The Politics of Realignment
Over the past one hundred years, there have only been two presidential elections that fundamentally changed the course of American politics -- Franklin Roosevelt's victory in 1932, which ushered in a generation of Democratic rule, and Ronald Reagan's triumph in 1980, which marked the beginning of 28 years of Republican dominance of national politics. Though it is far too early to be certain, Barack Obama's victory could well be the third such realigning election in the past century -- one that will be seen by historians as the beginning of an emerging Democratic majority.
To be sure, Obama's six-point victory fell well short of a landslide. But landslides are not necessarily "realigning" elections -- those that change the contours of American politics, giving one party a long-term advantage. Witness Lyndon Johnson in 1964, who won by 23 points over Barry Goldwater, and Richard Nixon in 1972, who beat McGovern by the same margin; both triumphs were followed just four years later by the opposition party winning the White House.
On the other hand, an election that is not a landslide can nevertheless be a realigning one. The classic example is Ronald Reagan's nine-point victory in 1980, which reconfigured American politics by defining government as "the problem not the solution." For the next quarter of a century, Reagan's free market ideas dominated politics, and battles for the presidency were fought largely on Republican terrain. Bill Clinton himself, the only Democrat to reach the White House between 1980 and 2008, admitted as much when he declared in 1996 that "the era of big government is over." In this sense, Barack Obama was surely right last January when he declared - provoking much controversy in Democratic circles - that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that... Bill Clinton did not."
Yet it was not fully apparent that 1980 was a realigning election until four years later, when Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by more than 18 points. So whether 2008 will ultimately be seen as a moment of realignment depends in a good part on what happens during the next four years. Though Barack Obama's historic victory fell short of a landside, it has within it the seeds of a basic realignment of American politics. Far more than merely a response to the Wall Street meltdown, it was also a product of long-term trends favorable to the emergence of a Democratic majority that could dominate American politics over the next quarter century. Six trends, in particular, stand out:
1. Young people flocked to Obama in unprecedented numbers, with those 18 to 29 preferring him to McCain by 66 to 32 percent. This is of great long-term significance because historically realignments have begun with the young, who in their twenties often develop party allegiances that stay with them the rest of their lives. Just as the Democratic loyalty of the generation of that came of age under Franking Roosevelt was integral to the Democratic Party's political dominance through the mid-1960s, so too was the Republican tilt of the Reagan generation crucial to Republican dominance over the past quarter century. And this year was part of a long-term trend towards the Democrats; the last time that a Republic presidential candidate won among 18 to 29 years olds was in 1988, when George H.W. Bush led among them by 5 points.
2. The rapidly growing Hispanic population is shifting decisively to the Democratic Party. Obama carried Hispanics by 66 to 32, a vast improvement over Kerry's 58 to 43 margin. Because of widespread anger among Hispanics about how Republicans have handled the volatile immigration issue, this shift is unlikely to be a one-time affair. The loyalty of Hispanics is probably the decisive political battleground of the future; 12.5 percent of the population in 2000, Hispanics are expected to comprise nearly 20 percent of all Americans by 2020 and over 30 percent by 2050. Especially ominous for the Republican future was the vote among young Hispanics, who preferred Obama by the stunning margin of 76-19.
3. Obama has broken definitively with the long-term pattern of Democratic dependence on states with a declining proportion of the electoral vote. Because of their relatively slow projected growth, such Democratic strongholds as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and Massachusetts are almost certain to lose electoral votes in 2012. In the absence of movement into rapidly growing Red states, this decline would over time have sapped the strength of the Democratic Party. But Obama shattered the Red-Blue divide, winning such rapidly growing states as Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada and running highly competitive races in several other Red states. Of greatest import in the long term, the Democrats have shown that they can compete in every region of the country, including the rapidly growing parts of the South and Mountain West. The same cannot be said of the Republicans in much of New England, the mid-Atlantic states, and the Pacific West.
4. What demographers euphemistically call "generational replacement" will gradually erode the Republican base. McCain's greatest strength was among those over 65, among whom he beat Obama by 53 to 45 percent. Over time, however, the ranks of this age group will grow thinner and thinner. And the cohort that follows them, those between 45 to 64 are largely the Baby Boom generation. Despite the conservatizing effects of age, this is not a group the Republicans can count on.
5. Obama did well among the swing voters whom the Democrats need to build a majority coalition, winning 52 percent of "independents" (who now comprise 29 percent of the electorate) and 60 percent of moderates. This compares favorably to Reagan's performance in 1980, when he won 55 percent of independents and only 49 percent of moderates. If these gains among independents and moderates can be sustained in 2012 and beyond, will not solidify a Democratic majority.
6. Republicans have for some time been hemorrhaging support among the college-educated. This trend accelerated in 2008, with Obama winning 53 percent of college graduates. As recently as 1988, Republicans carried college graduates by 13 percent (56-43) -- a pattern that made sense given that Republicans have traditionally enjoyed wide support among middle and upper-middle class voters. But this pattern has been changing for two decades and reached a turning point this year. With college graduates voting far out of proportion to their numbers in the population and now constituting 45 percent of all voters, this is a group that Republicans simply cannot afford to lose.
Together, these six trends suggest that the majority coalition that the Democrats put together in 2008 is likely to strengthen in the years ahead. True, some of the factors contributing to Obama's victory -- the extraordinary unpopularity of the Bush administration, the timing and sheer magnitude of the Wall Street meltdown, and Obama's remarkable persona charisma -- will not be transferable to other Democratic candidates. The roots of Democratic ascendance, however, extend beyond long-term demographic trends to the ideological crisis now facing the Republic Party, which has elevated an anti-government instinct to a matter of fundamental principle. Recent events have not been kind to this world view. For beginning with Hurricane Katrina and extending through the Wall Street debacle, the necessity of effective government as an agent of the common good - the core principle of progressive politics for more than a century -- has become increasingly obvious.
Whether Obama and the Democrats take advantage of this once-in-a-generation opportunity to write a new chapter in the history of American progressivism remains to be seen, but the opportunity is there for the taking. If they do, 2008 may look in the long historical view much like 1980 -- a year in which an impressive victory well short of a landslide marked the beginning of a more fundamental realignment of American politics.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Republican's new strategy to limit the realignment is to redistrict Democrats at the state level . They plan a repeat of the type of redistricting that they did to Democrats in Texas in 2000, but on a national scale. They feel that this will sabotage any further change. Thats what they are talking about on conservative blogs.
Professor Karabel,
I just want to say what a thrill it is to see you posting on Huffington Post. I took your Sociology of Education class while I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley and it was by far my favorite class and you my favorite professor. After that class I decided to major in Sociology (which I did) even though my dad wondered what in the heck I would do with a degree in Sociology. I learned so much from you but the one thing that stayed with me all of my life was your teaching that although we live in a meritocracy, the education system is in fact geared toward placing children on "tracks" that have an influence throughout their childhood and later life. The idea that not all children have access to the kinds of advanced coursework that will set them on the path to success and that in fact, once they are placed on a lower level "track," it is often hard for them to get off of it. I've thought of this often when considering the inequity in this country, and how often our youngsters are far behind before they really ever have a chance to succeed. Even after all of these years (I graduated from Cal in 1989), I want you to know you've had a profound impact on my life and how I see the world and I am so grateful to have had the honor of taking your class.
Mr. Karabel, your article hits some major points. However I think the current crop of DC dems are too DLC to take heel of the advantage that Howard Dean and Obama have given them. Remember this DLC gang did not want a 50 state election strategy. They fought Dean all the way until recently when they saw that Obama might win the election to include picking up some 'red states'.
I agree that this election is a major shift like FDR and Reagan times. The same can be said of why most African Americans vote democratic - it's the 1964 & 1965 Civil Rights Bills that Pres Johnson signed. Signficant emotional events change people lives and their voting patterns. These young americans will stay with the democratic party for a long time. Thanks to GWB and the repub cohorts.
Excellent article. More than anything, the Republican view that government can't do anything right is out of step with the modern world. And so is their exception of using government to distribute welfare to the wealthy, pork to the military/i
The real opportunity is to perform the basic functions of good government competently, or even better, and to mobilize our resources to work cooperatively with the rest of the world on solve our economic problems. The Republicans have turned worldwide friends into doubters, and the neutral into enemies.
America needs some humility and a cooperative attitude toward others. We needs to find common ground with people & societies that we currently refuse to talk with. None of this is revolutionary! The
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group made these same recommendations. So, a large portion of the opportunity is the result of the narrow-minded stupidity of the Bush administration. Let's all hope that Obama can do a lot better!!!
Mr. Karabel, while I agree with most of what you say I think you are missing the most important way that Obama's victory represents a realignment. Ever since Bill Clinton democrats have been campaigning by trying to triangulate and be Republicans-lite. Obama is the first major presidential candidate in over two decades who ran as an actual alternative to the Republicans. He presented a real alternative to Iraq. He didn't tuck his tail between his legs when Republicans critiqued him for being "weak" on national security but came back and attacked them for letting 9/11 happen on their watch and for their failure to capture OBL. He talked about things other than tax cuts as a way to get the economy going. That is the real difference. He not only made the dems a viable party in terms of votes but in terms of offering a real alternative to the Republicans.
Mr. Karabel,
Great piece, I've been waiting for someone to say exactly what you said. IMHO, the Republicans are screwed for a long,long time. The Latino demographic numbers are of great significance for the Democratic Party. Without a complete overhaul of their party ideology, I don't see the GOP beinig competitive for decades.
REALIGNMENT TO WHAT KING FROM IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY?
" I mean the United States is probably the only country in the world that was founded as a ‘nascent empire’ – it’s what George Washington called it. The colonies he said, were a nascent empire and they were just beginning their imperial conquest. They had to conquer the national territory. Thomas Jefferson was the most libertarian of the founders effectively called for conquest of the Western hemisphere. The expansion of the colonies to what is now the national territory, is just imperialis
(Source: Noam Chomsky)
Is that a realignment from Imperial Presidency to King, Czar, Chairman, Emperor, Socialist Imperialism vs Capitalist Imperialism? Social Order Restructuring, Wealth Redistribution, Progressive Income Tax, with Aggressive Affirmative Action Objectives, Social Engineering? The new term for these is now The Politics of Realignment?
I think it's hard to draw too many conclusions because while people were excited about Barack Obama, I'm sure many voters voted for him as a vote against the Republican party.
I think the reason why Obama didn't win by a landslide is because of his race, his thin resume, and people still vote based on cultural values (on the right and the left). If gay marriage, abortion, gun rights are deal breakers still for voters, then there's nothing either candidate can say to persuade their vote.
Karl Rove has successfully drawn the line in the sand and americans have had to choose which side they are on. Right now, the left is winning the cultural wars and based on the youth vote, Republicans really need to rethink how they are gonna win back a majority coalition.
Palin 2012 is not gonna do it. young people think she's a joke candidate and that's part of the reason we overwhelmingly supported Obama.
"Because of widespread anger among Hispanics about how Republicans have handled the volatile immigration issue"
Gotta disagree with you there. "Hispanics" are not for comprehensive immigration reform, the opposite was pushed by Karl Rove to the media who bought it, despite not one poll proving his case. All those protests the first year? About the felony provision, people didn't want Grampa who has been here 30 years to not be able to get a job and credit rating ruined. Second year of Bush CIR, no felony provision mooted, no protests.
Many Hispanics are well aware that CIR is a plutocratic attempt to crush wage levels in America. The Democratic party's support for CIR was mostly reflexive feelings of fear that not to support Bush would earn themselves the label of racist. I don't think Obama can pull off CIR, anyway his focus seems to be a comprehensive climate change bill.
Beyond the left right paradigm that seems to trade off different styles of encroachments, the best alignment would be towards Constitutional principles, and deep consistency of common sense in a world increasingly placed in a Madison Avenue hypnosis machine. The best we can do is not about political parties, and it is not even about bi-partisanship. It is about doing the right thing, regardless of mindless sycophants hovering over everything. The people voted for change, because they are tired of politicians trampling on the very Constitution that enumerates their powers under Government, and those who do it for a well delineated program in that general direction. The people did not want a lot of things, and they are being prepared for it right now between the lines of political discussions.
Government is not a set of slogans covering a comedy of errors, and drainage of the public Treasury. It is the people themselves, voicing their concerns that increasingly seem of another planet to those who weld the power. The right questions are necessary much more than answers people never asked about.
It is about doing the right thing, regardless of mindless sycophants hovering over everything. " .........S
Its much easier to "do the right thing" than to waste time and energy, lives and money by doing the wrong thing...wh
Lets stop being the Americans that do the right thing only after they have tried everything else. Right and wrong isn't that hard to discern, if you get past the smokescreen.
We've lived so much 'DUH' under Bushco that we forgot essence.
I look forward to the democratic majority for our renewal.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
