US party realignment

What? Politics?  This usually spiritual blog is about US presidential politics?   Well, yes. True confessions: your author was a poli sci major in college.   Quaker's are people who are deeply concerned about social concerns and social justice.   Who is elected president greatly effects us, and I have something to say about this that I have not seen any pundits saying.  (Amazing since they drone on endlessly about the elections, but usually saying little of actual substance or usefulness.)

The main thing I want to say is the reason this primary season has been so utterly bizarre is because the US is attempting to have a party realignment.  This has happened many times in our history, at least 5 times probably 6...usually about every 32 to 36 years.  So for example from 1792 -1824 we had two parties, neither of which exist now: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (what a party with the name of both current parties?)   The Federalist party came to be viewed as to elitist and died.  But at the time it did the Democratic- Republican party split into two new parties for the next 31 years: the Whig party and the Jacksonian Democrats.

It was the lead up to the Civil War and then the war itself that cause the next realignment.  The Whig parties leadership died out because they had splits between them. (sound at all familiar Republicans?) The Republican party was born out of the ashes of the Whig party and the first ever Republican president was Lincoln.   His legacy gave the party a lot of respect and legitimacy long after his death. At the same time the Jacksonian Democrats morphed into just the Democratic Party for a 36 year period of the third party alignment. Notice this is the 3rd set of two parties.   Now if you go just by names there have only been 3 realignments.   But most historians agree there have been a total of five or six realignments.  And you can tell that is true because if you think about how Lincoln conducted himself - if he came back now and had to pick a party....he would be a Democrat.  (For one thing the Republican strong hold is the South which would not have been friendly to his anti-slavery policies.)

So coming out of the reconstruction period, starting in 1896 was the next (4th) party realignment.   At this point in history the Republican strong hold was the North , some farm states and the NE (notice that is what the Democrats currently hold.)   This 4th alignment saw the rise of Labor who went to the Democratic party.  The Republican's heavily blamed the Democrats for the bank panics of 1893. Teddy Roosevelt was the very popular populist Republican President.  He was a Trust breaker and a conservationist - not positions we would not associate with Republicans.   But he became very upset by the policies of his former Vice-President, now elected President Taft.   He ran against him for the next election and when he lost in the primary, he ran as a third party candidate for the Bull Moose party (This will be like when Trump looses the brokered convention and then forms a third party which will be called the Trump party.   Bull Moose was an already existing nickname for Roosevelt.)  His running against Taft split the Republican party and the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson was elected as the first Democrat since Lincoln in 50 years (other than a split two terms of Grover Cleveland).  Wilson was also helped by the fact that the Democratic party had solidified its hold on the south by disenfranchising most Black voters (tactics now familiar to us from the Republican party.)

When later FDR ran as a Democrat there was consternation on Teddy's Republican side of the family,but the truth was both Roosevelt's were tough against monopolies and graft and corruption and saw themselves as champions of the "little guy".   In fact Teddy was more progressive than the Republican party he has served as president for and his splitting of the party shifted more liberal members of the party to a Democratic party that elected Woodrow Wilson for 8 years.  Wilson's poor settlement of WWI ensured Republican victories until FDR was elected as a response to the Republicans disastrous handling of the economy resulting in the great depression.  Thus this fourth realignment shifted progressives to the Democratic party and left a more conservative Republican party.

So the 5th realignment began with the election of FDR, who was elected 4 times (there were no term limits then - those were passed after his presidency ended. But he died shortly into his 4th term.) Between his 12 years and his VP who served out his 4th term and was re-elected  this meant there was a Democratic lock for 20 years!   Dwight Eisenhower's 8 years as President was the only Republican serving during the 36 years of this 5th alignment - just as Grover Cleveland was the only Democrat to serve during the Republican 4th alignment till Wilson was elected by the disintegration of that formation of the Republican party.  During this 5th alignment the Democrats controlled the whole country other than the Republican farm states and the NE.

Not all historian's agree that the election of Nixon represented the end of the 5th alignment...some say we are still in the 5th and that it has been longer than all others.   Others argue that Lyndon B Johnson's disastrous handling of the Vietnam War and failure to bring it to an end - in combination with the continued big spending of the whole FDR 5th period caused voters to forsake the Democratic party and bring in Nixon.  The republican party had been split under the very conservative Goldwater half and the more moderate Rockefeller half.  Nixon appealed to both halves.  However, the civil rights movement under Johnson and Kennedy's administration enfranchised Black voters and moved them in as Democratic voters.  The conservative Christian right that surged during this whole 6th realignment moved the South from being a democratic voting block to being a republican voting block.

During this 6th realignment we have seen: 8 republican years (Nixon - Ford completing his second term) 4 Democratic Carter years, 12 Republican under Reagan followed by his VP Bush Sr, 8 Democratic years under Bill Clinton and then 8 Republican years under Bush jr. and now 8 years of Obama.   For a two party system this period has seen the greatest back and forth between parties of any previous alignments (besides possibly the third alignment).  What has gone on in these two parties in this time?  Reagan, the most clearly popular Republican president of this group took his party in a more progressive direction.   Clinton took the Democratic party in a more conservative direction with the dismantlement of the welfare system, doing away with the bank regulation of Glass-Steigal act which had been in place since the Great Depression and with the passage of NAFTA.   This is a direction that Obama has continued with the passage of a health care act that places insurance companies in the center and with his bail out of the banks and his attempts to pass TTP.  This sort of support of big business and selling out of the poor is frankly what one had come to expect of Republicans.

It is only since 1968 that we see the electoral map shift from the Democrats controlling the South to the Republicans controlling it and also from the NE being Republican controlled to becoming predominantly democratically controlled.  During this period we have seen approval ratings of Congress and both parties Presidents hit record lows as the public has become utterly disgusted by the grid lock created by the ugly fight tactics of both parties keeping them from getting anything done.  It is no wonder that the public is voting in droves for outsiders to both parties during these primaries.

So if the rise of the fundamentalism Christian voice inside the Republican party has given rise to the right wing Tea party republicans - splitting the Republican party so badly that the angry Republican voters actually are forsaking it for a party outsider: Trump, then we see the much decried implosion of the Republican party - into three branches - the far right tea party - the center party traditionalists and the vanquished Trump folks.  

However, the Democratic party is in no better shape.  The Clinton/Obama move to the right (in an attempt to respond to 12 years of Republican rule) has moved the party towards the center and Bernie Sanders, an actual democratic- socialist who has not identified ever as a Democratic, represents a far left of the traditional Democratic party.  So while the pundits have been happy to describe the implosion of the Republican party and wonder why Trump is popular and note some effect of the Tea party - they mostly just assume Hillary Clinton will continue the consolidation of the new more conservative Democratic party and win over the Republican mess. They however, have been too quick to ignore what Sanders represents and to ignore in general that America appears to be trying to enter its 7th Party alignment.  To the degree that the pundits see a three way race they see it as being between two Republicans and Hillary.   If that happens we will not have a party realignment - we will have the consolidation of more conservative Democratic party and a dangerously oligarchic moment with no real distinction between the Republican party we have had under the 6th alignment and the new Democratic party.

However, the exciting scenario under which a new party alignment could indeed take place is with a 4 way race! (Due credit to my daughter for first pointing out to me the possibility of a 4 way race.) Check out this scenario: In a brokered Republican convention the traditional party pushes out who they rightly see as a landslide loss scenario and then, being the narcissist he is, Trump refuses to quit and runs as an independent Trump party.   Bernie Sanders is right now on course to lose to Hillary in the primary by a very narrow margin.  The media keeps reporting that Hillary has won another state, but they fail to report the very narrow margins by which she wins most of those states.  There is still a very believable scenario by which Sanders could surpass her in more liberal states which are coming up - but if not, finish a very close second to her.   In a scenario where the Republicans actually give Trump the nominations, I believe that Sanders understands well enough the fascist threat of splitting a vote against Trump and he would defer to Clinton's nomination.  However, if the Republican party splits there is no reason on earth why Sanders should not run as an Independent which he truly is anyway.  The Republican convention is one week before the Democratic one.

What would happen in a 4 way race?  The Republican candidates would split the traditional (6th alignment) Republican strong holds which is where Clinton has also fared best...but she would not win those over Republican candidates.  Sanders has fared best in traditional (6th alignment) Democratic strong holds (Republicans that have won those in their primaries have already dropped out.)  Polls do show Bernie winning over Trump, but not Hillary wining over Trump.   And one could argue that in a 4 way race, it is really anyone's guess.   But one thing which is for sure is Americans would have more real and distinct choices than have happened certainly in my whole life time.   The other thing that is for sure is the results would be a party realignment.   Two years later would a Tea party be campaigning against a right leaning Democratic party?  Or would a Democratic Socialist party be running against a Democratic-Republican party?  Stay tuned for these and other exciting developments....Oh and go to the polls for Heaven's sake!