TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Precedents of a Political
Realignment
Jenna Jablonski
Political Sociology
5/8/2009
Jenna Jablonski
April 28th, 2009
Political Sociology – 2008 Elections
Precedents of a Political Realignment
Introduction
The 2008 Presidential Elections managed to stir up many sociological
debates. Topics discussed ranged from feminism to class conflict to the role of
government. To measure these possible ideological changes within society,
sociologists have begun the massive task of analyzing the publics' reaction to
these evolving issues. Many scholars have gone as far to call this past election
a “critical election,” implying a “realignment” of major ideological views about
keys issues like economic intervention, geo-political policies, and moral
positions.
The last major political realignment occurred in 1980 with the election of
Ronald Reagan. Now, nearly 30 years later, President Obama was elected with
an almost completely opposite political agenda. However, many sociologists are
unsatisfied in calling President Obama’s victory symbolic of a political
realignment for the Reagan years. This debate has brought many to question
the concept of realignment and what it actually constitutes. Different
characteristics have been offered in determining the environment of a political
realignment similar to that of President Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley,
PAGE 1 |
Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Using these criteria, I was able to
analyze 2008 Election exit polls and post-election opinion surveys to determine
if society is experiencing major ideological changes. I theorize that the 2008
election does inhabit many characteristics present in a political realignment;
however public ideologies have lacked major transformation.
Literature Review
Focusing the exact characteristics of a political realignment has led to
several definitions and markers. This lack of cohesive criteria to base a political
realignment has caused differing reviews of the outcome of the 2008 elections
and its implication of American political life.
For instance, Jay Cost, author of “Is 2008 a Realignment?” argues that
past critical elections have three characteristics in common. The first is that
they revolve around issues of great importance that cannot be ignored (Cost
2008: 3). He uses the elections of 1860 (Lincoln), 1896 (McKinley), and 1932
(Roosevelt) in which each addressed issues that had major effects on the
country as a whole. Lincoln was facing the possible “House Divide” between the
North and South; McKinley fought to create the gold standard; Roosevelt forged
“New Deal” policies in response to the Great Depression (Cost 2008:4). The
second characteristic Cost points out is that the candidates stake out relatively
clear positions, and people use their votes to voice their opinion on the two
dissimilar positions (2008:4). In each previously mentioned elections, the key
issues at hand had grave consequences and voters used their votes to show
their opinion about what should be done. The third aspect is that candidates
PAGE 2 |
rely less on finesse; it is less necessary because they represent a clear position
(2008: 4). Cost finds that Obama’s victory fails at all three of these
characteristics. There was not one overriding issue that dominated during the
election, and thus, candidates did not represent a contrast on that key issue
(2008:4). Lastly, finesse was extremely important in the outcome of the election
–the role that image played in this election was overwhelming (2008: 4).
Another criterion set for a realignment was offered by Gerald Magliocca’s,
author of “Obama Realignment (and what comes next).” He also presents three
guidelines to follow to achieve political realignment. The first is that it would
generally occur approximately every 30 years (2009:1). Magliocca demonstrates
a quick run through of political movements starting in 1770 and concluding
that Obama’s victory arrived right on schedule to replace the Reagan years
(2009:3). The second guideline is that the new political movement is occurring
in response to the constitutional abuses of the prior generation (2009:4).
Magliocca inserts that Obama brings a redemptive precedent in response to the
Bush Administration’s federal inaction (2009:4). The third aspect is that there
is a resistance to holdovers from prior generations (2009:4). This was embodied
in the public’s disapproval of any Bush-McCain alliances and its effects on the
outcome of the election. Magliocca concludes that the election of Obama follows
the typical guidelines of realignment. Magliocca also claims that Obama
represents the next “generational cohort” of voters similar in age and attitudes
(2009: 6). This accounts for added strength from younger voters looking to
challenge the previous generational cohort’s conservative ideology.
PAGE 3 |
The final measure for political realignment was given by Peter
Achterberg, author of “Class Voting in New Political Culture.” He states that
realignment occurs when “the old cleavages are gradually being replaced by
other (new) cleavages, accompanied by their own political alignments” (2006:
253). Achterberg argues that our political climate is shifting from class issue
politics to environmental and cultural issue politics (2006: 253). In this case,
voting behaviors change in a way that class does not always indicate voter
preference. Working class doesn’t always vote democrat, and middle class
doesn’t always vote republican (2006: 253). Achterberg would argue that the
2008 Elections largely emphasized newly important environmental and cultural
issues, leaving voters to have more options for alignment than relying on
traditional class ties. This in itself indicates the presence of a political
realignment.
As demonstrated by all of these approaches to political realignment, a
consensus cannot be determined to whether the 2008 election has produced
the precedents of a major political ideological change.
Methodology & Data
After researching how previous scholars arrived at their conclusions, I
have chosen three criteria to analyze the presence or absence of an ideological
realignment. These criteria are:
1. In a political realignment, voting patterns would shift at the state level
from previous years. Using exit poll data presented by Jay Cost, I plan to
PAGE 4 |
compare and contrast State-Level results between the 2004 and 2008
elections.
2. Borrowing from Magliocca’s theory concerning Obama’s representation of
the next “generational cohort,” I intend to analyze the voting patterns of
younger voters in 2004 and 2008 elections. To do this, I use demographic
exit poll data presented by the New York Times. I hypothesize that
younger generations felt better represented by democratic ideology and
voted accordingly. During the 2008 elections, this support would be
inflated if Obama truly represents the next “generational cohort.”
3. Lastly, in a political realignment, opinions of the public must also shift
regardless of voting patterns. Opinions popular during the previous
political alignment will become the minority, replaced by the new
ideology of the party elected. I examined public opinion data collected
shortly after the 2008 election by The Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research to measure any grave shifts in opinions from previous
conservative opinions.
Results
Jay Cost provided maps based on voting patterns of the un-weighted
average of the republican and democratic votes at the State-Level for all
elections since 1976 (2008: 1). Cost measured the polarization of the
geographical preferences of both states. Using this data, we find that voting
patterns of states are largely similar in 2008 and 2004 (Cost 2008: 2). As they
historically do, the Mountain Region (Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, and the
PAGE 5 |
Dakotas) remained in favor of Republicans in both elections (Cost 2008: 4).
Other states that leaned Republican were found in the West North Central
(Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama). This area can be
characterized as typical swing votes. Overwhelmingly, in the 1980 elections, 45
of 50 states voted in support of Reagan. In the case of a 2008 political
realignment, there should be an overwhelming soar of democratic votes across
the country. However, since the 2008 results do not appear much different
than previous elections, major political alignment is not present in this
measurement.
My second hypothesis tests Magliocca’s theory on Obama representing
the next “generational cohort” by comparing the results of voters ages 18-29 in
2004 and 2008. I used exit poll data presented by the New York Times. In
2004, voters ages 18-29 voted 54% Democrat and 45% Republican indicating a
slight lean towards liberal candidates. In 2008, voters ages 18-29 voted 66%
democrat and 32% republican showing a larger incline for younger voters to
vote for a liberal candidate. The even larger presence of young liberal voters in
the 2008 elections is indicative of their greater alignment with Obama’s
ideological platform. This connection between younger voters and the
Democratic Party is representative of the political movement of this generation;
meeting this criterion of realignment.
Lastly, I chose to investigate public opinion data to compare and contrast
current political opinions with previous conservative ideologies. The data was
gathered through telephone interviews by the Tarrance Group of 1,001 voters
PAGE 6 |
in the 2008 elections. It was collected on November 5th and 6th, 2008.
The first question I assessed asked voters to best align themselves with
the statement: “I want my elected officials in government to cut taxes that will
help grow the economy or to cut taxes to only for lower income citizens” 63% of
voters selected “Cut Taxes to grow economy – strongly” while only 21% chose
“Cut taxes only for lower income –strongly.” This majority implies little change
in opinion from the past conservative ideology know for supporting tax cuts to
expand the economy. [See Appendix 1.1]
The next question asked voters to best align themselves with the
statement “I want my elected officials in government to take over and control
more of our economy or to grow the economy without more government
intervention” 19% of voters selected “Take over and control more-strongly”
while 61% chose “Grow without intervention –strongly.” This majority also
implies slight but inconsequential change in opinion from the previous
conservative ideology that strongly opposes government intervention in the
economy. [See Appendix 1.2]
The last question asked voters to best align with themselves with the
statement “I want my officials in government to spend more on government
projects and programs or to reduce government spending, and spend what they
have more wisely” Only 13% of voters selected “Spend more money on projects
and programs – strongly” while 78% chose “Reduce spending, and spend wisely
–strongly.” This majority indicates that voters aligned themselves with past
PAGE 7 |
conservative ideology that lends itself to minimal social programs headed by
the federal government. [See Appendix 1.3]
These post-election questions yielded favor for tax cuts, limited
government, and weak social programs. This indicates the conservative
preferences of voters despite the election of a Democratic candidate. This
duality does not support a political realignment.
Conclusions/Discussion
The 2008 Presidential Election has brought the Democratic Party back to
the White House; however, the precedent for a political realignment seems to be
weak thus far. Republican ideologies have dominated for almost 30 years and
that impression seems to remain currently in voting and public opinion trends.
However there are some signs that political realignment is possible. Following
Magliocca’s idea that Obama is the representative of the next “generational
cohort” and Achterberg’s idea of a changing of the political climate from class
to cultural principles, some scholars would conclude that political realignment
is brewing.
Based on the findings of Cost and my added research, the 2008 Elections
alone do not represent a political realignment. This does not however rule out
the possibility for ideological change – it simply states that at the time of the
elections a realignment was not fully disclosed. The next few years of Obama’s
presidency will help determine whether a full realignment will occur. His
campaign policies and first 100 days in office have proven to have a very
PAGE 8 |
different political agenda than his predecessors. We will see if he shall sway the
public’s ideology in a new direction.
Suggestions for Future Research
In future investigation of this topic, I suggest researching sources of
Obama’s support to understand why voters chose to vote for him. It is possible
that they felt John McCain’s campaign was weak, rather than Obama being
representative of their political voice.
Also, in order to be supplied with greater knowledge from post-election
surveys, I suggest more questions having to do with political ideology involving
moral and geo-political issues, rather than solely economic. My other critique
would be for a greater sample size and finding a better way to phrase
questions.
References
Achterberg, Peter. 2006. “Class voting in a new political culture: economic,
cultural and environmental voting for 20 western countries” International
Sociology; 21: 237.
Cost, Jay. 2008. “Is 2008 a Realignment?” Real Clear Politics.
<www.realclearpolitics.com/horseracer...>
Cost, Jay. 2008. “Electoral Polarization Continues Under Obama.” Real Clear
Politics. <www.realclearpolitics/horseracer...>
Magliocca, Gerard. 2009. “The Obama Realignment (and what comes next)”
< http://ssrn.com/abstract=1310202>
New York Times. 2008 Exit Polls.
< http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exitpolls.html?scp=1&sq=election%202000%20%20exit%20polls&st=cse>
New York Times. 2004 Exit Polls.
<http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exitpolls.html?scp=1&sq=election%202000%20%20exit%20polls&st=cse>
PAGE 9 |
Survey by GOPAC and The Tarrance Group, November 5-November 6, 2008.
Retrieved April 23, 2009 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for
Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
<http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ipoll.html>.
APPENDIX
Appendix 1.1
GOPAC 2008 Post-Election Survey [November, 2008]
(As you may know, a lot of things will change as a result of these recent (2008)
elections. Now, let me ask you about some of your expectations as you look forward to
the next two years. Please listen as I read several pairs of statements, and for each tell
me which statement comes closest to your own view.)...I want my elected officials in
government to cut taxes that will help grow the economy or to cut taxes only for lower
income citizens? (If Choice made, ask:) And do you feel strongly about that?
63%
6
3
21
3
3
3
Cut taxes to grow the economy-strongly
Cut taxes to grow the economy
Cut taxes only for lower income
Cut taxes only for lower income-strongly
Both (Vol.)
Neither (Vol.)
Undecided
Survey by GOPAC. Methodology: Conducted by The Tarrance Group, November 5-November 6, 2008 and based on
telephone interviews with a national registered voters who voted in the 2008 presidential election sample of 1,001.
The sample included those who voted on Election Day November 4, 2008, early, and by absentee
ballot.[USTARR.08GOPAC.R18]
Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
Appendix 1.2
GOPAC 2008 Post-Election Survey [November, 2008]
As you may know, a lot of things will change as a result of these recent (2008)
elections. Now, let me ask you about some of your expectations as you look forward to
the next two years. Please listen as I read several pairs of statements, and for each tell
me which statement comes closest to your own view....I want my elected officials in
government to take over and control more of our economy or to grow the economy
without more government intervention? (If Choice made, ask:) And do you feel strongly
about that?
19%
4
9
61
1
2
4
Take over and control more-strongly
Take over and control more
Grow without intervention
Grow without intervention-strongly
Both (Vol.)
Neither (Vol.)
Undecided
PAGE 10 |
Survey by GOPAC. Methodology: Conducted by The Tarrance Group, November 5-November 6, 2008 and based on
telephone interviews with a national registered voters who voted in the 2008 presidential election sample of 1,001.
The sample included those who voted on Election Day November 4, 2008, early, and by absentee
ballot.[USTARR.08GOPAC.R16]
Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
Appendix 1.3
GOPAC 2008 Post-Election Survey [November, 2008]
(As you may know, a lot of things will change as a result of these recent (2008)
elections. Now, let me ask you about some of your expectations as you look forward to
the next two years. Please listen as I read several pairs of statements, and for each tell
me which statement comes closest to your own view.)...I want my elected officials in
government to spend more on government projects and programs or to reduce
government spending, and spend what they have more wisely? (If Choice made, ask:)
And do you feel strongly about that?
13%
1
4
78
2
1
1
Spend more on projects and
Spend more on projects and
Reduce spending, and spend
Reduce spending, and spend
Both (Vol.)
Neither (Vol.)
Undecided
programs-strongly
programs
wisely
wisely-strongly
Survey by GOPAC. Methodology: Conducted by The Tarrance Group, November 5-November 6, 2008 and based on
telephone interviews with a national registered voters who voted in the 2008 presidential election sample of 1,001.
The sample included those who voted on Election Day November 4, 2008, early, and by absentee
ballot.[USTARR.08GOPAC.R17]
Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
PAGE 11 |