For the first century and a half of the United States’ existence, a political phenomena known as “political realignment” occurred roughly every 30 years, almost like clockwork.
The realignment occurs when a set of new, overarching issues develop in the political landscape. These issues fragment one or both of the existing parties, and new coalitions form along fresh lines. The realignments are often based in elections, demonstrated by higher than average voter turnout in which the new coalition takes control of the government. The 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln and his new coalition of Republicans, with the issue of slavery on everyone’s mind, is the most often cited case.
It’s been 79 years since we’ve had one.
Franklin Roosevelt’s ascension to the White House in 1932 was the last realignment political scientists have agreed upon as actually fitting the bill. Some have argued for the elections of 1964 and ’68, with Johnson and Nixon. Some have argued for Reagan’s 1980 election. Some even for President Obama’s recent election. But the truth of the matter is that none of these elections (so far, in Obama’s case) have demonstrated the foundation-shattering changes that the typical realignment entails. Individually, they may contain a certain aspect of a realignment, such as an important issue, even increased voter turnout. But none have garnered all of the fundamental changes a realignment requires.
We are long, long overdue.
Such colossal alterations might not seem like a good thing. Our system of government was set up so that rapid changes would be largely nullified. The whims of the masses are kept in check through elected representatives and the very electoral cycles that serve them. Perhaps we haven’t had a realignment because we haven’t needed one. Perhaps the current parties are doing a decent enough job representing their constituencies. Perhaps the Republicans and Democrats have found the winning coalitions.
Ask anyone on the street if they agree with the above statements, and you would probably get laughed at.
Realignments serve as a form of shock therapy for the political climate. They jar politicians out of the status quo and force them to deal with the new overarching issues — more often than not against party lines. This is where you get new coalitions forming along the views of the electorate. Realignments serve to excite citizens, getting them to actually care what goes on in the political arena. Ironically, through discussion and fervor, through impassioned debate and political activity, they bring the country together. Realignments are where Americans face adversity head on and, without exception, have overcome it.
The question therefore becomes, are we attempting to sidestep adversity?
Today, America finds itself at a crucial axis in history. The world has changed a great deal since the last realignment, yet the ideas and attitudes of our political culture have evolved very little. Our government shows this in its policies.
Consider our military. Rising to greatness during World War II and continuing its ascension through the Cold War, the United States military is the most advanced, most well-funded and expert fighting force on the planet. Our navy is larger than the next 13 combined. But the world has moved on. Battles are not fought between enormous armies anymore. We spend ungodly amounts of money funding the military — 46.5 percent of all military expenditures in the world— to maintain a fighting force that is largely obsolete. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “What all these potential adversaries … have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms.”
Consider that the income gap between the rich and the poor is almost the largest it has ever been. The top 20 percent of American wage earners received 49.4 percent of overall income in 2009, compared to 3.4 percent for the bottom 20. Consider that tuition for colleges is preventing would-be students from learning. Or that the planet is being destroyed from pollution. Or that the economy may never recover its lost jobs.
This adversity is nothing new for America. What is new is our failure to meet the challenges with new ways of thinking. We have become so comfortable with the way things are, with our politicians and their politics, that we are afraid of thinking outside the box and approaching the age-old problems with new solutions. Cutting defense spending is viewed as taboo, but what we really need to do is spend that money more wisely. Then there would be money left over to make schools cheaper, to invest in green technology, and to provide welfare to people who, through no fault of their own, need a helping hand.
In reality, a realignment is similar to a revolution, albeit a controlled, democratic revolution. It’s a changing of the guard, without violence or fear or terror. It’s a necessary rejuvenation, a re-focusing on the interests of the people. Think of a controlled burn, where old crops are ignited to enrich the soil for the future generations. It’s time for a shake up.
It’s time to wake up.
[email protected]