Following up on my previous comments, I should also mention...
My argument about rhetorical realignments really only applies to the 20th century. What both FDR and Reagan accomplished was as much a change in the behavior of individual voters as it was a re-conception of the purpose of politics itself.
The realignments that occurred in the nineteenth century around the elections of Jackson and Lincoln, however, included both of these elements plus one more. Each involved the complete collapse of one of the previous eras dominant parties, making room for a completely new party to form. Although there are plenty of different explanations as to why such collapses occurred, for my money the best explanation by far is the one offered by James Sundquist in his Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. The short version? An issues or cluster of issues proved so divisive that the previous era's party coalitions could no longer hold themselves together. Although both parties are affected by the rise of such issues, Sundquist argues that at times the distribution of effects is so unbalanced that it quite literally tears one party apart.
Since the turn of the 20th century, however, the parties have been able to successfully avoid such collapses. Although there are a number of different explanations as to why, one convincing explanation has been the inability of third parties to launch credible challenges to the two major parties on a national level. And in those rare instances where a national campaign with broad-based appeal has managed to come together, they've usually managed to implode well before any real votes were cast. (Ross Perot anyone?)
All of which makes Mayor Bloomberg's potential run as an independent quite intriguing. Take a look at the way the Mayor framed his decision to leave the GOP today:
A nonpartisan approach has worked wonders in New York: we’ve balanced budgets, grown our economy, improved public health, reformed the school system and made the nation’s safest city even safer.
We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face.Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.
Independent candidates usually face two problems. First, there's the problem of cash. Not only does it take an immense amount of money to run a national campaign, its also (until recently, at least) quite expensive and time consuming to raise money. Second, there's the problem of appeal. Generally speaking, most third party movements in our history have either been organized around quirky ideas or by quirky people. Or both. All of which has made winning a plurality of the vote impossible for third party candidates to do.
Enter Mike Bloomberg. The man could run his entire campaign using his personal ATM card, so the first issue isn't an issue. In fact, given that he would have to spend literally no time whatsoever raising money from big or small donors, it might actually give him an advantage over other candidates. Second, Bloomberg is wildly popular in NYC in no small part because he is seen as competent, a theme that runs throughout his life story. And while I'd argue that in most eras of our history competence in government wouldn't be a particularly powerful platform, in today's environment it just might work.
Something to think about over the next few months....
Subscribe to this blog's feed
