Dean Burnham's Ideas about American Government, Part II

Realignment--the American Peaceful Equivalent of Revolution

I’ve had trouble writing this.  I tried several times.  I didn’t want to bore you with “cold” history, and I feared that I could not do justice to Burnham’s subtle understanding of American politics.  However, as concern over our political life continues to grow and more voices predict a coming disaster, Dean’s voice is needed.

In his view American government can be usefully understood as the collective labor of many people, elected and appointed, alongside long serving professional administrators, interacting with the many organized interests that share their aspirations for the society and have supported their rise to power.

Obviously, there are conflicts between these interests as they argue for different policies across the many branches and agencies of the Federal government, as well as at the State and local levels. These battles, however, are rarely carried to a winner take all scorched earth victory. Compromises are reached. It is expected that all “legitimate” interests (interests represented by established groups and their long-time lobbyists in Washington) are entitled to a hearing, to assistance and respect.

And while many interests have influence within both political parties, the larger interests tend to associate themselves with one or the other of the two major Parties.

As a result, each Party in general “represents” a different coalition of interests.   

In addition, the party system builds a second bridge between the citizens and the government. When people see one or the other of the two parties listening to their needs and working to serves their interests, they feel positive about the government and view it as contributing to their wellbeing and they accept its authority as legitimate. The vast majority of the country then identifies with one or the other of the two parties, votes regularly for their candidates and supports their policies.

Such a system is remarkably stable. Economic and cultural conflicts within the society are managed. The government is part referee, setting and enforcing rules like patent law, and part player, funding national defense and other public needs. There are conflicts over who pays for the cost of government and there are conflicts over who receives benefits and assistance. And temporary settlements (laws and administrative decisions) allow for immediate action but do not limit future conflict.

Were our society’s economic and social interests permanent and unchanging, such a system would grow ever more resistant to change and ever more efficient over time.

Society, however, is dynamic. Changes in technology and thought, as I have said in my last blog, create new interests and weaken old. As large parts of the population suffer severe loses, others amass large gains, and new demands are made of government.

Responding to new interests puts pressure on the extent to which the government is able to assist traditional interests.

And, since the extent and purposes of government authority is always legitimized by ideological justifications and legal interpretations of law and the Constitution, demands for new action may assert new rationales for authority y redirecting or expanding the role of government and perhaps challenging the rights and privileges of established interests.

As these pressures build, as they will in a dynamic society, the old system is weakened. There is an intense clash of social groups and ideological beliefs. The ties between voters and parties weaken. More people claim to be weak identifiers or independent of partisan attachment, as neither Parties supports their immediate needs.  

During such a crisis a new major party may emerge (as did the Republican Party in the 1850s) or one or both of the two dominant parties may be transformed.  That is, in a two-party system, the parties may appeal to new groups and alienate old partisans. A new party alignment can emerge, what Burnham calls a realignment, two new coalitions of social, economic and political forces, with new leadership and advocating new policies (as did both the Republican and Democratic Parties in the 1930s). 

Essentially, Burnham viewed American political history as periods of stability dissolving into a decade or more of combat over unresolved serious economic and cultural issues (the 1820s and 30s, the 1850s and 60s, the 1890s and 2000s, the 1930s and 40s and the 1970s and 80s), followed by a new period of relative political harmony. 

In his view these realignments renewed the ties between Party and citizens, as people regain faith in the ability of one or the other Party to represent their interests, be attentive to their needs and act on their behalf.   

In time the new alignment is “settled” by further elections and the new leaders of each Party, sobered by experience in government, take a more pragmatic approach to policy as they struggle to provide satisfactory outcomes for all members of their new coalitions.

Are we engaged in a similar “readjustment” today?  Is the turmoil of the present simply another in a long series of realignments that will preserve democratic rule and meet the needs of present challenges and opportunities? If so, our pessimism need not be extreme.

Burnham was not naïve enough to believe in a rigid determinism.  He did, however, emphasize the extent to which a two-party system in a democracy can rebuild itself in the face of internal crisis and conflict—a renewal at the most fundamental level of its democratic political life.

Many, however, will say that today’s problems are more intractable than in the past, that the political oppositions are deeper and government law and institutions more fragile. 

Cyclical views of history are unreliable guides.  Burnham did not see realignments as inevitable. For him they were a mechanism that had at times helped the latent power of “the people” confront the established power of status and money and new vested interests emerge.

Nor should we forget that such reforms occur as a result of the failings of our system of government. There are no guarantees, and we should not rely upon “the ghosts” of history to aid us in our present struggles.

However, if a viable restructuring of American politics is possible, perhaps similar in many ways to what transpired in the past, let us welcome it—while aware that the actual nature of any new coalition could be hostile to our own personal goals and hope for society. 

As I said, I hear a lot of doom and despair in this month’s cable chatter.  I am not minimizing the reality of the present crisis. I do, though, believe that Burnham’s analysis provides a measure of hope—if the next generation can replace our handwringing by putting their hands on the wheel, setting a new course for the future.