The indications are there, but most pundits are hesitant to
acknowledge it.
The evidence is both aggregate and anecdotal:
• According to the UPI, the Republicans beat the Democrats
in the elections by a margin of about 53-47%.
• An article in the New York Times reports that
Democratic analysts looking at post-election data say minority
turnout was respectable, but the GOP won over white moderates who
were essential to the success of Bill Clinton.
• Another article in the New York Times details
interviews done with many voters, both Democrats and Republicans,
who increasingly like President Bush.
Yet conservative analysts are wary. Andrew Sullivan says “The
margin is still only 53-47, and demographic trends favor the
Democrats.” In the Weekly Standard, David Brooks is a bit
more upbeat: “The Republicans should not read a radical ideological
mandate into the results….But there is a trend here.” Even
Karl Rove, who should be giddy, is circumspect. “This is part of
it” Rove said to Time magazine. “It’s not going to be a
dramatic realignment of American politics in which one day it’s
deadlocked and the next day it’s a blowout.”
Rove can be forgiven because he was probably trying to follow
Bush’s “no-gloat rule.” But we are very likely headed for a
realignment. And it will be a dramatic one, or what in political
science is referred to as a “critical” realignment.
A realignment occurs when the voting patterns of a significant
segment or segments of the population change. The result, according
to political scientist Walter Dean Burnham, are that “majority
parties become minorities; politics which was once competitive
becomes noncompetitive or, alternatively, hitherto one-party areas
now become arenas of intense partisan competition.” There are two
types of realignments. A gradual realignment is one that usually
occurs over a generation, as one group of voters die out, and
another, with different voting habits, come of age. This is the
type of realignment that began in the 1960s and ultimately led to
the election of Ronald Reagan.
The other type is the aforementioned critical realignment. They
usually occur over a brief period, one or two elections. They are
caused by a major crisis that influences a large segment of the
population to alter its voting patterns. Further, as Burnham
states, such realignments “are marked by ideological polarizations
and issue-distances between major parties which are exceptionally
large by normal standards.” Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal
Coalition, which was precipitated by the Great Depression, is the
classic example of a critical realignment
We are likely in the midst of another one. First, there is the
crisis, that of 9/11. This event has redefined much of the
political landscape, focusing most of America’s attention on the
issues of terrorism and national security.
Second, the “issue-distances” have strong potential to become
huge. With a very few exceptions, the Republicans now stand for a
strong defense, the doctrine of preemption, and a willingness to
take unilateral action. The image of the Democrats is muddled. Many
support the war against Saddam. But many others oppose such a war,
dislike preemption, and insist that all action must be taken
through the United Nations. And the signs are that they will
continue in that direction: the ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi as House
minority leader, Al Gore’s trending away from centrism, and Tom
Daschle’s “where’s Osama?” carping.
The only major uncertainty is the direction the voters will go.
Is the trend of the white moderates only temporary? Or is it the
beginnings of a long-term trend? Current circumstances point to the
latter. Since the war on terrorism will likely continue for a
number of years, so will the aforementioned issues that divide
Republicans and Democrats. Next, moderate voters appear to identify
warmly with President Bush. If Bush prosecutes the war against
Saddam successfully, that emotional tie to such voters will only
grow stronger. Ultimately, we will know that Bush’s leadership has
resulted in a realignment if either many independent voters
register as Republican, or they lean much more heavily toward
Republicans, or some combination of both.
Earlier this year, John B. Judis and Ruy Teixerira published a
book about how current demographic trends were leading to an
“emerging Democratic majority.” But 9/11 has so altered the
American politics, and Bush’s leadership has proved so effective,
that after the 2004 election we will probably be talking about the
“established Republican majority.”
