[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Realignment?

Sat Jan 14 02:17:37 CST 2012

[The invaluable Wikipedia summarizes the state-of-play in US party  
realignments, & I add the last two paragraphs. Of course much more  
should be done to specify the class character of the different parties  
in order to account for the realignments. The history of all hitherto  
existing society is assuredly the history of class struggles, but  
those struggles are rarely perspicuous. What's necessary is the sort  
of specific analysis done in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis  
Bonaparte & The Class Struggles in France. Don't wait up.  --CGE]

The concept of party system was introduced by English scholar James  
Bryce in American Commonwealth (1885).
American Party Systems was a major textbook by Charles Merriam in the  
1920s. In 1967 the most important [summary of the argument] appeared,  
The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development, edited by  
William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. It brought together  
historians and political scientists who agreed on a common framework  
and numbering system. Thus Chambers published The First Party System  
in 1972, and Burnham published numerous articles and books.

Closely related is the concept of critical elections (introduced by V.  
O. Key in 1955), and "realignments."

 From Robert C. Benedict et al., Political Parties, Interest Groups  
and Political Campaigns (1999):

"Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five  
distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and major  
parties:
	(1.) 1796-1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and  
Federalists;
	(2.) 1840-1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs;
	(3.) 1860-1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats;
	(4.) 1896-1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats;
	(5.) 1932-1968, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans."
Marjorie Hershey, Party Politics in America (14th ed. 2011), [argues  
that to date] there have been at least six different party systems  
throughout the history of the United States:

First Party System: This system can be considered to have developed as  
a result of the factions in the George Washington administration. The  
two factions were Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists and Thomas  
Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists argued for a  
strong national government with a national bank and a strong economic  
and industry system. The Anti-Federalists argued for a limited  
government, with a more emphasis on farmers and states' rights. After  
the 1800 Presidential election, the Anti-Federalists (later known as  
the Democratic-Republicans) gained major dominance for the next twenty  
years, and the Federalists slowly died off.

Second Party System: This system developed as a result of the one  
party rule of the Democratic-Republicans not being able to contain  
some of the most pressing issues of the time, namely slavery. Out of  
this system came the Whig Party. Wealthier people tended to support  
the Whigs, and the poorer tended to support the Democrats. The  
Democrats dominated this era. The Whig party began to break apart into  
factions, mainly over the issue of slavery. This period lasted until  
1860.

Third Party System: Beginning around the time of the start of the  
Civil War, this system was defined by bitter conflict and striking  
party differences and coalitions. These coalitions were most evidently  
defined by geography. The South was dominated by the Democrats who  
opposed the ending of slavery, and the North, with the exception of  
some major political machines, was dominated by the Republicans, who  
supported ending slavery. This era was a time of extreme industrial  
and economic expansion. The Third Party System lasted until 1896.

Fourth Party System: This era was defined by Progressivism and  
immigration, as well as the political aftermath of the American Civil  
War. Northeastern business supported the Republicans while the South  
and West supported the Democrats. Immigrant groups were courted by  
both parties. The Fourth Party System came to an end around 1932.

Fifth Party System: This system was defined by the creation of the New  
Deal Coalition by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the  
Great Depression. This coalition supporting new social welfare  
programs brought together many under-privileged, working class, and  
minority groups including unions, Catholics, and Jews. It also  
attracted African-Americans, who had previously largely supported the  
Republican Party due to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. This era  
lasted approximately until 1968.

[Sixth Party System: Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of winning  
elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African-American  
racism among Southern white voters inaugurated the sixth system in  
1968. In response, the Democrats gave up the formal demand for  
economic equality that had animated the New Deal (FDR thru LBJ) and  
substituted the demand for diversity: identity politics replaced class  
politics, and the term "class" was abolished from the political  
lexicon throughout this period. The most noticeable effect was the  
electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party and  
African-Americans away from the "party of Lincoln" to the Democrats.

This system, inaugurated by what was paradoxically the most liberal  
administration since WWII, that of Richard Nixon (e.g., environmental  
legislation), was the setting for the successful counter-attack  
against New Deal social democracy by Neoliberalism. This Sixth System  
may now be coming to an end, with Paulist Libertarianism (for lack of  
a better name) and a new realignment to a Seventh System. Each of the  
recent systems have lasted about 36 years - a generation and a half,  
by historians' rule of thumb - so it's about time...]

      "Whereof what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my  
discharge."

On Jan 14, 2012, at 1:06 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:

>
> "Ron Paul wins support of the military while Obama cashes in on war- 
> profiteers.
>
> "Defense contractors are pumping money into the campaign for  
> President Obama as he runs for reelection, but one of his biggest  
> competitors, Ron Paul, is cashing in on his opposition to  
> militaristic imperialism..." <http://rt.com/usa/news/paul-military-obama-defense-753/ 
> >.
>
> It's not out of the question that 2012 could see a realignment of  
> the 'major' parties like 1932 (the New Deal) and 1968 (the Southern  
> Strategy). The collapse of a Romney candidacy and a shift to Paul -  
> either within the Republican party or outside it - would make the  
> alternate to the Democrats' war-and-Wall-St policies be an anti- 
> interventionist, anti-Wall-St., anti-raci st-drug-war (and hence  
> anti-incarceration) party, whether called Republican or not.
>
> The best evidence that this might happen is Paul's domination of the  
> youth vote in the primaries so far. 'Traditional' Republicans are  
> substantially older, Paul Republicans younger. A Paul insurgency  
> this year may be the basis for the replacement of the Nixon-Reagan- 
> Bush Republicans, especially given the apparent collapse of the  
> Teapartiers. --CGE
>
> __._,_.___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120114/bdd74946/attachment.html>