home

More Political Trivia: Realignment Theory

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Matt Yglesias wrote a curious post that had me scratching my head. So I spent some time thinking about it. First the essence of the post and on the flip my thoughts:

I've always been puzzled by the realignment theory of American elections. I never really studied US history or US politics at the college level, so I've never been in a position to claim to be able to assess the arguments offered pro and con for this account of things. It's clear that American political journalists act as if the political science underlying realignment theory is strong and sound. I've also always felt, based on my philosophical background, that the theory looked like a slightly absurd superstition. But who was really to say? Then I saw that one of Steve Teles' recommended books for aspiring journalists is David Mayhew's Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre of which Teles remarks:

"American political journalists continue to talk as if "realignment" was still a meaningful phenomenon. Mayhew shows in this cool and clinical book that it's not, and what is more, probably never was. He also makes some very suggestive comments on what might substitute for realignment as a large-scale explanation for political change."

Matt's statement that "American political journalists act as if the political science underlying realignment theory is strong and sound." Do they? Who are "they?" At least for me, journalists who even discuss realignment elections speak of one in the 20th Century - FDR and the Democrat's 1932 election sweep which overturned 36 years of virtually unbroken Republican control of the Presidency AND the Congress. In the most basic understanding, it seems to me that calling the 1932 election a realigning election seems sound. Why wouldn't be? Did some folks in ivory towers build a whole house of cards on this fairly obvious observation? I dunno. Yglesias cites to Wikipedia, which doesn't give me much confidence:

Realigning election or realignment are terms from political history and political science describing a dramatic change in politics. It may center on a "critical election" or be spread out over several elections. More specifically, they refer to any one of several United States presidential elections in which there are sharp changes in the rules of the game (such as campaign finance laws or voter eligibility), new issues, new leaders and new bases of power for each of the two political parties, resulting in a new political power structure and a new status quo that will last for decades. The usual focus is on the transition between party systems, as between the First Party System and the Second Party System, and then to the Third Party System and so on.

The central holding of realignment theory, first developed in the political scientist V.O. Key's 1955 article, "A Theory of Critical Elections", is that American elections, parties, and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps.

V.O. Key Jr., E.E. Schattschneider, James L. Sundquist, Walter Dean Burnham and Paul Kleppner, some of the most distinguished election scholars of the past two generations, studied the election returns going back 150 years, and found patterns so similar and so peculiar that at first they seemed difficult to believe. Though they differed on some of the details, it was concluded that not only do realigning elections occur, but that they occur on a regular schedule: once every 36-years or so.

The alignment of 1860, with Republicans winning a series of close presidential elections, yielded abruptly in 1896 to an era of more decisive GOP control, in which most presidential elections were blowouts, and Democratic Congresses were infrequent and brief. Thirty-six years later, that system was displaced by a cycle of Democratic dominance, lasting throughout the Great Depression and beyond.

Ahhh. So the nub is the theory that they happen regularly every 36 years or so. so Reagan in 1980 is a realignment and then we aren;t due for another for 10 more years. Well, if that is the theory, then duh, that really is stupid.

Why in heaven's name would the passing of 36 years or so be the trigger? Finding of coincidences does not a serious theory make. Did political scientists really spend a lot of time on this? Gawd I hope not.

Moral of the story, Yglesias sometimes posts about stupid stuff. And so do I. Anyway, tell me why I am wrong if anyone cares to.

< Dems To Chavez: Drop Dead | McCain's "Scenic Route" To A Rubber Stamp: Even WaPo's Hiatt Says So >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: More Political Trivia: Realignment Theory (none / 0) (#1)
    by along on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    well, the one after FDR would have to have been in 1968, with Nixon's election. I don't think that works. The Reagan Revolution, 12 years later, is a much more defensible realignment. Of course you're right, 36 years on its face means nothing. The underlying generational changes that take place every 20-40 years I think are the culprits to look at. And the fact that there are only 2 parties. It would seem to make sense that, given a more or less free political system, where one party doesn't have an iron-clad claim to governance, power swings back and forth between them regularly, like a pendulum. It could actually be a sign that the old clock is working fine.

    Re: More Political Trivia: Realignment Theory (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    I always held to the theory that the source of most realignments were not internal and domestic but, rather, time-lagged reactions to external, international forces. The 36-year cycle sounds like utter nonsense. Plus, wars always have helped to bring on realignments.

    Re: More Political Trivia: Realignment Theory (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:58:59 PM EST
    While there is nothing talismanic about 36 years, I have noticed the same 1896 to 1932 to 1968 rhythm. History never repeats itself exactly, and the explanation for the 1968 to 1980 gap is that, while the Democrats' governing coalition collapsed in 1968 (at least in presidential politics) the Republicans couldn't get organized enough to exploit it until 1980, or that Nixon's impeachment temporarily caused the Republican ascendancy to stall. Arguably, there is always only one ascendant political coalition in existence at a time, and elections that go the other way (Eisenhower or Clinton) indicate pauses or retrenchments rather than reversals. This would suggest that a wholly new political coaltion cannot be expected to gain the ascendancy until the old one becomes discredited with, or disconnected from, the rising new generation of voters. Are the Republicans in the process of discrediting themselves? I sincerely hope so.