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

[David Green]

Party alignments in the U.S. in the past seem to have reflected, to a great extent, differences among forms of ownership and power--agriculture vs. industry, corporations vs. urban machines, big government vs. local petty bourgeois, etc. Ownership interests seem to have been dominant in both major parties at all times, and re-alignments reflect changes in those ownership interests. Current cracks in the system now seem to reflect a lack of a real or even ostensible difference in the major parties' corporatism, militarism, federalism, etc. But can a re-alignment still not fail to inevitably represent ownership interests rather than a genuine popular movement? After all, Ron Paul probably doesn't have a problem with corporatons being people, and one can well imagine a less militaristic but still Social Darwinian society based on his prescriptions.
 
DG


>________________________________
> From: C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net>
>To: Peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
>Cc: sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com> 
>Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:17 AM
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Realignment?
>  
>
>[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
>>
>>  
>>__._,_.___ 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120114/d5e037e4/attachment-0001.html>