Are We living Through a Liberal Realignment?
Probably, but not certainly.
There is a general sense of change in the air, but such feelings or moods are inherently unreliable. In every presidential election year, lots of commentators get over-excited about the idea that it is a crucial election. Every U.S. presidential election matters a lot in absolute terms, because the power of the office is so enormous, but some elections are a lot more important than others because they signal the start of a multi-decade period of dominance for one party or the other. This might very well be one of them.
It seems to me that conditions are set up for major change this year. Here’s why:
1. We’re due. If you start the clock at 1968, we’ve had Republican dominance at the presidential level for about 40 years. The prior period of Democratic dominance lasted from 1932 to 1968, or 36 years. The period of Republican dominance that preceded this lasted from 1896 to 1932, or 36 years. In the modern American context, the typical duration of these shifts is, maybe not coincidentally, about equal to the working lifetime of an adult.
There’s nothing magical about this duration, and two data points don’t prove anything. But there is something to the folk wisdom of a pendulum that swings back and forth between left and right. There have been groups, tendencies or interests that crudely correspond to what we mean today by left vs. right, conservative vs. progressive or whatever you want to call them in every reasonably representative government that I can think of all the way back to the democracy in Athens. This ought to be a clue that there will never be some ideological battle of Armageddon in which one side or the other achieves final and complete victory (and that we probably wouldn’t want such an outcome anyway).
In extremely rough terms, this dynamic appears to function pretty reliably. When one group first achieves dominance, it begins by fixing problems created by predecessors. The programs put in place tend to work well, but as the initial problems are (partially) solved the inherent contradictions and assumptions of the new governing coalition begin to become more prominent and create problems of their own; corruption becomes more endemic; the existing coalition is locked in to constituencies that shrink while the out-of-power ideologues can be more flexible about building a more future-oriented coalition; and so on. The electorate switches horses, and the cycle starts again.
2. We’ve had a failed presidency. While one can make the argument that the public is deluded (though I don’t), George Bush is leaving office with abysmal public regard. His approval is at the level of Carter or Hoover.
3. If the current bail-out efforts don’t prevent an economic catastrophe, we will have the precipitating event of an economic crisis. In my view, this would make a liberal realignment all but certain.
None of this pre-ordained, and often recognition of historical patterns is the first step to changing them. Currently, Republicans seem to be refusing to play the sap in this drama. I have enormous policy disagreements with McCain (though I doubt he’s losing a lot of sleep over this), but it’s hard not to credit him for running a tactically ingenious campaign. Given the underlying conditions, the fact that he is competitive is extremely impressive. In the end, though, conditions will likely, though not certainly, overwhelm campaign tactics. These conditions are so favorable for any Democrat in 2008, that if Obama fails to become president, he ought to return to the University of Chicago and start teaching college classes on how to lose elections. Meanwhile, the (appropriately, in my view) much-maligned Bush administration seems to be making heroic efforts to prevent the financial crisis from becoming an economic crisis, rather than simply watching this happen. Betting on all this working to maintain Republican political dominance indefinitely, however, is betting against the house.
Nothing is written in the stars. Each prior realignment worked somewhat differently, and each has had differing levels of intensity. It’s entirely possible that Democrats could win in 2008, but do so badly that a conservative administration and president find themselves back in power by 2016. Unanticipated events could intervene is historically unprecedented ways. Anything could happen.
But how should conservatives react to realignment if it occurs? First, by adopting more critical distance between the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Politicians are in the business of winning elections. When you get past all the fancy talk, Republicans will move to the center in a realigned world, replicating something like the Rockefeller Republicans. Get used to the kind of alienation that liberal activists had for Clinton-style triangulation. The faster we can see the hidden advantage of no longer having to defend everything George Bush has done, the faster, we can develop a successful reform program. Second, by returning to the intellectual spadework of the 1950s – 1970s in order to develop relevant solutions. Prepare for lots more vigorous debate about the way forward. This is healthy, and should be encouraged. A leading indicator of progress will be the ability to win the allegiance of younger people. Third, by not trying to plan out some new coalition or “roadmap to victory” over the next X years. Just focus on identifying and solving real problems. Inevitably, conservative return to influence will be predicated on mistakes by the governing coalition anyway.
Is McCain’s tactical brilliance really the reason the polls remain so close? Over the short-term he’s won a few news cycles, but in the long-run he’s only managed to a) alienate the media b) turn his VP pick into an extremely polarizing figure rather than the trans-partisan rock star conservatives were hoping for and c)force himself into a desperate economic gambit that shows little sign of paying off.
McCain has kept the race competitive in spite of a schizophrenic campaign strategy and his well-known difficulties with the Republican base because Obama still can’t command the support of more than a bare majority of voters. Given Obama’s obvious political advantages, doesn’t that suggest that politics will remain pretty competitive for the foreseeable future?
— Will · Sep 25, 05:03 PM · #
I agree with Will, with the caveat that McCain, like Clinton, is a powerful brand in American politics, and Obama is Pepsi to their Coke. The coalition Obama is assembling—minorities, immigrants and people with college degrees—is not quite large enough to win elections, and Obama doesn’t offer much to the non-college educated whites that dominate the Republican Party and, crucially, the low-population overrepresented states critical for victory in the electoral college.
In order for a liberal realignment to take place, it is necessary for Obama and the Democrats to re-make the electoral map, just as they did the last time liberalism was ascendant through the expansion of voting rights to minorities and women. Obama is very likely to win this election, and will probably have enough votes in the Senate to pass major legislation. He should spend some of his political capital to eliminate the electoral college and reform the primary system in order to give his voter base, who live in cities and high-tech states like Colorado, VIrginia and North Carolina, more of a say in presidential elections. If we held a national election, the 100+ million Americans who live in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas would be able to engage their friends and neighbors in politics instead of having to cross state lines to convince those in poorer, less educated and less diverse states to vote for Democrats.
Republicans need to do three things to get their party back. First, they need to reject the nativist elements of their party, and start to make their case to immigrants and minorities who share their cultural conservatism and suspicion of government. Second, they need to adopt natalist policies that will help them keep fast-growing states close, and perhaps even gain advantage in states that are good places for families, even if they have poor economic prospects. Third, they need to contain their inclination to offer small- or anti-government solutions for every problem, recognizing that there are some things government does well, and government actions should be guided by research- and outcome-based ideas, not ideology.
— Martin Johnson · Sep 25, 05:34 PM · #
More like, “1860-1932”, but yeah. 72 years of Republican dominance, with only almost 20 years of Democratic presidents (if you count the unelected and constantly harried Andrew Johnson). Compared to that, the last 40 years (with 12 years of Democratic presidents) is nothing.
— keh · Sep 25, 05:49 PM · #
“…there is something to the folk wisdom of a pendulum that swings back and forth between left and right.”
I think you are right about this, and you explaination is pretty good. I also would note that the political popularity arc parallels all kinds of other popularity arcs. Look at Hulk Hogan’s for instance. At one point he was all the rage.
I’d also like to point out that the areas that conservatives told us they would be better at—foriegn affairs and the economy—are precisely the areas that they have sucked at most rightiously. Even Regan, which was high point of the conservative project didn’t really do all that great on the economy. And his “victory” over communisim was, to a large extent, being at the right place in the right time.
I think there are plenty of places to apply basic conservative principals to american politics and I’m excited to see what the new conservativism will look like. I’m really really hoping zenophobia, culture war, militarism, imperial presidencies, supply-sde economics, croney capitalism, and false meritocracy will be left on the cutting room floor.
That’s not to say that I’m totally sure we are entering a new liberal phase. I’m waiting and seeing.
“…Obama still can’t command the support of more than a bare majority of voters. “
That’s because of the experience issue and his race. It doesn’t say anything about the structural situation.
— cw · Sep 25, 05:58 PM · #
Of course I can’t prove this, but if Hillary had been the Democratic nominee, I imagine pundits would attribute her narrow lead to a cold personality, inability to connect with independents, lack of charisma etc. etc.
Bill Clinton could intuitively connect with pretty much every liberal demographic – intellectuals, yuppies, minorities, downscale whites – yet he still won both presidential campaigns with only a plurality of votes. I think we tend to ascribe more weight to personality traits that we would otherwise because they’re so visible. If nothing else, the revival of our supposedly dead “culture war” and the close presidential race suggest that the country remains split down the middle.
— Will · Sep 25, 06:34 PM · #
“I’d also like to point out that the areas that conservatives told us they would be better at—foriegn affairs and the economy—are precisely the areas that they have sucked at most rightiously.”
This is partisan wishful thinking, and doesn’t really represent any kind of consensus. Reagan inherited Carternomics and a hostile legislature and still rocked on the economy. And while of course it wasn’t the only factor, Reagan’s leadership in ending the Cold War is rather difficult to discount, unless you are dead set on discrediting his legacy.
Also, since when is croney capitalism a plank of conservatism, or a unique virus to the Republican party? Do the names Chris Dodd or James Johnson mean anything to you?
— Blar · Sep 25, 07:18 PM · #
From Ezra Klein today:
Join us for a discussion of “In Search of Progressive America” edited by Michael Kazin. Nearly every recent poll finds that most voters agree with views historically labeled as liberal: a hike in the minimum wage, government-mandated health insurance for every American, stronger gun control laws, broader sex education programs, laws that would make it easier for unions to organize, and the use of diplomacy instead of war to combat terrorism.
==
So here we have some of the potential areas for overreach in a first Obama term: sex ed, gun control, card check. If there’s anything that will stop the start of a liberal realignment, it’s here. It will be interesting to see if Obama/a Democratic Congress decides to move on any of these, or if they choose health care as their big battleground.
— Klug · Sep 25, 08:15 PM · #
“Reagan inherited Carternomics and a hostile legislature and still rocked on the economy”
Nah. On most measures of the economy, Reagan was below average for presidential administrations since the depression. DeLong has some good charts on his site right now. A little more than half-way down.
— cw · Sep 25, 08:32 PM · #
The Republicans have had an advantage in Presidential contests since 1968, but they most certainly have not been politically dominant during the last forty years. Over this time, the Republicans have controlled the executive for 70% of the time, have controlled the legislature for 25% of the time, and shared control of the legislature for 15% of the time (1981-87). That is not much of an advantage. By contrast, during the period running from 1933 to 1969, the Democratic Party controlled the legislature 89% of the time and controlled the executive 78% of the time. I am not sure if even today the Republican Party has reached parity with the Democrats in state legislatures and local councils.
If I am not mistaken, the two political parties were closely matched from 1876 to 1896 and again from 1912 to 1918. What Mr. Manzi appears to envision is a shift from a state of parity to a state of dominacy by one party, as occurred in 1896 and 1920.
— Art Deco · Sep 25, 10:13 PM · #
cw, you missed my point. Reagan had to deal with the fallout from the woebegone Carter era and a hostile Democratic congress that wouldn’t cut spending. All things considered, history judges his handling of the economy pretty well.
— Blar · Sep 25, 10:15 PM · #
I can’t remember too much what went on during the carter regan years—I was a teenager. Looking at the charts on DeLongs site, carter doesn’t seem to come out much worse that Reagan. I’m perfectly willing to say that Reagan was ok on the economy, average or below average. Is there any thing in particular that he (or the gvernment while he was president, I’m not really sure how closely you can really link presidents to economic performance) did that improved the economy? I don’t know if just generic “tax cuts” would satisfy me, becasue he had to rasie them right back up a few years later.
— cw · Sep 25, 10:30 PM · #
This is partisan wishful thinking, and doesn’t really represent any kind of consensus. Reagan inherited Carternomics and a hostile legislature and still rocked on the economy. And while of course it wasn’t the only factor, Reagan’s leadership in ending the Cold War is rather difficult to discount, unless you are dead set on discrediting his legacy.
Reagan’s economic stewardship was no great shakes. He continued the deregulation that had been started by Carter, gutted infrastructure investment, and directed so much money to the military that they weren’t able to use it effectively. Ultimately, he almost tripled the annual budget deficit that Carter left him.
The historical consensus is that the reduction of inflation / stagflation had more to do with Paul Volker, a Carter appointee, than any actual Reagan policies. The effects of Reagan’s policies on the economy seem, in large degree, to mirror those of the current administration, although with a lesser degree: there was modest growth, but it was not broad-based; there was significant deregulation, but it led to as many problems (remember the era of leveraged buy-outs?) as efficiencies. And it ended with a gigantic bailout of the financial system.
As for Reagan’s role in ending the cold war, it is hard to determine. He continued—well, accelerated—the cold war policies of every president since Truman, and may have helped contribute to a sense on the Soviet side that they would never be able to compete militarily. But the Soviet system was in long, slow collapse for 20 years, and would have been unsustainable even if we were armed soley by pea shooters. The Soviet Union, remember, collapsed when Gorbachev attempted to liberalize the state, and it got out of hand.
To Reagan’s credit, though, he was willing to talk about mutual disarmament with Gorbachev when he spotted the opportunity, even when it earned him the excoriation of his conservative base.
Reagan had many extraordinary qualities as a leader, but the modern conservative mythology that has him reforming the economy and single-handedly winning the cold war, is, well, a caricature of history.
— Osama Von McIntyre · Sep 25, 10:43 PM · #
I wish I were a party historian and/or historian of American politics, but as from what I recollect from my readings on the Reagan “revolution” and the 1960s & 1970s, one of the main points of such a lasting success was the ability to change the paradigm by which Americans thought politics & the role of government. The Liberal regulated economic & social model that predominated from prior to WW2 to the mid-1970s lived its course and had been exasperating many Americans prior to Carter. The Republicans were able to impress upon Americans that their way of thinking market economics and the role of government was not just the right way, but the only viable way. “Liberal” became a four-letter epitaph which one associated with sloven big city machine politicians, hippies, hairy-arm pit feminists, and wimpy aesthetes. Liberal was no longer the American way of doing things.
And now, yes perhaps we’ve come full cycle. What often passes for conservative is excruciatingly embarrassing to behold. The component parts of the GOP coalition are, socially speaking, strangers between each other. As it stands now, conservatives and their relays in the GOP don’t appear to have the faculties or power of persuasion to counter the Democrat/Liberal movement which will translate into an even greater scope and reach of government in people’s lives. And given the recent crises, incompetence under Bush, militaristic hubris and usury of the culture wars, I wouldn’t be surprized if an ever-increasing majority of Americans begin to say “hell, why not?” to the Democrats’ ideas.
When speaking of a realignment, its also a matter of determining the paradigm of what Americans think is normal and common sense. And should the Democrats win it on that score, their hold will be for at least another generation.
— Nyack · Sep 25, 11:13 PM · #
I’m reminded of Warren Buffet’s observation that every new market goes through through three phases that he calls the three I’s: Innovators, Imitators, and Idiots. It seems to me the same three phases apply to political and economic ideologies, and that we are well into the Idiot phase of the Reagan revolution.
Both the supply-side, deregulatory economic approach, and the state-centered, confrontational approach to foreign policy, seem adapted to conditions as they existed in the 80s, not the 00s. That’s one way of saying Manzi’s right about the need for a reformulated Republicanism.
— hummingbird · Sep 25, 11:34 PM · #
Well McCain just wrecked the agreement. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all good. No horrible give away to blood suckers on wall street, and a collapsing economy will guarantee that the genocidal monster McCain loses.
May he burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.
— LarryM · Sep 25, 11:48 PM · #
umm… I kind of think Republicans were dominant from 1860 to 1930). I mean, for 70 years they controlled the house and Senate most of the time as well as the Presidency except for Cleveland and Wilson. Before that I’d say the Democrats (Democratic Republicans) dominated from Jefferson to Buchanan. So the premise of this just isn’t true.
Finally, if McCain wins the election he may be able to hold off the worst fo the deluge while the moment for a true Left period to congeal.
— jjv · Sep 26, 12:02 AM · #
fresh horses….
mccain has just wrung the last drop of IQ-bait for the culture wars out of poor little Sarah Plain, and now hes charging off to fuck up the bailout.
can u believe how Team Mccain put Palin out there like a staked goat for Couric to savage with no defense but pageant answers?
man, that was cold.
wait for the standing wave of pain to hit the market tomorrow.
i predict a 10 point drop in the polls for Septugenarian Guy.
what an asshole.
is he really going to let Obama have 90 minutes of primetime for a free commericial?
and you think this guy should be the next CinC?
hes a frickin megalomaniac.
— matoko_chan · Sep 26, 01:19 AM · #
do you know what pisses me off the most, Jim?
Sarah Palin could have been a folk hero.
She could have reformed the media.
Their bias and disdain for her could have been turned into armor that would turn every blade.
She could have been insurgent, and bravely confronted the sneering establishment.
She could have been courageous, and subversive.
The crackerjack reform warrior.
Instead Team McCain muzzled her except for putting her out like a staked goat for Couric and Gibson to savage.
Some coaching and schooling.
All she has pageant answers.
McCain threw her away like used Kleenex.
— matoko_chan · Sep 26, 01:34 AM · #
and she will NEVER be president now.
have you seen this?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/open-thread-palin-and-couric-on-foreign-policy/
douthat says its too painful to watch.
— matoko_chan · Sep 26, 01:38 AM · #
oh…and im sure Team McCain thinks this a brilliant coup.
Lets see what Wall Street thinks tomorrow.
— matoko_chan · Sep 26, 01:43 AM · #
keh and jjv have noted that there was a 72-year period of Republican dominance (1860-1932). That period should be divided into two distinct phases, though:
1. The post-Civil War, “bloody shirt” phase of 1860-1896, which was driven by Northern loyalty to the party of Lincoln.
2. The post-Panic of 1893 prosperity and progressivism phase of 1896-1932, which was driven by a strong economy, nationalism, and the sense that the GOP was the more modern party.
— Steve Casburn · Sep 26, 03:48 AM · #
Septagenarian asshole? Genocidal monster? May he burn in hell?
Is this the incisive, level-headed commentary that I love about TAS?
— Blar · Sep 26, 03:57 AM · #
I ALWAYS call McCain Septugenarian Guy. It is the simple truth.
And he has behaved like an asshole.
Both vis a vis Gov. Palin and by fragging the bailout proposal, both for personal political gain.
lets see how incisive and level-headed you are tomorrow, Blar, when the market drops 500 points and the dollar goes into freefall.
— matoko_chan · Sep 26, 04:43 AM · #
Wash Mutual failed last night, and the credit markets are seizing up.
Just exactly what would you call a 72-yr-old megalomaniac playing chicken with a market crash so that he could be president?
I think Asshole is perfectly apt.
— matoko_chan · Sep 26, 01:14 PM · #
matoko_chan –
Please shut up. Or go elsewhere.
— Tragically Blunt · Sep 26, 01:52 PM · #
My grandfather was a republican.
My father was a republican.
The last thing my grandfather ever said to me was “always vote republican”.
Now the republican party is the party of witchcraft(Palin’s church) and demonic exorcism(Jindal’s church), where an antique shyster is gaming the system with irresponsible parlor tricks like selecting an obvious demagogue to be VP and charging off to DC to destroy the bailout with last minute political grandstanding.
You talk of libertarian values while advocating the state’s ownership of a citizen’s body with anti-abortion legislation. You talk of citizen rights but lobby and sneer at samesex marriage of citizens.
The republican party has sold their libertarian soul.
You are nothing but whited sepulchers.
The theocons OWN you.
— matoko_chan · Sep 26, 02:34 PM · #
“A leading indicator of progress will be the ability to win the allegiance of younger people.”
Jim, I’m surprised to find only this single mention of demographics, or of the demographic tidal wave that conservatives are facing.
As of this year, more than 50% of American children under age 5 are nonwhite.
If conservatives want their votes, they’re going to have to offer a very different message.
Problem is, that message would have to contradict many central tenets of today’s conservatism—even “true” conservatism.
— Steve Roth · Sep 29, 04:02 PM · #
Re: the low-population overrepresented states critical for victory in the electoral college.
Huh? You’ve lost me there. Neither Florida last year nor Ohio this year nor the swing states possibly in play this year (FL and OH again; MI, PA and VA) qualify as low-population, overepresented states.
re: Second, they need to adopt natalist policies that will help them keep fast-growing states close
Unless you’re talking something as brutal and totalitarian as Nicolae Ceauscescu effected in Romania, there’s zero evidence that natalist policies do anything to increase the birth rate. And even if the birth rate did increase that does not create a constituency for conservatism. A society with lots of young people tends to be fairly liberal, even radical (see: Baby Boom and the 1960s— worldwide not just to the US). If you want a conservative-leaning society, a nation with an aging population is your best bet.
— JonF · Sep 30, 01:42 AM · #
“These conditions are so favorable for any Democrat in 2008, that if Obama fails to become president, he ought to return to the University of Chicago and start teaching college classes on how to lose elections.”
I think this would be true if all things were equal and the two candidates were succeeding on strategy, execution and merit. But McCain is not. He has at least a five point bump because of Obama’s race. Probably more. That is a big handicap for Obama to overcome in a country that already leans a bit to the conservative side. I think Obama will still win, because he has been an amazingly inventive and disciplined campaigner, and because the markets are crushing the GOP. But it will be much closer than it otherwise would have been if Obama had a “normal” name and whiter hue.
— Mark · Sep 30, 02:11 AM · #
I think the post is dead on = it is definitely starting to look like a realignment period.
As for Palin: the scary part is the simple fact that, despite being coached by smart people who know what they are talking about (whether I or we agree with them or not) and these were the answers they let her go in with. It proves two things: 1. she’s an idiot with no idea of what she is taling about and 2. they had no faith in her to master a more complicated answer. At this stage it seems to be beyond argument that both are true. This is probably the most significant idictment of McCain’s judgment. They flatly blew this one: they didn’t vet her for problems or brains. Had they done any real checking they would have left her in Alaska!
— Baa · Sep 30, 02:39 AM · #
Jim……the youth demographic are going from 15% to 35% for Obama.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/whats-wrong-with-battleground-poll.html
I think that that is the signalling.
We choose the future.
The conservative view looks back, always.
It is anathematic to youth.
We see you as having no vision.
— matoko_chan · Sep 30, 02:14 PM · #
And….what Mark said?
The youth demographic is colorblind.
— matoko_chan · Sep 30, 02:17 PM · #