Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Realignment Theory
#1
Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.
Reply
#2
In what ways were the Progressive Era Democrats different from modern Republicans? And does that mean you believe that the Democrats will come to resemble the Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt?
Reply
#3
(09-02-2016, 01:11 AM)Dan Wrote: Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.

This meshes with the stuff Kurt Horner posted on the "Political Archetypes" thread on the old boards.

I've been thinking this for a while, the "blue culture" Libertarians are shifting to the Democratic Party and the socially conservative populists are being fully absorbed into the GOP, and thus the Dems are becoming the "social-libertarian party" and the GOP the "populist authoritarian" party, each with left and right wings economically.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#4
Re-alignment? That takes much more than one election. One incredibly bad nominee does not make a re-alignment. Just remember that four years after George McGovern lost 49 states, Jimmy Carter won a close election. Remember that eight years after Ronald Reagan won a 49-state blowout, Bill Clinton  won a smashing victory, putting the lie to the idea that the Democratic Party was dead in presidential politics.

Donald Trump is a singularly-awful nominee, someone who could have never won the nomination of a major Party except under freakish circumstances. Being the strongest in an eight-way race because he was the most reckless and won some states on a winner-take all basis?

I assume that Hillary Clinton will win even with her obvious faults as a Presidential nominee because Donald Trump is reckless and confrontational.  But do not expect Hillary Clinton to be re-elected in 2020. The Republicans could get a solid nominee in 2020 as  the economy melts down or America faces some disasters of foreign policy.  

It is easy to see how the "cosmopolitans", liberal on social issues but conservative on economics, could reject Donald Trump. Unless the Democrats are headed in that direction, creating a void for the more populist and socialist among them, then Hillary Clinton might be getting a one-time pick-up not available next time. But who picks up the more socialistic populists on the Left?

Democrats now have some voters who should be fairly conservative on taxes and spending, let alone culture. Middle-class blacks, Latinos, and Asians aren't exactly ion the avant-garde on cultural issues.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
(09-02-2016, 07:04 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 04:07 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 01:11 AM)Dan Wrote: Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.

This meshes with the stuff Kurt Horner posted on the "Political Archetypes" thread on the old boards.

I've been thinking this for a while, the "blue culture" Libertarians are shifting to the Democratic Party and the socially conservative populists are being fully absorbed into the GOP, and thus the Dems are becoming the "social-libertarian party" and the GOP the "populist authoritarian" party, each with left and right wings economically.

The not-quite-so-blue culture Libertarians have become ... homeless!

Same with us Red Culture Liberals who refuse to embrace Trumpian Fascism.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#6
The only real difference that I can see between Progressive-era Democrats and modern Republicans is in the area of immigration - while not all Democrats welcomed it (e.g. the Klanbake Konvention of 1924 that pitted conservative Southern Democrats against Al Smith's Irish-Catholic bloc), it's always generally been more pro-immigrant than the GOP, even in its more conservative incarnations.

Other than that, I see little difference. I suppose that the free trading Democrats of the 1890s-1920s would have opposed Trump's protectionism, but that's more symptomatic of one particular Presidential candidate rather than a whole Party.

Especially in the 1880s the Democratic Party looks a lot like relatively pro-immigration Tea Partiers, e g. their attacks on Benjamin Harrison's "billion dollar Congress".
Reply
#7
(09-02-2016, 04:07 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 01:11 AM)Dan Wrote: Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.

This meshes with the stuff Kurt Horner posted on the "Political Archetypes" thread on the old boards.

I've been thinking this for a while, the "blue culture" Libertarians are shifting to the Democratic Party and the socially conservative populists are being fully absorbed into the GOP, and thus the Dems are becoming the "social-libertarian party" and the GOP the "populist authoritarian" party, each with left and right wings economically.
Not quite right.  The figure shows 90 degrees of rotation per social moment (half-saeculum) which works out to 180 degrees per saeculum.  So cast it backward to the last 4T.  Was the split last 4T (and today) along social lines (i.e. culture wars) or economic lines?  And was the split in the 1960's along economic lines?  Were the 1960's about the haves versus the have-nots (i.e. wealth redistribution)?  Or was it along social lines (i.e about government support for minority rights)?
The facts are in exact opposition from what the figure shows, which implies I am not reading the graphic right. The 1960 line is vertical implying a division between the left and right halves of the figure, which splits the economic axis, right?  But that makes no sense!  What am I missing here?
Reply
#8
(09-03-2016, 01:07 PM)Einzige Wrote: The only real difference that I can see between Progressive-era Democrats and modern Republicans is in the area of immigration - while not all Democrats welcomed it (e.g. the Klanbake Konvention of 1924 that pitted conservative Southern Democrats against Al Smith's Irish-Catholic bloc), it's always generally been more pro-immigrant than the GOP, even in its more conservative incarnations.

Other than that, I see little difference. I suppose that the free trading Democrats of the 1890s-1920s would have opposed Trump's protectionism, but that's more symptomatic of one particular Presidential candidate rather than a whole Party.

Especially in the 1880s the Democratic Party looks a lot like relatively pro-immigration Tea Partiers, e g. their attacks on Benjamin Harrison's "billion dollar Congress".

You can't compare 19th century Democrats/Republicans with modern Democrats/Republicans.  They changed coats long ago.
Reply
#9
(09-02-2016, 03:27 AM)Einzige Wrote: In what ways were the Progressive Era Democrats different from modern Republicans? And does that mean you believe that the Democrats will come to resemble the Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt?

TR was a Republican in the top left quadrant, he was somewhat of an outlier even in 1901 and the party soon moved away from him while the Democrats moved toward him. During the gilded age the balance of power shifted sharply to the right side of the chat but if you go back to the Civil War era Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens were both from that quadrant.  Today almost everyone there is a Democrat but if there’s anything to this theory the Republicans should start to move in the direction during the 1T.
Reply
#10
(09-03-2016, 01:10 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 04:07 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 01:11 AM)Dan Wrote: Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.

This meshes with the stuff Kurt Horner posted on the "Political Archetypes" thread on the old boards.

I've been thinking this for a while, the "blue culture" Libertarians are shifting to the Democratic Party and the socially conservative populists are being fully absorbed into the GOP, and thus the Dems are becoming the "social-libertarian party" and the GOP the "populist authoritarian" party, each with left and right wings economically.
Not quite right.  The figure shows 90 degrees of rotation per social moment (half-saeculum) which works out to 180 degrees per saeculum.  So cast it backward to the last 4T.  Was the split last 4T (and today) along social lines (i.e. culture wars) or economic lines?  And was the split in the 1960's along economic lines?  Were the 1960's about the haves versus the have-nots (i.e. wealth redistribution)?  Or was it along social lines (i.e about government support for minority rights)?
The facts are in exact opposition from what the figure shows, which implies I am not reading the graphic right. The 1960 line is vertical implying a division between the left and right halves of the figure, which splits the economic axis, right?  But that makes no sense!  What am I missing here?


I’d say it moves 90 degrees in a saeculum or 45 degrees in a half-saeculum; the line the author labels as 1960 is in my opinion more like the 1945 line and during the Truman administration the Democrats started moving into the top left causing those in the bottom near the vertical center line to leave the party (the more economically left wing southerners mostly supported Truman and post 1970 became Carter-Clinton Democrats)
Reply
#11
I find that chart especially hard to read. It isn't ergonomic to look at. But it seems to suggest that the political cleavage in 1960 was between "Conservatives" and "Cosmopolitans"? That's... odd. The Democratic Party at the time was just beginning to attract a few Cosmopolitan types, but it was still largely a Populist worker's party. Kennedy probably had Cosmopolitan leanings, but he was at the head of a Trumanesque political party.

I don't think I'd even consider Clinton '92-'96 to be "Cosmopolitan". More socially liberal than Reagan-Bush, sure, but between Sistah Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector and the Crime Bill, Clinton I was still basically operating within a right-wing social paradigm. I think it's only his economic conservatism that places him in the "Cosmopolitan" axis.

Conversely, Obama may be slightly too left-wing on economics to really qualify. When I think of "Cosmopolitan", I think of Michael Bloomberg - technocratic, neoliberal, and superficially liberal on social issues, but functionally conservative.

I also don't believe that "Cosmopolitan" ought to be confused with "left-libertarian". They may be motivated by some of the same vague impulses, but their policy prescriptions are quite different (pro-business deregulation vs. anti-business decentralization). It'd be very interesting if a genuinely popular mass left-libertarian movement ever emerged in the United States.

TL;DR: You'll never convince me that a fiscally conservative Cold Warrior like JFK, a socially conservative technocrat like Bill Clinton, a business-authoritarian billionaire like Michael Bloomberg and a market socialist like Karl Hess occupy adjacent space on a political graph.
Reply
#12
Another point: overlays of the Presidential elections of Eisenhower and Obama show a near-inversion (the exceptions being Mormon Country and the High Plains, which went to Republicans in all four elections) of partisan voting for the President.

As interesting would be what agendas are scarce-to-absent (Adaptive, associated with the Silent now at least 73 years old), just emerging into adult life (Civic, associated with Millennial adults), prime (Reactive, Generation X), and past-prime (Idealist, now Boom).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#13
(09-04-2016, 12:17 AM)Dan Wrote:
(09-03-2016, 01:10 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 04:07 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 01:11 AM)Dan Wrote: Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.

This meshes with the stuff Kurt Horner posted on the "Political Archetypes" thread on the old boards.

I've been thinking this for a while, the "blue culture" Libertarians are shifting to the Democratic Party and the socially conservative populists are being fully absorbed into the GOP, and thus the Dems are becoming the "social-libertarian party" and the GOP the "populist authoritarian" party, each with left and right wings economically.
Not quite right.  The figure shows 90 degrees of rotation per social moment (half-saeculum) which works out to 180 degrees per saeculum.  So cast it backward to the last 4T.  Was the split last 4T (and today) along social lines (i.e. culture wars) or economic lines?  And was the split in the 1960's along economic lines?  Were the 1960's about the haves versus the have-nots (i.e. wealth redistribution)?  Or was it along social lines (i.e about government support for minority rights)?
The facts are in exact opposition from what the figure shows, which implies I am not reading the graphic right. The 1960 line is vertical implying a division between the left and right halves of the figure, which splits the economic axis, right?  But that makes no sense!  What am I missing here?


I’d say it moves 90 degrees in a saeculum or 45 degrees in a half-saeculum; the line the author labels as 1960 is in my opinion more like the 1945 line and during the Truman administration the Democrats started moving into the top left causing those in the bottom near the vertical center line to leave the party (the more economically left wing southerners mostly supported Truman and post 1970 became Carter-Clinton Democrats)

If we are going to relabel the 1960 line as 1945 (which I would agree with) I would draw a series of increasingly horizontal lines after 1960, reaching fully horizontal in 1980, where it has stayed up to this day. The country was divided then, as now, on the social dimension. The fact that no rotation has occurred is, IMO, a core issue of the 4T. It's simply not something elites want to focus on, which is the cause of the problem.
Reply
#14
(09-04-2016, 09:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
(09-04-2016, 12:17 AM)Dan Wrote:
(09-03-2016, 01:10 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 04:07 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-02-2016, 01:11 AM)Dan Wrote: Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.

This meshes with the stuff Kurt Horner posted on the "Political Archetypes" thread on the old boards.

I've been thinking this for a while, the "blue culture" Libertarians are shifting to the Democratic Party and the socially conservative populists are being fully absorbed into the GOP, and thus the Dems are becoming the "social-libertarian party" and the GOP the "populist authoritarian" party, each with left and right wings economically.
Not quite right.  The figure shows 90 degrees of rotation per social moment (half-saeculum) which works out to 180 degrees per saeculum.  So cast it backward to the last 4T.  Was the split last 4T (and today) along social lines (i.e. culture wars) or economic lines?  And was the split in the 1960's along economic lines?  Were the 1960's about the haves versus the have-nots (i.e. wealth redistribution)?  Or was it along social lines (i.e about government support for minority rights)?
The facts are in exact opposition from what the figure shows, which implies I am not reading the graphic right. The 1960 line is vertical implying a division between the left and right halves of the figure, which splits the economic axis, right?  But that makes no sense!  What am I missing here?


I’d say it moves 90 degrees in a saeculum or 45 degrees in a half-saeculum; the line the author labels as 1960 is in my opinion more like the 1945 line and during the Truman administration the Democrats started moving into the top left causing those in the bottom near the vertical center line to leave the party (the more economically left wing southerners mostly supported Truman and post 1970 became Carter-Clinton Democrats)

If we are going to relabel the 1960 line as 1945 (which I would agree with) I would draw a series of increasingly horizontal lines after 1960, reaching fully horizontal in 1980, where it has stayed up to this day. The country was divided then, as now, on the social dimension. The fact that no rotation has occurred is, IMO, a core issue of the 4T. It's simply not something elites want to focus on, which is the cause of the problem.

I think 1980 is a bit early to mark us totally divided on social issues.  I would move that to sometime in the Clinton Presidency.  Reagan affected the social alignment of the GOP, but that didn't become universal for some time after that.  The GHWB 1000-points-of-light was a failed retrenchment, but it failed to reverse the flow.  Clinton's agreement to end-welfare-as-we-knew-it was an attempt from the Democrats that succeeded as policy but failed politically.  That was the last attempt.

I agree that positions have only hardened since then, even though the tension is along the economic axis.   N one has gained more from that disconnect than the Donald.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#15
(09-02-2016, 01:11 AM)Dan Wrote: Here’s an article from March on a realignment theory.

 
What I’m most interested in is this chart:



[Image: party_realignment2.0.png]

While I have some quibbles with the terminology and the dates I think the chart is and theory is on to something.  The dividing line in American politics rotates 90 ° per saeculum or 45 ° per social moment I would argue that the line the chart labels is 1960 is more like the 1950 line and by 1960 the line had moved somewhat clockwise. I think that the subsequent lines are basically accurate. Furthermore if you were to go back to 1896 the line would be about 45 ° of what the author labeled as the 1960 divide.  If the pattern holds the dividing line will be horizontal at the end of the 4T and move clockwise from there, by the next 2T Republicans will start to resemble progressive era Democrats.

This resonates with generational theory, I agree. It seems that in the 2016 split, both sides are now in favor of wealth redistribution, but with the Social Dimension opposed (Sanders v. Trump). The GOP put the populist up for president, and the Dems put up the Cosmopolitan, hence the GOP got the White House. 

A question I have is - does the dividing line spin round and round, or does it wobble back and forth?
Steve Barrera

[A]lthough one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. - Hagakure

Saecular Pages
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Comprehensive Political Cycle Theory jleagans 15 3,594 03-19-2019, 09:57 AM
Last Post: Marypoza

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)