Does 2008 resemble 1932 or 1968? Is it a "hinge" year that marks a basic realignment of American politics for years or even decades to come?
History shows that three factors are necessary for a realignment to occur. A party has to sweep into power with a popular president and strong margins in Congress. That victory has to be reinforced by underlying demographic changes that solidify the party's long-term dominance. And the party has to stand for a set of clear ideals that guide and govern its use of power.
In the nine elections starting with 1932, Democrats won seven of them. Franklin Roosevelt captured 57 percent of the popular vote and all but six states while Democrats piled up large majorities on Capitol Hill.
FDR's personal appeal was buttressed by two demographic building blocks: a "solid South" where few Republicans survived and an urban working class centered in the rising industrial areas of the Northeast and Middle West. In addition, the president espoused a strong central government to check the excesses of capitalism and aid the disadvantaged.
In the 10 elections starting in 1968, Republicans have won seven, but their realignment took place in two stages. Richard Nixon started the shift by peeling away conservative Southerners disaffected by their party's support for civil-rights legislation and "hard hat" Northerners disturbed by the cultural turmoil of the Vietnam years.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan completed the transformation, cementing the allegiance of "Reagan Democrats" with a straight, simple message of lower taxes, smaller government and stronger defense. Like FDR, he profited from a basic demographic shift, as the center of gravity in American politics shifted to the South, the West and the right.
The seven GOP winners over 40 years represented only two states: Texas and California. And those demographic changes helped the Republicans win the Senate in 1980 and achieve working control of the House.
So what about 2008? While the race seems to be tightening a bit, as of this writing, Barack Obama holds a lead of 6.3 percent in an average of all national polls. If he wins all the states now trending his way, he would garner at least 306 electoral votes, 36 more than he needs. Moreover, Democrats seem certain to pick up at least 20 seats in the House and five in the Senate, expanding slim margins into comfortable majorities.
Demographic shifts also seem to be happening, starting with young voters. A poll of thousands of college students in four swing states by CBS found Obama winning by roughly two to one. Only about three out of five Obama voters said their parents were voting the same way, a sign that bodes well for future Democratic prospects.
Hispanics are a second key group. Obama leads John McCain by 70 percent to 26 percent in the latest Washington Post tracking poll, and Hispanics are having an outsized impact in many critical swing states, from New Mexico to Florida.
Moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are starting to mimic the slogan of Southern Democrats who deserted their party a generation ago: "I didn't leave my party; my party left me." In endorsing Obama, Colin Powell denounced the GOP for moving "even further to the right" on social issues like abortion, gay rights and stem-cell research.
These moderates feel increasingly uncomfortable in a party dominated by evangelical Christians, symbolized by McCain's vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican who was defeated in the primary, told the Washington Post: "We're in this bad place as a country because of the evangelicals, the neocons, the nasty, bitter and mean ...very clever ideological groups that use money, technology, fear and bigotry to lead people around."
What the Democrats are lacking is the third ingredient for realignment: a clear governing philosophy. Obama is essentially running on the idea that "I'm not George Bush, and John McCain is." Change and hope might be great political slogans, but they do not amount to a substantive program.
To the extent that Obama has put forth specific ideas, he would be sharply constrained by reality. Withdrawing from Iraq will take far more time than his antiwar followers demand, and a lot of resources would be diverted to Afghanistan. Domestic spending initiatives, such as extending coverage to the 46 million Americans without health insurance, would run smack into a huge budget deficit: at least $500 billion this year and probably much larger.
So will 2008 bring a new political era? The answer is a clear, resounding maybe.
