What is a Critical Realignment?
Can it help explain the 2024 Presidential Election?
As people discuss the 2024 Presidential Election, I hear a lot about “realignment.” I think that most people simply mean that the result differ from the preceding election, i.e. the appearance that some people voted differently than they did before. And perhaps they mean as well that the candidate of a different Party received the majority of votes.
There is, however, a powerful approach to the understanding of electoral change called “realignment theory” that is used by scholars who study elections. This is the first of two discussions of this approach.
Realignment theory suggests that significant changes in Party voting (who votes for which Party), and possibly many voters’ Party identify and loyalty, occur periodically in American politics and that they are a peaceful way on which the system resolves conflicts that if unattended, might lead to a revolutionary, perhaps violent, transformation of the foundational Constitutional system of government.
The underlying idea is that when one political Party controls the national government over a number of years and elections, many voters become dissatisfied with how well the Party, and the government it controls, serve their interests. They do not see their government as just “out of touch,” but as a self-serving elite that is no longer meeting the country’s evolving needs. There can be different reasons for this, but the general sense is that established government policies are designed to deal with the needs of established interests (who support the ruling Party) and these policies do not address new problems and issues that have been created by changes in the economic, technological and social structures of the society.
That is, large groups of voting citizens do not feel they are being heard, understood or represented by one, and perhaps both, of the two existing Parties. For as social and economic factors change, the Parties and their policies seem less focused on the real needs of the society and their leaders are less and less respected for their judgment and public regarding concern. So, Party loyalty fades. More people call themselves independent. The voices of new social movements agitate for change. And government itself is seen more and more as indifferent to, or even the enemy of, the “people.”
The result is in general a withdrawal from public life, a cynicism about the potential of government and a general dissatisfaction with partisan alternatives.
It is as if the democratic political system is operating on a ground that is covered by dry tinder and awaits merely a strong source of ignition before bursting into flames.
Realignment theory requires both such underlying popular alienation, and a spark that will light the fire, i.e. some immediate issue that focuses latent anger and seems to threaten the wellbeing of groups of citizens that are already ripe for mobilization.
In theory, and this has been repeated at several key moments in our nation’s history, the fire burns and the two Parties take different positions on the threat (issue) and mobilize activist citizen involvement to carry the battle to the other Party, in an election that seems to be the most important of a lifetime. Normal patterns of voting are overturned. New allies are found and new enemies are made. Elections become more fiercely contested and voters more intensely partisan.
I think we have seen the ground laid for such a moment. In recent years more and more people have grown alienated from politics as usual. More people feel that their basic values and even self-worth are no longer affirmed and respected by other citizens. More people sense they are on ever thinner ice in a rapidly changing job market and fear they lack the skills to compete in a modern economy. At times like these, “others” are viewed as using government favoritism to get ahead. And the media continues to show the average worker how far they are behind such “others” in wealth and lifestyle and opportunities for their children.
And what is the “spark?” I believe that Covid induced inflation has ignited the fire. And the present government is faulted for not doing enough to protect the public from higher prices and financial distress.
Say, if you wish that this is unfair. Claim that people have been misled. This is the nature of a democratic political system. Someone or Party or group has to “pay” for perceived injustice, incompetence, or corruption. Somehow (and the mechanism are vague and simplified), the political system has failed and radical change is needed, starting with the removal of the present government.
But this is not all that is meant by realignment. The new government and the newly chosen majority Party must win the permanent trust and loyalty of the public if there is to be a realignment that will persist election to election. It is not clear for now how many voters who voted for the Republican candidate will see themselves going forward as “Republicans.” Many will remain Independents or Democrats. For them this election has been a deviation, a one of a time voting change.
But if the new Administration is popular and seen as successful in meeting the challenges that brought them to power, then the next election may “turn the corner” on new partisan loyalties. We will have to see.
A new stability will require that voters view their recent party choice as their long-term partisan identity. If not in fact, then symbolically at least, the voter must feel that their new party “fights” for them. They must perceive their life as better because their Party has won battles for them.
I say symbolically, as they are already on the road to such an identity. They will interpret “good” political news as supporting their choice in the last election. If, as some allege, the legislative enactments of the past four years made positive changes to the economy that will bear fruit over the next several years, there will be such good news to celebrate. Psychologists remind us that people are likely to focus their attention on news that supports their opinions and beliefs, that reinforces their emotional attachments. A deviating election is potentially a first step toward the realignment of one’s partisan identity.
As well, we might expect that the new administration, perhaps not during the next two years, but over time, will moderate its policy choices, move toward the center of public opinion and form mutually advantageous alliances with both old and new economic interests and popular causes.
If this happens, we will be living in a new “party systems” until such time as the ground is prepared for yet another realignment and another national crisis provides the flame.
There is, as those who read political science literature will recognize, an important part of the general theory of realignment that I am leaving out. It is not fully integrated with what I have outlined above and is saved for another time.
I believe that there are enduring latent divides that lie uneasily at all times beneath the surfaces of political strife. They are the fault lines of American politics and they are likely to align with and determine the outcomes of realignments such as I described above. I plan to save a good deal of space for their discussion in the weeks ahead.
And by the way, we need to recognize that theories like critical realignment are tools, possibly valuable tools, that provide insight. They are one way of arranging the many separate parts of events, and unlike a jig saw puzzle, there are many other ways such pieces can be assembled. That the picture will be different given how we choose and assemble, is simply to say that we are not reproducing “reality.” We are learning. We are seeking guidance to make better choices in the future.
The next piece that I'm still working on, may provide a better grip on the current scene. But to do this justice, it is a deep dive into our past. I like the distinction from an old friend that taught history at Princeton, who pointed out that in Britain the economic elite was brought into the government, became Lords, while in the US wealth and government were separated, but of course wealth controlled policy through access and some forms of corruption. How do we look at Musk?
What if we set aside the graphs and the charts and the books and start asking people why they voted the way they did or why they voted differently for the top of the ticket than they did down ballot? AOC got some interesting answers. We might find out that the top of the ticket deployed the wrong strategies on the short time she had. In an election that saw many people looking for change from the status quo, she said she wouldn't make any changes. Harris didn't talk plainly to people in a way that showed she understood their concerns and was going to fight for them. She campaigned with Liz Cheney and said she was going to work with the other side, which some might have taken to mean the old establishment. People were asking for change and she offered a middling around the edges. Her policies came across as peicemeal and not so much what people were asking for per ce. Harris avoided meeting people where they were. She came across as at least partically hidden from the people and her appearances in public were too curated and carefully staged and her words too vague.
Trump didn't even get half the voters. He only added a little to his total. The vote was still very close. I don't see a mandate. Not even for the cyberlibertarians.