electoral map. The realignment was definitely underway, but his nomination allowed the New Deal coalition (of which the South was a key part) to remain on life support for one last election.

The Solid South of the previous party system was characterized by disenfranchised blacks and southern segregationists. Again, you had southerners locked out of the White House for over a century aside from Wilson-ish and Truman-ish, and still feeling marginalized and hated by the rest of the country. Carter was literally a southern caricature. He was a favorite son. This wasn't a one party south voting to continue segregation as it had been until 1972. This was the south from a less polarized time flipping to a personality they liked, similar to Bill Clinton in the '90s. Funny, he was the first Born Again Christian character to carry the south because of his religion, a commonality in 6th Party System elections.

[Agonized-Statism]

That's what I was trying to get at with my response, but even in 1980 Reagan's closest states were in the south and I think even in 1984 some of Reagan's closest states were southern states.

As for the "hiccup" Anarcho-Statism mentioned,  even without Watergate, I don't think the country would be as conservative as it got with Reagan. Sure Nixon gave us the law and order platform and the southern strategy, but it was Reagan that really made the religious right a force in American politics, it was Reagan (and to a lesser extent Carter) that ended Keynesian economics in America, ushering in economic neoliberalism, while Nixon was the one that said "we are all Keynesians now" and place (abet in a very half assed fashion) price and wage controls. Reagan also created disdain for poor people in this country in a way that Nixon never did. Hell, the Democratic party became more conservative (outside of some key social issues) for having Reagan, the Democrats got more liberal for having Nixon, and that was even before Watergate.

Careful about the what-ifs. We'll never know what an America without Reagan would look like. Maybe it'd be even more conservative. If you're saying he's a bad guy, I can agree (economically), but the movements that got him in the White House started with the southern strategy, law and order, and Christians' moral panic about the counterculture, all factors that got Nixon elected. The fact is that Nixon began the dismantling of the welfare state that Reagan accelerated. Also, McGovern got the nomination in 1972 not because the Democrats were becoming more liberal, but because Muskie got Nixoned. If we're defining the 6th Party System as the ascendence of moderate DLC Democrats, it would start in 1992.

[catographer]

Not in favor of realignment theory in general, but to the extent there are very lasting trends, I would focus more on who the parties appealed to vs. how well they did in a particular set of elections:

1896-1948: Industrial laborers overtake farmers, rise of organized labor/social class based politics, Dems begin building a new base, end of the Civil War era.  At first it seems odd to group the 3 consecutive Republican landslides together with 4 consecutive Democratic landslides, but FDR was really just a supercharged version of the Bryan coalition.

1952-1988: The suburbs become politically significant for the first time, New Deal reforms firmly entrenched despite one-party Republican rule, the former laborer class feels economically secure for the 1st time.

1992-present: For the first time, the Democrats win by reaching out to suburban managerial voters.  Republicans work to build a rural base surprisingly quickly.   

IMO, it's hard to argue that we aren't still living in the post-1992 era.     

Love this analysis, agreed a lot. It’s a much better organization of American political history to divide it up by the character of parties and the makeup of their coalitions rather than solely election results. We are absolutely in the post 1992 era. In terms of foreign policy, the numbers you have line up well too with the World Wars, Cold War, and post-Cold War periods respectively.

[Orser67]

Accepting the first four party systems as being from about 1792-1826, 1828-1854, 1856-1894, and 1896-1930, I think there are three reasonable dates for the end of the fifth party system and start of the sixth.

1966/68: This date would fit in best with the 25-40 years cycles of previous party system, and focuses on a few factors: the start of a period of Republican dominance of the presidency, the end of the Solid South (1966 marked the first time that Republicans really became competitive in congressional races in the South, and 1968 marked the first time since Reconstruction that the South voted en masse against the Democratic presidential candidate), the end of a period of liberal legislation (New Deal+Great Society), and the end of the Warren Court (the Supreme Court tends to be a trailing indicator of party systems). On the other hand, Democrats continued to dominate Congress and there actually was a fair amount of important, left-leaning legislation passed in the 1970s.

1980: This date would focus on the rise of Reagan and the country's turn to the right (especially on economic issues) after 1980. Republicans continued to grow stronger in the South (while Democratic strength shifted to other regions), and Republicans took control of a chamber of Congress for the first time since the 1950s.

1992/1994: This set of dates would look the least like other realignments (which generally saw either the establishment of new parties or a disastrous midterm for the party in power followed by their loss of the presidency in the following election), but also probably best reflects the current composition of both parties. Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of 7 presidential elections since 1992 (inclusive), but Republicans have generally been the stronger party in Congress since 1994. The year saw massive Republicans gains in the South, possibly marking the election where Republicans became the stronger party in the South (outside of presidential elections). Gingrich's election as Speaker lurched Republicans further to the right and marked the start of a new era of polarization in Congress.