Comprehensive Political Cycle Theory

[jleagans]

I've been working on the various strands of this for several years now, and a lot of the inspiration for this Political Cycle Theory comes from this Vox Article about political realignments. The research-based model it puts forth shows that in the entirety of American history the "political clock" has always moved clockwise.  

Here's my simplification of the model:



Also want to copy over the established "party eras" in American history as they are in-line with this:

Four Major Eras of American Political Parties

• Era of the Democrats 1800-1860. Federalist disappeared by 1816. ...
  
• Era of the Republicans 1860-1932. Lincoln helped the Republicans jump from 3rd party to major party.
  
• Return of the Democrats 1932-1968. Great depression reached the Republicans Party.
  
• The Start of a New Era 1968-Present.
  

The basic logic is that American politics (at the timings Strauss/Howe have identified and imo strongly influenced by generational change) has been a series of "sortings" and "resortings" into Democratic and Republican parties based around Economic and Social Issues. I've mapped out the model for each of the elections and the major "sorts" have been:

1. 1896-The First Economic "Sort" - Mckinley and the Silver v. Gold Debate decisively make the Republican Party the party of economic conservatism and the Democrats the party of Economic Liberalism.  Over the course of this party era the country sorts into a Democratic party that has 100% of the economic liberals and a Republican party that has 100% of the economic conservatives.  

2. 1960's- The First Social "Sort"-  The passage of the Civil Rights Act by LBJ begins the start of the two parties sorting based on social issues.  We have been in this sort ever since and a lot of our current political frictions stem from the sort having neared completion.  We are very close or at the point where 100% of Social Liberals are Democrats and 100% of Social Conservatives are Republican, Donald Trump feels like the last stage of that process.

The main dynamic at play in these sorts are "flanking maneuvers", where one party finds its advantage in the flank of the other party .  Today those "flanks" are the Economic Liberal Bernie voters in the Democratic Party and the Economic Conservative Wealthy Republicans.  

I'm trying to simplify and shorten this as much as possible, but the takeaway of this is that our politics will be in gridlock until one party starts the process of sorting around economic issues.  Given that the direction of the sort has ALWAYS been clockwise it is most likely that a Democrat running strongly on Economic Conservatism has the best chance of breaking this gridlock and starting the start.  Likely candidates?  Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, John Kasich are all potential Dem or third party nominees that could usher this in.  

Here's a pic of how Trump/ Hillary looked (orange shaded area are the "fair game" members of the party coalition:




And a draft of a 2020 and how the space exists for an Economic Conservative:



This is my first time jotting this down, lots of elements I could expound on but hope this makes sense and let me know your thoughts.

[David Horn]

(11-08-2018, 04:55 PM)jleagans Wrote: I've been working on the various strands of this for several years now, and a lot of the inspiration for this Political Cycle Theory comes from this Vox Article about political realignments. The research-based model it puts forth shows that in the entirety of American history the "political clock" has always moved clockwise.  

Here's my simplification of the model:

Everything after that point is a problem. Apparently you had images in emails. They won't load from there, though you might be able to see them yourself.

[Eric the Green]

(11-08-2018, 04:55 PM)jleagans Wrote: I've been working on the various strands of this for several years now, and a lot of the inspiration for this Political Cycle Theory comes from this Vox Article about political realignments. The research-based model it puts forth shows that in the entirety of American history the "political clock" has always moved clockwise.  

Here's my simplification of the model:



Also want to copy over the established "party eras" in American history as they are in-line with this:

Four Major Eras of American Political Parties

• Era of the Democrats 1800-1860. Federalist disappeared by 1816. ...
  
• Era of the Republicans 1860-1932. Lincoln helped the Republicans jump from 3rd party to major party.
  
• Return of the Democrats 1932-1968. Great depression reached the Republicans Party.
  
• The Start of a New Era 1968-Present.
  

The basic logic is that American politics (at the timings Strauss/Howe have identified and imo strongly influenced by generational change) has been a series of "sortings" and "resortings" into Democratic and Republican parties based around Economic and Social Issues. I've mapped out the model for each of the elections and the major "sorts" have been:

1. 1896-The First Economic "Sort" - Mckinley and the Silver v. Gold Debate decisively make the Republican Party the party of economic conservatism and the Democrats the party of Economic Liberalism.  Over the course of this party era the country sorts into a Democratic party that has 100% of the economic liberals and a Republican party that has 100% of the economic conservatives.  

2. 1960's- The First Social "Sort"-  The passage of the Civil Rights Act by LBJ begins the start of the two parties sorting based on social issues.  We have been in this sort ever since and a lot of our current political frictions stem from the sort having neared completion.  We are very close or at the point where 100% of Social Liberals are Democrats and 100% of Social Conservatives are Republican, Donald Trump feels like the last stage of that process.

The main dynamic at play in these sorts are "flanking maneuvers", where one party finds its advantage in the flank of the other party .  Today those "flanks" are the Economic Liberal Bernie voters in the Democratic Party and the Economic Conservative Wealthy Republicans.  

I'm trying to simplify and shorten this as much as possible, but the takeaway of this is that our politics will be in gridlock until one party starts the process of sorting around economic issues.  Given that the direction of the sort has ALWAYS been clockwise it is most likely that a Democrat running strongly on Economic Conservatism has the best chance of breaking this gridlock and starting the start.  Likely candidates?  Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, John Kasich are all potential Dem or third party nominees that could usher this in.  
....

Welcome to the forum.

I was with you, until your conclusion. I think the Democrats already tried going economic conservative, in the 1990s. That is over. The only solution to this unprecedented gridlock is for one side to win and the other side to lose.

The combination of economic conservatism and social liberalism is libertarian. That philosophy leads nowhere; Americans cannot create a workable society by means of libertarian principles; we are too greedy, and in any case, since libertarians want to tear down government, it has no means to enforce social liberty either.

There is no clockwise movement with any precedent. Economic liberalism did not exist in America until the 1890s populist shift.

[pbrower2a]

We are undergoing a transformation in that we may be approaching the end of a line for the ideological polarization that began in the 1960s with traditionalist white people going from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party and the more cosmopolitan white people going from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

Southern white people more trusted politics than they trusted capitalism from the New Deal Era to the 1960s, which may explain why they were progressive by the standard of the time on economic relationships while being reactionary on race. Big Government had served them far better than the agrarian elites did, but the agrarian elites long kept Northern-style industry and commerce out because manufacturing would compete with agriculture for laborers. Southern agriculture still had the organizational style of the plantation. Northern whites had a less stormy relationship with capitalism unless they were 'ethnic'; the North was less agrarian in political domination (because small farmers could never be an economic elite), and mercantile and manufacturing elites could be.  The combat zone between the North and the South was in the Appalachians and Ozarks, where mountains made large-scale farming impossible. Note well that the Confederacy had a tough time holding onto Appalachia even if mountains usually provide excellent defenses.  

That is the political transition. The economic transition has been from economic inequality in moderation to economic inequality as a crushing reality. The old economic elite of ownership was small and politically splintered when retailing, manufacturing, and even banking were often cottage industries. Cottage industries might vote in lockstep, but they are unable to buy politicians and hire lobbyists. The consolidation of industry has given Americans an economy in which economic elites are the biggest heirs and the managerial elite -- and perhaps the greatest disparity between economic elites and workers since the Civil War. If a brutal overseer like Henry Clay Frick was widely hated in his time, he was a freak. Today, someone like him is the norm as a top executive -- someone paid very well for treating the common man very badly. Crony capitalism has replaced competition in business, and it recognizes a new frontier in exploitation: privatization and monopolization.

Enter Donald Trump, who represents everything wrong in America. He has been successful only to the extent that he has made easy money as a landlord. He is crass and uncouth, and having never had to make deals with the common man, he has no empathy for them. He is a smooth con man, affecting empathy for the people that he fleeces. He wants to rule them as a dictator, and he has learned to appeal to bigotry, fear, and resentment -- just like a fascist demagogue while seeking power. Once in power, he seeks to use the State to enrich either existing elites or to enrich crony capitalists.

"Make those others suffer" quickly becomes "Suffer like them!"

People catch onto him, or he destroys their liberty and any residual dignity. Regimes operating under principles like his turn youth into mill fodder as employees or cannon fodder in wars. If such happens, with Trump's ideology becoming the unassailable orthodoxy on politics and economics, then the best thing for America will be to lose its next big war -- and it won't take long as war is extremely profitable for economic elites. Think of the elites of Germany who funded the Bismarck coalition in Germany and then Hitler; ours are little better. Wars for profit? What do we have to lose?

Everything.

[Mikebert]

(11-08-2018, 04:55 PM)jleagans Wrote: The basic logic is that American politics (at the timings Strauss/Howe have identified and imo strongly influenced by generational change) has been a series of "sortings" and "resortings" into Democratic and Republican parties based around Economic and Social Issues. I've mapped out the model for each of the elections and the major "sorts" have been:

1. 1896-The First Economic "Sort" - Mckinley and the Silver v. Gold Debate decisively make the Republican Party the party of economic conservatism and the Democrats the party of Economic Liberalism.  Over the course of this party era the country sorts into a Democratic party that has 100% of the economic liberals and a Republican party that has 100% of the economic conservatives.  

2. 1960's- The First Social "Sort"-  The passage of the Civil Rights Act by LBJ begins the start of the two parties sorting based on social issues.  We have been in this sort ever since and a lot of our current political frictions stem from the sort having neared completion.  We are very close or at the point where 100% of Social Liberals are Democrats and 100% of Social Conservatives are Republican, Donald Trump feels like the last stage of that process.

The main dynamic at play in these sorts are "flanking maneuvers", where one party finds its advantage in the flank of the other party .  Today those "flanks" are the Economic Liberal Bernie voters in the Democratic Party and the Economic Conservative Wealthy Republicans. 

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

[jleagans]

Attaching the pictures to this post hope that works better.

   

   

   

[jleagans]

(11-08-2018, 11:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Welcome to the forum.

I was with you, until your conclusion. I think the Democrats already tried going economic conservative, in the 1990s. That is over. The only solution to this unprecedented gridlock is for one side to win and the other side to lose.

The combination of economic conservatism and social liberalism is libertarian. That philosophy leads nowhere; Americans cannot create a workable society by means of libertarian principles; we are too greedy, and in any case, since libertarians want to tear down government, it has no means to enforce social liberty either.

There is no clockwise movement with any precedent. Economic liberalism did not exist in America until the 1890s populist shift.

This isn't an intuitive conclusion and it doesn't line up with how things appear to be going, but it has never happened in American history for a party to go counterclockwise (hopefully this makes more sense now with the pictures in my prior post).  The best example of this is TR running as a third party candidate trying desperately to keep the Republicans Progressive but he lost.  The "flank" of a party has never been able to pull a party back in its direction.  We could be at a unique moment as this is the first time that the "Conservative-Conservative" voters are set to become Democrats and the "Liberal Liberal" voters are set to become Republicans.  Very much feels like immovable object/unstoppable force, which helps explain the extreme partisanship and gridlock we're seeing.  

As for libertarianism, it doesn't neatly fit onto this.  I would tend to agree with your assessment, but as a voting block they just aren't a big factor.  For the most part, social libs and econ cons are already Democrats.  Trump pretty much got that sorting to 100%.  I think most of this cycle breaking is dependent on the Con-Cons, the highly educated wealthy white Republicans who for moral and logical reasons are feeling "left behind" by the Trump Republican Party.

And thanks for the welcome :

[jleagans]

(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...

[Hintergrund]

1968? 1972? 1980? People agree that a new party system started around then, but can't agree on the exact start. Maybe there really is none, it was a gradual thing.

[pbrower2a]

Realignments seem to happen under the cover of several crushing political losses for one of the parties. It is abundantly clear that the Republican Party of the Gilded Age and its New Era (1920s) echo was not going to win with the same agenda and constituencies good for huge wins in those times. Republicans would have to wait until the formation of Suburbia and the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s would create a climate of conformity necessary for a new conservatism. This was not the conservatism of Gilded Age monopolists

The Nixon landslide of 1972 was superficial, but it showed what was possible if everything went right for Republicans. Much did go right for Republicans from 1980 on. Generational change took the New Deal Democrats out of political relevancy as they aged and died off in the 1980s and 1990s. White members of the GI Generation could still vote Democratic, which might explain such politicians as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Blanche Lincoln in the South. But as they disappeared, the more self-righteous Religious Right became a big part of the electorate, and they could accept a reactionary world-view in which no human suffering could ever be excessive in the service of plutocracy, cheerful and selfless service to its privileged classes of heirs and executives would lead people to Salvation. (That world-view is not exclusively Southern, as is shown in some northern Republicans who believe much the same and are the majority in the Senate). Prosperity was possible, but it was contingent upon human suffering in low wages, monopolized markets, and heavy personal debt for the common man. Donald Trump exemplifies this to the extreme. He may be a vile man, but he appeals to the self-righteous Religious Right.

Only smashing political defeats of the current Republican coalition will force a realignment of the Parties. America hasn't had a Presidential election in which the winner got 400 or more electoral votes. Republicans could wait out Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as Republicans could not wait out the FDR era and Democrats could not simply wait out Reagan and expect to win again.

[David Horn]

Hintergrund Wrote:1968? 1972? 1980? People agree that a new party system started around then, but can't agree on the exact start. Maybe there really is none, it was a gradual thing.

Frankly, it doesn't matter.  What happened was a realignment outside politics that was then imposed on the political realm.  You can see the triggering in the economy first.  Here's an ideal example:


There are a lot of things that happened in that time frame (~1973): the Saudi Oil Embargo, Watergate, the end of the Vietnam War.  Take your pick or add your own.  For me, the oil embargo was the most important, because it triggered the two-earner revolution in earnest.  It was two earners or starve, and the stress levels inherent in having no adult in the home and no societal alternatives available to mitigate the loss pushed a lot of young parents toward hating the government for not being there when it was needed.

[Hintergrund]

During the Fifties, there was real solidarity, less of a gap between rich and poor, and even the blacks improved their material situation. - The lefties threw all of that into the trash and replaced it by cheap talk and virtue pretending. (Usually people say "virtue signaling", but that sounds too good.)

[David Horn]

(02-07-2019, 09:44 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: During the Fifties, there was real solidarity, less of a gap between rich and poor, and even the blacks improved their material situation. - The lefties threw all of that into the trash and replaced it by cheap talk and virtue pretending. (Usually people say "virtue signaling", but that sounds too good.)

Nice try; no cigar.  Things started to change under Nixon/Ford, and Carter was a typical Southerner on this issue, but it was Reagan Incarnate who single handedly killed the labor movement, cut taxes to defund government and took dead aim on entitlements like SS and Medicare.  The Dems were certainly complicit, but it was the Reps who killed the golden goose.

[jleagans]

(02-06-2019, 12:14 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: 1968? 1972? 1980? People agree that a new party system started around then, but can't agree on the exact start. Maybe there really is none, it was a gradual thing.

1980 is widely considered the start of the modern political era, in so far as its taught in the AP Gov curriculum as a critical election where significant "realignment" occurred.  There was definite movement toward the R's in the South in the '70's but it was Reagan with "god, guns and gays" that solidified it for a generation.

My economic conservatism prediction isn't holding up well in 2019 but we'll see, that space is still there for a moderate to blow out the Dem primary.

[David Horn]

(03-18-2019, 12:51 PM)jleagans Wrote:

(02-06-2019, 12:14 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: 1968? 1972? 1980? People agree that a new party system started around then, but can't agree on the exact start. Maybe there really is none, it was a gradual thing.

1980 is widely considered the start of the modern political era, in so far as its taught in the AP Gov curriculum as a critical election where significant "realignment" occurred.  There was definite movement toward the R's in the South in the '70's but it was Reagan with "god, guns and gays" that solidified it for a generation.

My economic conservatism prediction isn't holding up well in 2019 but we'll see, that space is still there for a moderate to blow out the Dem primary.

We're due for another realignment, and it won't come from the right.  Most of the changes made since Reagan got elected in 1980 are now fully tested and found wanting.  Let's set his foreign policy aside for now, since that is at least arguable, and concentrate on culture and economics.  

Culture never moved to the right, except among the religious right.  Since that crowd has thoroughly discredited itself supporting Trump and, far too often, white supremacists, they're rapidly losing traction in the broader culture.  That leaves the excesses on the left still needing correction.  Politicians would be wise to tread lightly in that garden, and let culture realign on its own.  We don't need an election framed on social issues that divide rather than unify.

On economics, it's pretty obvious that the Gipper's trickle-down, neo-liberalism has been a failure for everyone not firmly in the top 10%, with the top 1% going gangbusters.  That degree of imbalance can't continue forever, and Trump's posturing won't work for long either.  So, is 2020 another realignment?  It should be!  Unfortunately, our republican system is rigged to favor doing nothing over doing something, so this well overdue realignment still may have to wait.  Check back in a few months.

[Marypoza]

(03-19-2019, 09:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-18-2019, 12:51 PM)jleagans Wrote:

(02-06-2019, 12:14 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: 1968? 1972? 1980? People agree that a new party system started around then, but can't agree on the exact start. Maybe there really is none, it was a gradual thing.

1980 is widely considered the start of the modern political era, in so far as its taught in the AP Gov curriculum as a critical election where significant "realignment" occurred.  There was definite movement toward the R's in the South in the '70's but it was Reagan with "god, guns and gays" that solidified it for a generation.

My economic conservatism prediction isn't holding up well in 2019 but we'll see, that space is still there for a moderate to blow out the Dem primary.

We're due for another realignment, and it won't come from the right.  Most of the changes made since Reagan got elected in 1980 are now fully tested and found wanting.  Let's set his foreign policy aside for now, since that is at least arguable, and concentrate on culture and economics.  

Culture never moved to the right, except among the religious right.  Since that crowd has thoroughly discredited itself supporting Trump and, far too often, white supremacists, they're rapidly losing traction in the broader culture.  That leaves the excesses on the left still needing correction.  Politicians would be wise to tread lightly in that garden, and let culture realign on its own.  We don't need an election framed on social issues that divide rather than unify.

On economics, it's pretty obvious that the Gipper's trickle-down, neo-liberalism has been a failure for everyone not firmly in the top 10%, with the top 1% going gangbusters.  That degree of imbalance can't continue forever, and Trump's posturing won't work for long either.  So, is 2020 another realignment?  It should be!  Unfortunately, our republican system is rigged to favor doing nothing over doing something, so this well overdue realignment still may have to wait.  Check back in a few months.

 
-- there is a tried & true way 2 get that realignment: when, in the course of human events.........