| The Cycles of American Political Systems
I begin with the shortest cycles first, because thay most narrowly set the time-frame for us, and because the evidence for them is the most empirically straightforward. I've written about them before here at Open Left, and being by re-presenting the collective graphic picture of the cycles over time:
Partisan Balance In US History
Through Six Party Systems
Control of Presidency, House & Senate
| 
Dem-Reps: 12 / Feds: 2 / Split: 1 | 
Dem-Reps: 9 / Whigs: 1 / Split: 7 | 
Dems: 1 / Reps: 9 / Split: 8 | 
Dems 3 / Reps: 12 / Split: 3 |
Dems: 13 / Reps: 1 / Split: 4 | 
Dems: 3 / Reps 2.25 / Split: 13.75 |
While there is no unanimity, and some scholars even deny that any such cyclic behavior exists, I think that a combination of different perspectives adds up to a powerfully persuasive argument-though one that is less elaborate and more campact than many have made it. (For example, see David Mayhew's Electoral realignments: A critique of An American Genre, summarized here.)
Nonetheless, the set of charts above offers a striking visual argument for the existence of such cyclic behavior. As one can see at a glance, the first two party systems differ by having a different subordinate party, the second and third differ by having the dominant party become subdominant while a new party emerges as dominant, the third and fourth systems differ by having the fading dominant party come roaring back to dominant status, the fourth and fifth differ by having dominant and subdominant parties switch roles, and the fifth and sixth party systems differ by having split government become the dominant form.
For our purposes here, I would simply arguet that such a clear macroscopic sequence of surprisingly regular changes obviously exists, and if the explanatory theories are shaky-as Mayhew argues-then so much the worse for the theories: the macroscopic pattern remains.
In fact, I believe it is relatively easy to salvage a plausible base theory from one of the key works in the literature, Walter Dean Burnham's Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. . A useful summary of it can be found here, which explains Burnham's argument as follows:
Argument
How Criticial Realignments Occur: Four Phases - Phase #1: constituencies are coalescing around certain critical issues; tensions arise in society because these mobilizations are not adequately organized or controlled by the outputs of party politics as usual (these tensions are associated with abnormal stress in the socioeconomic system).
- Phase #2: a "third party revolt" demonstrates the incapacity of regular parties to integrate these issues within their platforms (which would otherwise appease their constituencies and dampen tensions); ideological polarization occurs among and within parties.
- Phase #3: flashpoint; parties adjust to resolve the tension.
- Phase #4: significant transformation in policy; post-adjustment, institutional elites change behavior.
The Model's Basic Intuition
The rise of third-party protests as a "proto-realignment phenomena" indicates an increasing gap between the perceived expectations citizens have of the political process and the perceived realities of the political process. (In other words, the present alignment of interests slowly falls out of sync with public cleavages). In other words, dissatisfaction triggers protest movements. There are two types of third-party defections: the major party bolt (a faction breaks away from a major party) and protest movements (non-prominent leaders build a protest coalition that crosses party lines). The former is not part of a durable realignment, but the latter is.
Major Predictions
When third parties reach 5% of the electorate, they are proximately associated with realignment or existing at the midway point in the electoral life cycle. Examples: the Free Soil Party in 1848 (before the 1854 cut-point) and the Socialist Party in 1912 (midway point in the 1895-1927 electoral life cycle).
Historical Observations
1. most proto-realignment parties have leftist orientations, which signals the heavy periphery orientation of protest movements;
2. all proto-realignment parties channel the critical issue-bundles of the time (Examples: Free Soilers focused on slavery and sectionalism; Socialists focused on welfare liberalism versus laissez-faire economics).
I believe that Burnham's basic intuition is sound: a party system represents a configuration of political problem-solving. So long as it is "good enough" at solving problems (to borrow a phrase from British psychotherapy), the system remains stable, and the power shifts are relatively constrained. The subordinate party rarely elects presidents, and when they do, the president doesn't dramatically alter course. The most notable exception to this pattern would be Woodrow Wilson-however he can be seen, instead, as the most successful example of a phenomena that I see somewhat differently than Burnham: the mid-cycle failed realignment, which I see as part of a broader "proto-realignment phenomena," discussed above. In the cases of Garfield (in the Third Party System) and Eisenhower (in the Fifth Party System) we have more typical subordinate party presidents, who function more to suppress the oppositional forces within their own parties than to challenge the reigning orthodoxy. And this same pattern was fulfilled by both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton during the Sixth Party System.
What made the Fourth Party System different-so different that the Bull Moose Party temporarily displaced the Republican Party as the number two party at the Presidential election level-was the highly amorphous nature of the victorious side in 1896, which defined itself far more successfully in terms of what it was not, by painting the Populists as Luddite outsiders. The three-way split in the election of 1912 (not counting the vigorous socialist opposition) showed just how contested the notion of a progressive identity was, and would remain, until Wilson's tortuously evolving vision collapsed upon itself, and left the way clear for the McKinnley/Hanna/Taft faction, which virtually no one today would think of calling "progressive"-though that was a label they claimed in contrast to the Populists.
Why This Matters Now
Having a plausible theory of party system change matters now precisely because we're approaching what has all the signs of being another realigning election. Therefore, understanding what makes such elections tick is of vital importance if we are to truly grasp what it is at stake, and how it can go wrong as well as right. Naturally, understanding the realigning elections means understanding the larger cycles as well, since the realigning elections cannot be understood apart from their historical context.
While I'll have more to say below, and in followup posts, one thing is worth noting right now-precisely as one would expect from Burnham's theory, religning elections are primarily reactions against what came before, against the failure to solve certain problems, in most cases, rather than being for any specific solution. This is particularly true of the two most consequential realigning elections. Lincoln's election in 1860 was opposed to the expanding power of the Southern slavocracy. It was not an election to free the slaves. And FDR's election in 1932 was to end the Hoover do-nothing response to the Great Depression. It was not a vote for either the first or the second new deals. This is not to say there was nothing definite promised in advance. But what was delivered varied significantly from what was promised, as indeed, it could not help but do. It is the very nature of realignment that new policies will take new directions that cannot fully be anticipated in advance.
I have considerable concerns about both Democratic candidates. Both appear to be deeply attuned to the the expiring party system, and reacting to, adapting to, or even surrendering to its assumptions, rhetoric and whole way of framing the nature of politics. The differing ways in which they adapt are less significant to me than the common fact that they do adapt. Obama is more annoying, perhaps, because he loudly trumpets change, even while he spouts conservative buzz-phrases like "tax relief." But neither seems to live outside, beyond or above the narrow confines of our degraded present. What's more, Obama's focus on charismatic figures such as Kennedy and Reagan, distracts attention from the deeper underlying dynamics, as if it were the surfer who created the waves. Never mind the fact that it focuses attention on secondary waves.
Coming Next... The Cycles of World Powers
Get your board games out, boys and girls! |
