I have long wondered at the role-reversal of Democrats and Republicans in recent years. It used to be Democrats who wanted to aggressively pursue liberty around the world, now it’s Republicans. It used to be Democrats who advocated low tariffs, now it’s Republicans. It used to be Democrats who were the party of the common man, now it’s Republicans.
Conversely, it used to be Republicans who advocated government support for big business, now it’s Democrats. It used to be Republicans who advocated isolationism, now it’s Democrats. It used to be Republicans who were the party of the elite, now it’s Democrats.
Of course the picture is more complex than this, there are positions that haven’t changed. There are individuals in both parties who don’t fit the party stereotype. Part of the answer has to do with changing conventional wisdom. But I’ve been thinking of something else – I’m not sure of it myself, and I’m interested in your feedback.
I’ve been thinking the following: The real issue dividing the two parties is stasis vs. ferment.
In a two-party democratic system, electoral politics pushes the parties inexorably into dividing the public into two 50-50 camps. The issue that has always been the basis of this division is whether or not to risk change, or whether to strive to keep things the same. In this battle, the party of ferment always has the advantage – though people do make mistakes, human intelligence combined with the results of trial-and-error tends to lead to improvements. Perhaps more importantly, society’s most energetic and industrious people are naturally attracted to the party of ferment.
So who is attracted to the party of stasis? On the one hand, the children of the elite – children of successful entrepreneurs, self-made academics, etc. – people who are born to success under the existing system. On the other hand, people who are unsuccessful, but for one reason or another don’t want to strive for success.
So how does this explain the Democratic/Republican flip-flops? Because the single biggest factor in determining party affiliation is the party affiliation of your parents. So my postulate is that the children don’t change parties, the parties change to suit the children.
Since 1861, when Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, the parties have changed places twice. The Republicans started as a party of ferment and subsequently dominated the presidency. Gradually they became a party of stasis and lost their dominance. The tipping point was reached around 1930 with FDR, when the Democrats clearly became the party of ferment. But by the 1970s, the Democrats had become the party of stasis once again. For a while, there were two competing stasis parties, and then came Ronald Reagan. Now the Republicans are once again the party of ferment.
You may notice that both parties were dominant for about two generations – one of ferment, one of stasis.
Posted by David Boxenhorn at May 24, 2004 09:15 PM