John Aldrich, in his 1999 article “Political Parties in a Critical Era,” suggests that substantial changes in party leadership, changes in public beliefs and values, and changes in voting patterns are the baseline for the argument that the 1990’s are a critical era (Aldrich 1999, p28). I believe that he is right that all these variables are present in the 1990’s and lend credence to calling it a critical era. However, one of the essential parameters of V.O. Key’s definition of a critical era is “one of rapid change leading to a new period of relative stability” (Aldrich 1995, p261). Any period of relative stability in this case would have been very short – starting sometime during the Clinton administration and ending with the 2006 elections. Restricting the definition of the new critical era to the 1990’s misses the larger picture of changing party leadership, changes in public beliefs, and changes in voting patterns; these patterns have been in flux from 1994 to at least 2006 (or 2008 if you prefer), with no long-term equilibrium having revealed itself as of yet.
I would suggest that by the definitions of Keys and Aldrich, among others, either the 1990’s were a critical era that was punctuated by an unusually short period of equilibrium that quickly encountered another critical era; or the critical era is more properly extended into 21st century and still awaits the long-term equilibrium that the theory proposes. I believe that under the latter scenario, the critical era model proposed by Keys and Aldrich can still apply. Beginning with the 1994 elections, however, there has simply been little evidence for the long-term lock on the Presidency for Democrats or on Congress for the Republicans that Aldrich forecast as evidence for the introduction of the new stable era (Aldrich 1999, p14). Whether this equilibrium will ensue post-2008 remains to be seen, but is it not perfectly reasonable to imagine critical elections similar to 1994 and 2006 as soon as 2016 or 2018? If not, the scenario fits quite cleanly into Keys and Aldrich’s model. If so, it seems fair to suggest that the more frequent occurrence of critical elections is causing shorter periods of stability and equilibrium, and vice versa.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think you make a very good point in that if the 1990's were in fact a critical era, the period of equilibrium was very short. I posted that the critical era may have started in 1999. If you recal, traumatic events are associated with a critical era, and we have had our share of those since 1999. Beginning with the Clinton perjury charges, 9-11, Enron, Iraq and WMD's, Hurricane Katrina, and our current economic downturn to name a few. I think it is likely that the critical era started in 1999, and is still going on.
Another aspect of a critical era can be the critical election and involves partisan realignment. These occurred with the critical era's of 1850, 1890 and 1930. Did this just happen in 2008, or was it not "critical" enough. Per VO Key's defiinition, a critical election arouses unusual intensity and interest in the public, changes voting patterns, and ends a period of change by ushering in new stability. HMMMMM - maybe this was a critical election. What do you think?
If the critical era started sometime during the Clinton days I wonder if the critical eras are not based on war time instead of actual movement in the parties. That would explain the critical era of the 30's and the 60's.
To the extent that the legacies of political leaders, particularly Presidents, and electoral success are tied to wars that take place under their watch it will always come up when discussing critical eras for parties. I don't think war is a sufficient case for a critical era, there have been substantial military operations during every administration as far as I can remember - but the evidence for critical eras is not as substantial (nor a case made by Keys or Aldrich) vis a vis the leadup or immediate aftermath of WWI, Korea, or any number of other smaller conflicts.
AColby - it's a note from the Aldrich book (which I can't find right now) I believe in the Conclusions chapter, about identifying critical elections, but not losing sight of the bigger picture in defining critical eras. I think 2006 and 2008 both fit the parameters for a "critical election" - but either one fits less so without the other. That is, the 2006 election was a reversal of 12 years of Republican dominance in Congress and a strong rebuke of the sitting administration - partisan realignment, unusual interest, all of that. But if in 2008 the Republicans retained the Presidency and took back Congress (or at least a substantial portion of it), then it's harder to make the argument that 2006 was critical at all - it would look a lot more like an aberration or an accident. So yes, I think these were critical elections, but how durable that tag is, I'm not sure. There are still a lot of unresolved and very salient, high-powered issues out there that I could see turning the electorate on its head again just one or two elections cycles down the road.
I agree with you how the 90's were a critical era. You made some good points.
I think you are correct in believing that the the critical era has extended beyond the 21st century and that equilibrium going to happen afterwards. There hasn't been this stability era that occurs afterwards which makes me believe that the critical era is still continuing. I also agree with AColby in her statements about Key's ideas of a critical election, which seemed to have definitely occurred this past month.
You raise really good points. I thought I couldn't consider the 90's a critical era because I didn't think the stable period occured. After reading your post I think we are still in the critical era.
Post a Comment