A critical era occurs when a stable era is interupted by a critical election, one that arouses unusual intensity and interest and that changes voting patterns substantially, followed by another stable era. According to "Why Parties" by John H. Aldrich, the first critical period occurred in 1790 with the formation of the first parties (Aldrich 279). The most recent critical period occurred in the 1960s with the political realignment of southern blacks to the democratic party. However, many people believe that the 1990s was also a critical era, and that the 1994 election was the critical election. After reading the attatched article by Aldrich, I would agree.
As we discussed in class, some key elements of a critical era are elite generational transitions, a change in public belief and action (in particular party identification), and changing relations between the people and the elites. The candidates in the 1990s went from the World War II veteran to the Vietnam veteran. Instead of a glorified war hero, dissenters and those who oppossed the conflict rose as the elite candidates. Party identification was marked by stronger partisan ties, a reduction in split ticketing, and a trend of the public being able to tell distinct differences in the two parties. In addition, as Aldrich points out, incumbency was not as strong as an advantage as it had been since the 1960s. The relationship between the public and the elites changed drastically due TV advertising and, most importantly, the internet. Candidates could now reach the public easier and did not depend on the help of the party as much. In addition, partisan realignment was seen with the 1994 Republican take over of the house. After reading Aldrich's article, it is obvious to me that the 1990s was indeed a critical era, though it may not have been as dramatic of a era as the 1960s.
I also think that we are in a stable era. I could not find any articles on this, so I'm going to go off of my own observations and hope that feedback from others will correct me if I'm wrong. The candidates, as we saw in the 2004 election, are still the Vetenam vets... who could forget all of the mudslinging about that?!?! Partisan ties remain strong, and are on a rise. People can still tell distinct differences between the two parties, and there have not been any major realignments. One problem with my theory that this is a stable era would be the 2006 election when the Republicans lost Congress to the Democrats. However, I still think that there is overwhelming support for us being in a stable era. However, I do know that this next election will be very competitive and it may end up being the critical election for this era.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have to say that I don't necessarily agree with you that the 90's was a critical era. I do agree though that today we are in a stable era. Although, I think that we are soon going to be in a critical era. With the way the Republican's are trying to go more moderate to attract moderate Democrats. I think that if we see more moderate Dems. voting for Rudy (assuming he's the candidate) we could be in a critical era.
I agree that the 90s was another critical era. There were enough changes I feel to warrant it being considered a critical era. However I don't know if right now a stable era is happening. It's are to say, if anything I would say we are approaching the end of a stable era or we are already entering the next critical era
The Republicans losing Congress in 2006 does not count against your argument for us being a stable era now because the president's party consistently loses if the president wins a second term. Voters become disenchanted with almost every president and decide to vote for the other party in hopes for change. Or something like that.
I would have to disagree, that when it comes to the 90's VS. today. Today we are going through just as much of a critical era now. I think that the partisan alignment will significantly change within the next year or two.
I agree that we are in a stable era, and the their is a strong argument for the 90's being a critical era (although when contrasting the 90's to the 60's I can't help but think that the 90's is missing something).
Post a Comment