The Observer, March 7, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 20
Republican Party shows possible signs of political realignment
Throughout the course of this nation's political history, the nature of the two majority parties has changed many times over. The electoral alignment as well as the content of the platform of the parties are mere shells of their predecessors 150 years ago. Although realignments are less than common, a strong case can be made that America is showing signs of one.
According to James L. Sundquist, author of Dynamics of the Party System, realignment occurs when an issue or set of issues cuts across the existing line of party cleavage. These issues must be polarizing in nature and the political parties must take distinct opposing sides. Should the party leadership side with either pole – unless the same occurs in the opposing party – realignment is inevitable and will occur in one or more critical elections: the apex of the realignment process. After this process is complete, the effects of the realignment may not be felt for years.
In the 20th century, there were two major realignments. The "New Deal realignment" of the 1930s created aftershocks that were felt 20 years after the fact. Sundquist does not acknowledge a second major realignment in the 20th century, but some, like Case Western political science professor Alexander Lamis, contend that there was another realignment known as the "25 Years realignment," which started in the mid-1960s and continued through the 1980s.
This 25 Years realignment is notable because it gave rise to the New Right, a political faction that fought for issues such as right to life, school prayer, creationism, and more. Their political descendants are the modern-day social conservatives. This is where the political waters start churning.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., might be too socially moderate for these voters. Although he is pro-life, his stance on gay marriage is not as strong as social conservatives would like (he argues that such matters are issues for the state governments). He is also in support of stem cell research. Finally, McCain is a member of the GOP "Main Street Partnership," a Congressional group which stresses fiscal conservativism and smaller government and tends to vote more liberally on issues of social policy.
The Main Street Partnership is a clever name for the opposition polar forces of the GOP. The issues upon which the party is cleaving are those social issues that first appeared in the years preceding the Reagan Revolution. Gov. Mike Huckabee, in this case, can be considered a standard bearer. His socially conservative agenda has effectively won him the vast majority of social and evangelical conservatives. As Sundquist explained, realignment occurs when the party leadership chooses a side. As of now, the GOP has effectively straddled the issues and the coalition of ideas has remained solid. But there are a few possible scenarios that have to be considered when either of the GOP candidates accepts the nomination in early September.
Should McCain get the nomination, one of two scenarios can occur. In the first one, nothing happens. McCain, despite his socially moderate views, might win over social conservatives with his pro-life stance. Also, he has come out in support of a ban of gay marriage in Arizona. However, if the social conservatives feel slighted enough, a second scenario can occur. Sundquist explains that should the party leadership support the opposition polar forces (the socially moderate platform in this case), a third party can be formed, which would precipitate realignment, ending with the absorption of either the third party, or the major party (the GOP).
Should Huckabee win the nomination, only one scenario will occur. Sundquist found that if the polar forces in support of the crosscutting issues capture the party leadership, realignment is inevitable and is only prevented if the same scenario occurs in the opposing majority party. Should this all occur, the chances of the Democrats polarizing in the same fashion are slim. A social conservative platform would effectively turn away many moderate Republicans and independents while capturing the votes of socially conservative Democrats. It is hard to tell if this new alignment would be temporary or if it would remain for years to come.
Of course, the scenarios do not take into account certain factors. For example, Huckabee has been mathematically eliminated from the running; therefore the third scenario described has no chance of occurring. But still, should the GOP leadership fall into the hands of socially moderate forces, realignment is possible. This is exactly what occurred in 1948 and 1964/1968, and it nearly happened again in 1976. Personally, I do not think the polarizing effect of the issues in this election are enough to break the bonds of previous realignments; however, the mere possibility of what can occur come this November makes this election even more crucial than previously thought.
Josh Goldberg is a third-year political science major.
