THE 36-YEAR POLITICAL CYCLE

As I read the post mortems of the 2004 election, I got the sense that many observers felt that it represented a fundamental shift in American politics, even though the raw vote totals for Bush and Kerry didn't appear to indicate such.  I thought there might be something to this, so I did a little noodling on the subject.

It appears to me that the history of American electoral politics is marked by a 36-year cycle.  At the end of each cycle is a major shift in the coalitions making up the major parties.  Last year marked the completion of the latest cycle.  Let's take a look at this history.

2004:  The latest election marked the completion of the ideological re-alignment of the Republican and Democratic parties.  Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats are now oxymorons.  Among ordinary voters the welfare state ethos of the Great Society is discredited and the ghost of Vietnam is exorcised.  Another important shift has also been played out:  At the beginning of this cycle, the Republican party greatly benefited by absorbing the racialist (if not racist) Wallace bloc.  The rise of the Buckleyite conservatives during the 1970's effectively purged the Republican party of this taint by 2004.  (Of course, that hasn't stopped the pandering of the race-mongers, which is whole 'nother story.)

1968:  The Democratic New Deal coalition lost for good the Solid South.  Since the nation embraced racial integration in the wake of World War II, the states of the Deep South had become increasingly undependable for Democrats in presidential elections.  In 1968 George Wallace's third party run took the presidential election away from Democrat Hubert Humphrey and gave it to Republican Richard Nixon.  After that the Solid South was Republican, at first just at the top of electoral pyramid, but by 2004 all the way down to local offices.

1932:  The election of FDR is the birth of the New Deal coalition.  The Democrats stripped the Republicans of the progressive vote.  Labor became firmly esconced as a member of the Democratic coalition, and blacks began moving to the Democratic Party from the Republican Party in significant numbers.  By the end of this cycle, the Republicans had lost almost all of the black vote.  In opposition, the Republicans had become reactionary and finally acquiescent to the New Deal revolution in federal government.

1896:  McKinley's election marked the end of the post-Civil War coalitions.  The Democratic coalition split into "gold" and "silver" factions.  The limited-government, hard money Gold Democrats moved into the Republican camp, while under the leadership of William Jennings Bryan the free-silver populists took over the Democratic Party.  Thus, the modern core of each party was formed.

1860:  On the eve of the Civil War, the most spectacular re-alignment in American political history took place.  For the first and only time, a third party, the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, won not only the presidency, but control of Congress.  The existing major parties, the Democrats and the Whigs, were shattered by sectionalism.  The Republicans absorbed the Whigs and the Democrats carried on after Reconstruction from their newfound and unshakable base in the Solid South.  The Republicans became the party of industrial America (representing both blue-collar workers and manufacturers), emancipated blacks, the nation-state, temperance and social do-goodery, and a Whiggish penchant for public works.  The Democrats became the party of agriculture, immigrants in competition with black labor, state's rights, libertarianism, and limited government.

1824:  The Era of Good Feelings ended as the party of Jefferson (variously known as the Republicans or Democratic-Republicans) split into two major factions.  The "National Republicans" organized under John Quincy Adams who would win the presidential election of that year, while the "Democrats" organized under Andrew Jackson.  The National Republicans, based in the East, inherited many of the elements of the defunct Federalist Party and would become the nucleus of the Whig Party a decade later.  The Democrats became the party of the West, Manifest Destiny, and a populist localism in opposition to the centralizing policies of the National Republicans/Whigs.  Because of these general tendencies, the Whigs became increasingly strong in the industrializing free states, whereas the Democrats began to strongly align themselves with the interests of the agricultural slave states. 

1788:  Actually 1789, which was the first year federal elections were held under the Constitution.  When it became apparent that factions would organize into political parties to compete for the control of the federal government, the party of Washington became the Federalists while the anti-federalist opponents of the Constitution formed the core of the Democratic-Republicans.  As the nation first began to develop its institutions, the Federalists were primarily a northern party committed to the creation of a genuine nation, whereas the Democratic-Republicans were stronger in the slave south which did not benefit as much from strong national institutions.  However, once the foundation of federal government was in place, the Democratic-Republicans readily took control of its machinery to hold the presidency for twenty-four years, during which the rationale for the Federalist Party disappeared.

Cycles are relatively easy things to conjure up, but this is one that has hit the American political scene like clockwork to produce truly significant shifts in voter blocs.  I'm sure that the passing of generations within the rigid schedule of federal elections accounts for the cycle, though I haven't done enough study to definitively cite that as the cause.  Another interesting thing to consider is what appears to be an 85-year cultural cycle in America (to wit, 1605, 1690, 1775, 1860, and 1945).  How that entwines itself with this 36-year cycle is another question worth looking into.

Assuming that this 36-cycle exists, what are the implications for the major parties as we embark upon a new cycle?  A topic for another day ...

As I read the post mortems of the 2004 election, I got the sense that many observers felt that it represented a fundamental shift in American politics, even though the raw vote totals for Bush and Kerry didn't appear to indicate such.  I thought there might be something to this, so I did a little noodling on the subject.

It appears to me that the history of American electoral politics is marked by a 36-year cycle.  At the end of each cycle is a major shift in the coalitions making up the major parties.  Last year marked the completion of the latest cycle.  Let's take a look at this history.

2004:  The latest election marked the completion of the ideological re-alignment of the Republican and Democratic parties.  Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats are now oxymorons.  Among ordinary voters the welfare state ethos of the Great Society is discredited and the ghost of Vietnam is exorcised.  Another important shift has also been played out:  At the beginning of this cycle, the Republican party greatly benefited by absorbing the racialist (if not racist) Wallace bloc.  The rise of the Buckleyite conservatives during the 1970's effectively purged the Republican party of this taint by 2004.  (Of course, that hasn't stopped the pandering of the race-mongers, which is whole 'nother story.)

1968:  The Democratic New Deal coalition lost for good the Solid South.  Since the nation embraced racial integration in the wake of World War II, the states of the Deep South had become increasingly undependable for Democrats in presidential elections.  In 1968 George Wallace's third party run took the presidential election away from Democrat Hubert Humphrey and gave it to Republican Richard Nixon.  After that the Solid South was Republican, at first just at the top of electoral pyramid, but by 2004 all the way down to local offices.

1932:  The election of FDR is the birth of the New Deal coalition.  The Democrats stripped the Republicans of the progressive vote.  Labor became firmly esconced as a member of the Democratic coalition, and blacks began moving to the Democratic Party from the Republican Party in significant numbers.  By the end of this cycle, the Republicans had lost almost all of the black vote.  In opposition, the Republicans had become reactionary and finally acquiescent to the New Deal revolution in federal government.

1896:  McKinley's election marked the end of the post-Civil War coalitions.  The Democratic coalition split into "gold" and "silver" factions.  The limited-government, hard money Gold Democrats moved into the Republican camp, while under the leadership of William Jennings Bryan the free-silver populists took over the Democratic Party.  Thus, the modern core of each party was formed.

1860:  On the eve of the Civil War, the most spectacular re-alignment in American political history took place.  For the first and only time, a third party, the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, won not only the presidency, but control of Congress.  The existing major parties, the Democrats and the Whigs, were shattered by sectionalism.  The Republicans absorbed the Whigs and the Democrats carried on after Reconstruction from their newfound and unshakable base in the Solid South.  The Republicans became the party of industrial America (representing both blue-collar workers and manufacturers), emancipated blacks, the nation-state, temperance and social do-goodery, and a Whiggish penchant for public works.  The Democrats became the party of agriculture, immigrants in competition with black labor, state's rights, libertarianism, and limited government.

1824:  The Era of Good Feelings ended as the party of Jefferson (variously known as the Republicans or Democratic-Republicans) split into two major factions.  The "National Republicans" organized under John Quincy Adams who would win the presidential election of that year, while the "Democrats" organized under Andrew Jackson.  The National Republicans, based in the East, inherited many of the elements of the defunct Federalist Party and would become the nucleus of the Whig Party a decade later.  The Democrats became the party of the West, Manifest Destiny, and a populist localism in opposition to the centralizing policies of the National Republicans/Whigs.  Because of these general tendencies, the Whigs became increasingly strong in the industrializing free states, whereas the Democrats began to strongly align themselves with the interests of the agricultural slave states. 

1788:  Actually 1789, which was the first year federal elections were held under the Constitution.  When it became apparent that factions would organize into political parties to compete for the control of the federal government, the party of Washington became the Federalists while the anti-federalist opponents of the Constitution formed the core of the Democratic-Republicans.  As the nation first began to develop its institutions, the Federalists were primarily a northern party committed to the creation of a genuine nation, whereas the Democratic-Republicans were stronger in the slave south which did not benefit as much from strong national institutions.  However, once the foundation of federal government was in place, the Democratic-Republicans readily took control of its machinery to hold the presidency for twenty-four years, during which the rationale for the Federalist Party disappeared.

Cycles are relatively easy things to conjure up, but this is one that has hit the American political scene like clockwork to produce truly significant shifts in voter blocs.  I'm sure that the passing of generations within the rigid schedule of federal elections accounts for the cycle, though I haven't done enough study to definitively cite that as the cause.  Another interesting thing to consider is what appears to be an 85-year cultural cycle in America (to wit, 1605, 1690, 1775, 1860, and 1945).  How that entwines itself with this 36-year cycle is another question worth looking into.

Assuming that this 36-cycle exists, what are the implications for the major parties as we embark upon a new cycle?  A topic for another day ...

Comments

[jason]

fascinating stuff. i'll be anxious to read your next post on the 85year cycle. i get 1775 1860 and 1945 but what happened in 1605 and 1690?

[Bill]

Hi, Jason.

Thanks for your interest. I have more work to do before I can write an article on the 85-year cycle.

To answer your question, 1605 marks the beginning of the English project to colonize the Eastern seaboard with the first established at Jamestown in 1609. 1690 is period of Indian wars and rebellion ingited by the Crown re-establishing its authority in the colonies. On a per capita basis it was the bloodiest era in American history.

Regards, Bill