Realignment In American Politics

Introduction: the next realignment is coming -- America's first and second party systems: the early republic's love-hate affair with two-party politics -- America's second and third party systems: the rise of Jackson and collapse of the Whigs -- America's third and fourth party systems: the incredible story of William Jennings Bryan -- The fifth party system: how the New Deal forged the parties we know and maybe love -- The liberal and conservative myth -- The American ideal of liberty -- The progressive plan -- The virtue of a republic -- The fury of populism -- The choice: renewal or collapse -- The last hurrah of the fifth party system -- The pendulum of Great Awakenings -- The fourth Great Awakening and the 1960s -- The end of the industrial era -- An unravelling -- What happens next -- Renewal, not decline -- The party of the American Dream.

Few transformations in American politics have been as important as the integration of African Americans into the Democratic Party and the Republican embrace of racial policy conservatism. The story of this partisan realignment on race is often told as one in which political elites—such as Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater—set in motion a dramatic and sudden reshuffling of party positioning on racial issues during the 1960s. Racial Realignment instead argues that top party leaders were actually among the last to move, and that their choices were dictated by changes that had already occurred beneath them. Drawing upon rich data sources and original historical research, Eric Schickler shows that the two parties' transformation on civil rights took place gradually over decades. Schickler reveals that Democratic partisanship, economic liberalism, and support for civil rights had crystallized in public opinion, state parties, and Congress by the mid-1940s. This trend was propelled forward by the incorporation of African Americans and the pro-civil-rights Congress of Industrial Organizations into the Democratic coalition. Meanwhile, Republican partisanship became aligned with economic and racial conservatism. Scrambling to maintain existing power bases, national party elites refused to acknowledge these changes for as long as they could, but the civil rights movement finally forced them to choose where their respective parties would stand. Presenting original ideas about political change, Racial Realignment sheds new light on twentieth and twenty-first century racial politics.

To have a voice in shaping government policy has been a goal of the American people since the nation's founding. Yet, government seems even less accessible now than in the past. An increasing rate of incumbency in Congress, the unwieldy committee system that controls legislation, and the decline of political parties have all weakened representation and alienated Americans from the seat of power. The one remaining way to produce major and coherent change in national policy is through partisan realignment—a sharp, enduring shift in voter support of the two major parties. This book is about the phenomenon of realignment in American politics. It not only brings together and assesses previous work in the area but also breaks new ground in the analysis of the effects of realignment on political elites and public policy. In addition, it is the first study to present an integrated theory of realignment that can be applied to the understanding of mass, elite, and policy change in times of social crisis. Contributors include Lawrence McMichael, David Nexon, Louis Seagull, Robert Lehnen, Philip Converse, Gregory Markus, Lester Seligman, Michael King, David Brady, Kenneth Meier, Kenneth Kramer, David Adamany, Charles Stewart, Susan Hansen, and the editors.Bruce A. Campbell taught political science at the University of Georgia. He is the author of The American Electorate.

The political party system in the United States has periodically undergone major realignments at various critical junctures in the country’s history. The Civil War boosted the Republican Party’s fortunes and catapulted it into majority status at the national level, a status that was further solidified during the Populist realignment in the 1890s. Starting in the 1930s, however, Roosevelt’s New Deal reversed the parties’ fortunes, bringing the Democratic Party back to national power, and this realignment was further modified by the “culture wars” beginning in the mid-1960s. Each of these realignments occasioned shifts in the electorate’s support for the major parties, and they were superimposed on each other in a way that did not negate entirely the consequences of the preceding realignments. The story of realignment is further complicated by the variations that occurred within individual states whose own particular political legacies, circumstances, and personalities resulted in modulations and modifications of the patterns playing out at the national level. In this book, Renée Lamis investigates how Pennsylvania experienced this series of realignments, with special attention to the period since 1960. She uses a wealth of data from a wide variety of sources to produce an analysis that allows her to trace the evolution of electoral behavior in the Keystone State in a narrative that is accessible to a broad range of readers. Her account helps explain why Senator Arlen Specter was reelected whereas Senator Rick Santorum was not, and why Pennsylvania Republicans have been highly successful in major statewide elections in an era when Democratic presidential standard-bearers have regularly carried the state. Overall, her book constitutes a gold mine of information and interpretation for political junkies as well as scholars who want to know more about how national-level politics plays out within individual states.

What kinds of considerations have historically had an important influence on congressional voting patterns? This analysis demonstrates that income redistribution implications have had a strong and persistent effect on national policy.

The study of electoral realignments is one of the most influential and intellectually stimulating enterprises undertaken by American political scientists. Realignment theory has been seen as a science able to predict changes, and generations of students, journalists, pundits, and political scientists have been trained to be on the lookout for “signs” of new electoral realignments. Now a major political scientist argues that the essential claims of realignment theory are wrong—that American elections, parties, and policymaking are not (and never were) reconfigured according to the realignment calendar. David Mayhew examines fifteen key empirical claims of realignment theory in detail and shows us why each in turn does not hold up under scrutiny. It is time, he insists, to open the field to new ideas. We might, for example, adopt a more nominalistic, skeptical way of thinking about American elections that highlights contingency, short-term election strategies, and valence issues. Or we might examine such broad topics as bellicosity in early American history, or racial questions in much of our electoral history. But we must move on from an old orthodoxy and failed model of illumination.

A keen look at the ideologically polarized political realities of "red-state" and "blue-state" America.

Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject American Studies - Culture and Applied Geography, grade: 1,7, Technical University of Chemnitz, course: PS - Understanding the USA, language: English, abstract: The following term paper deals with the phenomena of realignment in the political party system of the United States. Although America’s party system is the oldest in the modern world it is marked by a deep distrust in parties leading back to the founding fathers who said that parties would only bring riots and chaos to the state. Political parties have existed on national level since the 18th century. And the two-party system which had been crystallised during this time, is still working in present days. The political parties in the United States became the mean for purpose; parties were to elect, to mobilise voters, not to govern There have already been amazingly modern party structures in the 1840s, a whole generation before such structures came up in Great Britain. In 1848 the first National Committee was built by the Democratic Party. And until the 20th century direct premises have been introduced. However, nothing much changed in the party’s organising structures since that time, and until today financial support is mainly made by a small group of giant donations. But one of the biggest differences to European parties is that American parties do not have mass memberships. The voters are ideological linked to their party, but they are not fixed to it. This link could be a basis for such a phenomenon as the realignment is. Realignments are essential for the American two-party system, and during history there have been four such realignments. In the following I will discuss the historical background of realignments and the Party Systems and I will try to find arguments whether there is a present realignment in favour to the Republican Party.

Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, while Republican candidates have carried the South in presidential elections, the Democratic Party has persisted in winning southern congressional elections. Drawing on a wide variety of sources, this text examines this political phenomenon.

Realignment: The Theory that Changed the Way We Think About American Politics tells the dramatic story of how a new approach to American politics emerged in the afternmath of Harry Truman's stunning 1948 election upset victory. This approach realignment theory held that critical elections such as those of the Civil War era, the 1890's, and the 1930's shaped politics for decades to come. Theodore Rosenof details how realignment theory emerged as the predominant explanation of electoral change and how, after decades of analysis, it remains a subject of continuing influence and controversy. The first history of this important theory, Realignment weaves history and political science into a compelling look at American elections."