11-14-2018, 04:52 PM
(11-11-2018, 08:08 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You have noted a real shift in the 1960's (1968 would be the specific date), but only one of them. The 1896 wasn't a shift because you did not identify what changed in 1896. Republicans were in charge from 1896-1932 (holding the WH 7 out of 9 terms), but they had been over 1860-96 (also 7/9). Republicans did not suddenly become the party of economic conservatism. The had always been gold standard folks, and the Whigs before then as well. They had set up the National Banking system after the Civil War. Their Whig antecedents has supported the 2nd central bank, and their Federalist antecedents the 1st central bank, and after the Panic of 1907 it was the recommendation that their committee that a third central bank (which we still have) be established. In all three cases the purpose of a central bank is to act as the "lender of last resort" in times of financial crisis (i.e. bail out Wall Street when it screws up). The Republicans from their beginnings were the part of financial, industrial and commercial capitalists (what we would call corporate America) and so were the Whigs and Federalist before them right down to the beginning of the republican.
In other words there has always been an economically conservative party aligned with the big finance all the way back to the Washington administration and Hamilton's scheme to enrich Federalist speculators.
And they had opposition to their economic policies, which would be the economically liberal side. In the 1930's it was Andy Jackson, founder of the Democratic party who waged war on the Second Bank of the United States. He was pissed off about the Panic of 1819, which he blamed on that bank. (Course then HE had his own panic in 1837). Anyways there was a big disagreement over central banking and tariffs between economically liberal Democrats and economically conservative Whigs.
And then this same shift from economic sorting into social (or cultural) issues in the 1840's (like the sixties and seventies) when the issue shifted from economics to cultural. Now there have also been a Blue America (New England) and a Red America (South) from the beginning of the republic. They used to call this "regionalism" but we know it as Red vs. Blue. The Whigs and Republicans up to the mid 20th century were the Blue, and the Democrats were the Red. So when the "sort" shifted around 1840 the Blue side was anti-slave and the Red side pro. So this system you have applied further back before 1896.
And nothing "started" in 1896. The anti-gold populists had their predecessors in the Greenback Party in the 1870's. And there were various labor parties all through the post-Civil War era. To become competitive, Democrats added mostly Catholic immigrants to their Southern Red base to form a real schizophrenic mix of rural, Catholic-hating KKK-embracing Southern Democrats, and urban Catholic immigrant Northern Democrats. And then in the 1930's Blacks started becoming Democrats, which after Democrats passed Civil Rights became just too much for the Red-staters so they decamped to the GOP. And thirty or so years alter the Republican blues decamped from the Democrats.
And there you have your sortings. Trying to fit them into the S&H scheme is a challenge
1896 was the first real coalition change post-Civil War, here's the Wiki link starting it as the Fourth Party Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Party_System . William Jennings Bryans economic liberalism and "silver" boxed the Republicans into economic conservatism and "gold", which ended up being the more successful coalition. A lot of my opinions about 1896 come from (not kidding here, its actually a good history book) Karl Roves "The Triumph of William Mckinley". Rove for all of his flaws and mistakes is still one of the smartest people in America on electoral realignments and the processes leading to them. Mckinley really did BECOME a gold guy in 1896, bringing the Republicans along with him. They had always been on that side of the field yes, but it had never been a core identity of the party until 1896.
I haven't totally applied the model to pre-Civil War elections, 1896 marks the true start of the clocks movements around these two parties. I would note that I consider Lincoln the start of a "Social Sorting" into Social Liberal Republicans (anti-slavery) and Social Con Democrats.
The sorts fit VERY neatly into S and Howe. I can detail this more in another post sometime but I posit the generational change as the REASON the clock moves clockwise. Social liberalism is almost definitionally the views of the young and social con the views of the old, and the young don't become more economically liberal....as a 20 year old gets into their 30's life and family inherently push them towards being more economically conservative...as it moves from "tax them" to "taxing me".
The political cycles exist EXACTLY within the turnings. Party eras have happened about every 35-40 years, so every two turnings a new party era is starting. The current third turning started about the same time as Reagan started this party era, which is about the same time as the Millennials started being born. And interest rates started going down...