One of the best summaries I've ever heard of American political history. Saying that, I think it's a bit simplified saying that the Liberal-Conservative debate is the framework since 1932. It's true the parties haven't changed, but there have been phase changes, probably in the 60s and also in 2008. So we're living in a 3rd era now since 1932 but don't know it as our political system is so broken/non-existent. In a sense we've always just had one debate always in the U.S., about power and money, and if it should stay just at the top or circulate among the people. The Dems and Reps have atrophied and codified their two parties to such an extent that we just have one party, a plutocracy. The pressure is rising to a point that so many laws, restrictions, regulations, and loopholes will just be scrapped and burned at some point, the weight of so many complex rules supporting the rich and entitled has become unbearable. The times are quite dangerous. The problem, which your talk addresses excellently, is that inevitably both sides are always right, there is no one way, that's the mythic dagger we always stab ourselves with. We need socialized opportunity, especially for the young, deserving of liberty, and then after that people can play some form of their market/capital games and rise or fall on their own merit. It's really fairly simple but we love lies, slander, and division... the temptations of the ages.
Thanks for your comments! We're going to get into what happened during the 1960s-1980s a little later. I agree there was a big change there, just not an genuine realignment. Essentially, our political culture shifted ground from pragmatic issues of tax and labor to social issues as prosperity returned after the Second World War. We started applying the same New Deal ideologies to new issues, which was a shock to the system while leaving the old party system in place.
Cool video, trade was also an important issue during the post civil war third party system regarding protectionism (mostly republicans) and free trade (mostly democrats and later populists)
A friend of mine referred me to this video. I'm curious what you think about the "Fifth Party System" and "Sixth Party System" articles on English Wikipedia that seem to be pretty mature. Given that the debate on Wikipedia right now is whether we're in the "Sixth" or the "Seventh", I'm not sure what to make sure is included in this article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_eras_of_the_United_States
Sure! So there is a lot of debate in the scholarship about whether to break up the Fifth Party System into a Sixth starting usually in either in 1968 or 1980. The reason is the demographic shift of the Solid South and the weight of the Reagan presidency. Also because it makes all the party system neatly about forty years. The people who really study and understand realignments seriously however don’t. And I agree. Because while there was a demographic shift there wasn’t a shift in ideas. We’re still debating the fight over New Deal liberalism and “big government” that started in 1932. We just added social government to the mix. And realignments are about changes in ideologies not demographics. What happened in the late 1960s was in fact another issue that I get into in the book.
I believe this is the end if the 6th p.s. The break between the Old Left and the New Left, was deep! And Reaganism and Buckley's view of Conservatism, indeed Classical Liberalism, was dissimilar enough to be separate. Reagan only believed in freedom for the Corporations, not the masses! He also invited the Christian Right to get involved. These are new, and now Old and ossified! Time for the Seventh Party System! Watch!
PS The politics of the day tend to be put in the outside when discredited. Nixon, Reagan, Bush #2, Trump are in disrepute in the younger generations. So has Reaganomics and a load of other isseues. Their time is ending, and they know it.
I'll get into this in more detail later, but 1980 isn't generally considered a realignment because the parties didn't ideologically change. The Democrats were still a party defined by FDRs New Deal liberalism and remain so today. The Republicans were still the party of Buckley's conservatism. So while the demographic coalitions changed, and which party had the electoral advantage changed, the ideological coalitions didn't really change at all. The same political and ideological divides continued.
Frank DiStefano 1932 to 1964 New Deal Coalition. 1964 to 1992 Conservative Revolution. 1992-2020 New Democrat NeoLiberalism. Post 2020 to 2050? If Trump wins the 2nd term, Trump has basically redefined the Republican Party to be a Nationalist Party rather than a “Conservative One” and Joe Biden marks the end of the old New Democrat order. The Democrats will probably find a new person to carry the mantle of ideology for the era.
I agree. Ronald Reagan was the high mark of the Conservative Revolution which saw the rise of social conservatism, limited government ideology, anti-communism/big government economic liberalism, the flip of Southern States to Republican States and the rise of the suburban voter block, which came to an end when the Ross Perot faction splits off from both Democrats and Republicans to give rise to the New Democrats to face off against the Traditional Conservatives.
But now that I think of it, you could also define New Deal Era from 1932 to 1976 and Conservative Era from 1976 to 2020. In this you could define Carter as the last President to hold the New Deal Coalition together with all parties basically agreeing to Keynesian Economics with Nixon and Eisenhower both subscribing to it. The Conservative Era basically means the mark of the established NeoLiberal and NeoConservative Economic Order with all Presidents basically agreeing to economic liberalization in some form and it coming to end due to COVID-19. This idea would work If you want to split Party Systems equally into 40-ish year segments. 1856-1896 as one set. 1896-1932 as another set.
Are Democrats really the party of FDR anymore? Didn’t the modern Democratic Party adopt the “Third Way” strategy in the 1990s and become a more centerist party in response to the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s?
As mentioned in the comments of your other videos I think you make a big mistake by ignoring the Dixiecrats and the civil rights era movements that changed the nature and policies of the two parties that mark the 6th political shift of party identity. And subsequently the shift to the 7th now. You present the shifts of the policies of the parties rather well. And I will keep them on my playlists - some of them. But can not agree with you on missing the shifts that are marked by the additional issues not addressed by previous parties of civil rights - racism and feminism. Is a convenient distraction from the social issues that we’re dealing with at the moment. And how those now are changing discourse. What we are heading into at the moment is an new era of incompatibility. One that was also marked after the civil rights movements. The 1965 riots. And the Kennedy assassination. The era of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats. I’m looking for the video in which you explain this?
I enjoy your political framing and this great debates concept. Like usual the current debate deals with change, demographic change. From cogent commentators on both sides I've come to understand our current society is not only a gerontocracy, but that specifically of old white men. This is an enormous problem when new, large generations are ever more diverse. On top of that, our economic system since 2008 has swung even more radically back to a plutocracy. It's getting hard in the destructive and divisive political climate to even view the U.S. as a country; it's more factions, enclaves, and separate identity elements. It's so bad at the moment that policies can't even help, but that a complete cultural change is needed. I don't know precisely how to frame the debate, but it's something about inequality and the need for social/societal investment vs. status quo. The problem is we don't even yet have the new party that represents the new people/future, we just have the Dems and Repubs nearly identical for the past 30 years, so we have a zombified system sleep walking to dystopia.
Good video, Frank. I really like the framing of a debate in each party system. Most historians believe that there have been at least six party systems. Some people might contend, as I do, that we are in a seventh party system. The issues, the larger philosophical debates, and the demographics of the parties have clearly shifted since the fifth party system.
Thanks Steven. I've never been partial to the idea of a sixth party system. People take sides on this, but my view has always been that party systems aren't about demographics but ideology. Voting demographics changed in the late twentieth century, but the core ideologies didn't. We're were still essentially fighting about, and our parties organized around, "big government" and the ideas of FDR. Democrats still trace their loyalty to FDR and Republicans to Buckley, in a way they don't to figures on the other side of that divide. People placing a realignment in the 1960s or 1980s are looking at political maps and not shifts in ideology, or believe the shift to social issues in the late 1960s was something new and not just an extension of the New Deal fight into new territory. But I fully agree with you that we're at the start of a new party system now!
These videos are great. I am consuming them, because you are an excellent presenter. I have heard some arguments that 1968-80 was s transition to a 6th system, but either way we are certainly headed into another one. I can sense it because I grew up as a Democrat and have not changed on the issues that have attached me to that party, but the issues on center stage are poised to change. I think it will involve energy policy and science.
As mentioned in the comments of your other videos I think you make a big mistake by ignoring the Dixiecrats and the civil rights era movements that changed the nature and policies of the two parties that mark the 6th political shift of party identity. And subsequently the shift to the 7th now. You present the shifts of the policies of the parties rather well. And I will keep them on my playlists - some of them. But can not agree with you on missing the shifts that are marked by the additional issues not addressed by previous parties of civil rights - racism and feminism. Is a convenient distraction from the social issues that we’re dealing with at the moment. And how those now are changing discourse. What we are heading into at the moment is an new era of incompatibility. One that was also marked after the civil rights movements. The 1965 riots. And the Kennedy assassination. The era of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.
As mentioned in the comments of your other videos I think you make a big mistake by ignoring the Dixiecrats and the civil rights era movements that changed the nature and policies of the two parties that mark the 6th political shift of party identity. And subsequently the shift to the 7th now. You present the shifts of the policies of the parties rather well. And I will keep them on my playlists - some of them. But can not agree with you on missing the shifts that are marked by the additional issues not addressed by previous parties of civil rights - racism and feminism. Is a convenient distraction from the social issues that we’re dealing with at the moment. And how those now are changing discourse. What we are heading into at the moment is an new era of incompatibility. One that was also marked after the civil rights movements. The 1965 riots. And the Kennedy assassination. The era of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.
![[Limbus Company - Teaser] Season5 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8anKuEeZLeI/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the best summaries I've ever heard of American political history. Saying that, I think it's a bit simplified saying that the Liberal-Conservative debate is the framework since 1932. It's true the parties haven't changed, but there have been phase changes, probably in the 60s and also in 2008. So we're living in a 3rd era now since 1932 but don't know it as our political system is so broken/non-existent. In a sense we've always just had one debate always in the U.S., about power and money, and if it should stay just at the top or circulate among the people. The Dems and Reps have atrophied and codified their two parties to such an extent that we just have one party, a plutocracy. The pressure is rising to a point that so many laws, restrictions, regulations, and loopholes will just be scrapped and burned at some point, the weight of so many complex rules supporting the rich and entitled has become unbearable. The times are quite dangerous. The problem, which your talk addresses excellently, is that inevitably both sides are always right, there is no one way, that's the mythic dagger we always stab ourselves with. We need socialized opportunity, especially for the young, deserving of liberty, and then after that people can play some form of their market/capital games and rise or fall on their own merit. It's really fairly simple but we love lies, slander, and division... the temptations of the ages.
Thanks for your comments! We're going to get into what happened during the 1960s-1980s a little later. I agree there was a big change there, just not an genuine realignment. Essentially, our political culture shifted ground from pragmatic issues of tax and labor to social issues as prosperity returned after the Second World War. We started applying the same New Deal ideologies to new issues, which was a shock to the system while leaving the old party system in place.
Brilliant content. Thanks mate
These videos are fantastic.
Thanks!
Cool video, trade was also an important issue during the post civil war third party system regarding protectionism (mostly republicans) and free trade (mostly democrats and later populists)
awesome channel
A friend of mine referred me to this video. I'm curious what you think about the "Fifth Party System" and "Sixth Party System" articles on English Wikipedia that seem to be pretty mature. Given that the debate on Wikipedia right now is whether we're in the "Sixth" or the "Seventh", I'm not sure what to make sure is included in this article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_eras_of_the_United_States
Sure! So there is a lot of debate in the scholarship about whether to break up the Fifth Party System into a Sixth starting usually in either in 1968 or 1980. The reason is the demographic shift of the Solid South and the weight of the Reagan presidency. Also because it makes all the party system neatly about forty years.
The people who really study and understand realignments seriously however don’t. And I agree. Because while there was a demographic shift there wasn’t a shift in ideas. We’re still debating the fight over New Deal liberalism and “big government” that started in 1932. We just added social government to the mix. And realignments are about changes in ideologies not demographics.
What happened in the late 1960s was in fact another issue that I get into in the book.
I believe this is the end if the 6th p.s.
The break between the Old Left and the New Left, was deep!
And Reaganism and Buckley's view of Conservatism, indeed Classical Liberalism, was dissimilar enough to be separate.
Reagan only believed in freedom for the Corporations, not the masses!
He also invited the Christian Right to get involved.
These are new, and now Old and ossified!
Time for the Seventh Party System!
Watch!
PS
The politics of the day tend to be put in the outside when discredited. Nixon, Reagan, Bush #2, Trump are in disrepute in the younger generations.
So has Reaganomics and a load of other isseues.
Their time is ending, and they know it.
What about Reaganism
I'll get into this in more detail later, but 1980 isn't generally considered a realignment because the parties didn't ideologically change. The Democrats were still a party defined by FDRs New Deal liberalism and remain so today. The Republicans were still the party of Buckley's conservatism. So while the demographic coalitions changed, and which party had the electoral advantage changed, the ideological coalitions didn't really change at all. The same political and ideological divides continued.
Frank DiStefano 1932 to 1964 New Deal Coalition. 1964 to 1992 Conservative Revolution. 1992-2020 New Democrat NeoLiberalism. Post 2020 to 2050? If Trump wins the 2nd term, Trump has basically redefined the Republican Party to be a Nationalist Party rather than a “Conservative One” and Joe Biden marks the end of the old New Democrat order. The Democrats will probably find a new person to carry the mantle of ideology for the era.
I agree. Ronald Reagan was the high mark of the Conservative Revolution which saw the rise of social conservatism, limited government ideology, anti-communism/big government economic liberalism, the flip of Southern States to Republican States and the rise of the suburban voter block, which came to an end when the Ross Perot faction splits off from both Democrats and Republicans to give rise to the New Democrats to face off against the Traditional Conservatives.
But now that I think of it, you could also define New Deal Era from 1932 to 1976 and Conservative Era from 1976 to 2020. In this you could define Carter as the last President to hold the New Deal Coalition together with all parties basically agreeing to Keynesian Economics with Nixon and Eisenhower both subscribing to it. The Conservative Era basically means the mark of the established NeoLiberal and NeoConservative Economic Order with all Presidents basically agreeing to economic liberalization in some form and it coming to end due to COVID-19.
This idea would work If you want to split Party Systems equally into 40-ish year segments. 1856-1896 as one set. 1896-1932 as another set.
Are Democrats really the party of FDR anymore? Didn’t the modern Democratic Party adopt the “Third Way” strategy in the 1990s and become a more centerist party in response to the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s?
These videos are fucking awesome
As mentioned in the comments of your other videos I think you make a big mistake by ignoring the Dixiecrats and the civil rights era movements that changed the nature and policies of the two parties that mark the 6th political shift of party identity. And subsequently the shift to the 7th now.
You present the shifts of the policies of the parties rather well. And I will keep them on my playlists - some of them. But can not agree with you on missing the shifts that are marked by the additional issues not addressed by previous parties of civil rights - racism and feminism.
Is a convenient distraction from the social issues that we’re dealing with at the moment. And how those now are changing discourse.
What we are heading into at the moment is an new era of incompatibility. One that was also marked after the civil rights movements. The 1965 riots. And the Kennedy assassination. The era of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.
I’m looking for the video in which you explain this?
So the first realignment never got resolved, then?
2nd Great Awakening. Evangelical Abolitionist. At least the northern Evangelicals.
Nice video. Good explanation of the 4th and 5th political two party systems. 🤔😊🦉
I enjoy your political framing and this great debates concept. Like usual the current debate deals with change, demographic change. From cogent commentators on both sides I've come to understand our current society is not only a gerontocracy, but that specifically of old white men. This is an enormous problem when new, large generations are ever more diverse. On top of that, our economic system since 2008 has swung even more radically back to a plutocracy. It's getting hard in the destructive and divisive political climate to even view the U.S. as a country; it's more factions, enclaves, and separate identity elements. It's so bad at the moment that policies can't even help, but that a complete cultural change is needed. I don't know precisely how to frame the debate, but it's something about inequality and the need for social/societal investment vs. status quo. The problem is we don't even yet have the new party that represents the new people/future, we just have the Dems and Repubs nearly identical for the past 30 years, so we have a zombified system sleep walking to dystopia.
King Jackson. For the common WHITE people. For other people not so much.
Good video, Frank. I really like the framing of a debate in each party system. Most historians believe that there have been at least six party systems. Some people might contend, as I do, that we are in a seventh party system. The issues, the larger philosophical debates, and the demographics of the parties have clearly shifted since the fifth party system.
Thanks Steven. I've never been partial to the idea of a sixth party system. People take sides on this, but my view has always been that party systems aren't about demographics but ideology. Voting demographics changed in the late twentieth century, but the core ideologies didn't. We're were still essentially fighting about, and our parties organized around, "big government" and the ideas of FDR. Democrats still trace their loyalty to FDR and Republicans to Buckley, in a way they don't to figures on the other side of that divide. People placing a realignment in the 1960s or 1980s are looking at political maps and not shifts in ideology, or believe the shift to social issues in the late 1960s was something new and not just an extension of the New Deal fight into new territory.
But I fully agree with you that we're at the start of a new party system now!
These videos are great. I am consuming them, because you are an excellent presenter. I have heard some arguments that 1968-80 was s transition to a 6th system, but either way we are certainly headed into another one. I can sense it because I grew up as a Democrat and have not changed on the issues that have attached me to that party, but the issues on center stage are poised to change. I think it will involve energy policy and science.
As mentioned in the comments of your other videos I think you make a big mistake by ignoring the Dixiecrats and the civil rights era movements that changed the nature and policies of the two parties that mark the 6th political shift of party identity. And subsequently the shift to the 7th now.
You present the shifts of the policies of the parties rather well. And I will keep them on my playlists - some of them. But can not agree with you on missing the shifts that are marked by the additional issues not addressed by previous parties of civil rights - racism and feminism.
Is a convenient distraction from the social issues that we’re dealing with at the moment. And how those now are changing discourse.
What we are heading into at the moment is an new era of incompatibility. One that was also marked after the civil rights movements. The 1965 riots. And the Kennedy assassination. The era of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.
As mentioned in the comments of your other videos I think you make a big mistake by ignoring the Dixiecrats and the civil rights era movements that changed the nature and policies of the two parties that mark the 6th political shift of party identity. And subsequently the shift to the 7th now.
You present the shifts of the policies of the parties rather well. And I will keep them on my playlists - some of them. But can not agree with you on missing the shifts that are marked by the additional issues not addressed by previous parties of civil rights - racism and feminism.
Is a convenient distraction from the social issues that we’re dealing with at the moment. And how those now are changing discourse.
What we are heading into at the moment is an new era of incompatibility. One that was also marked after the civil rights movements. The 1965 riots. And the Kennedy assassination. The era of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.