Questions that need answering.

[OzzyKP]

Eh, doesn't seem too big. Except the racial equality thing.

I do wonder what happened between 1860 and 1930. The democrats became modern in 30, but if you are saying the republicans fell into their mold in 1890, then the reps and dems supported the same thing from 90 to 30?

[Kirnwaffen]

I'll take a stab at 4. To be more accurate, you can actually merge everything from 1830 through 1860 into one big period of political upheaval. There were huge social and economic changes taking place in the time periods you describe (well, I'm blanking on the 1890s, but all the other times there were). Naturally, big social and economic change tend to exacerbate differences of opinion on certain issues. These issues cause splits in political parties, which breed new political parties, and new constituencies. Right now, we're exiting a period of relative stability during which we were bound by a common threat. There is certainly a lot potential for certain issues to cause another major political realignment, but you'll have to give it time.

[OzzyKP]

i get what you mean Fun. Realignment is what takes the party of Lincoln to the party of Bush, and the party of Jefferson to the party of Ted Kennedy.

[MrFun]

Ozzy, in regards to the issues of race relations between the 1890s and 1930s:

by the end of Reconstruction, many Republican leaders began to embrace white supremacy as a means to reconcile with the South (North won the war, but South won the peace). More conservative Republicans were done fed up with this "Negro" question -- and chose to focus much more strongly on economic interests.

As a result, I think that between the 1890s and 1930s, the Republican party and the Democratic party were both white supremacist parties. The Democratic party began to liberalize on economic issues by the 1930s, and soon afterward, began to liberalize on race relations, especially when they brought it onto their political platform in 1948.

[Flip McWho]

I agree with Harry Tuttle aswel. Sounds like they are the best reasons. Also now days political parties are getting to be damn close to each other anyways. Well in NZ anyway.

[OzzyKP]

I want to see a realignment!

It was looking like it would be a Republican-Libertarian party vs. a Democrat-Socialist party. Now with Bush and Dean its looking like a Republican-Fascist party vs. a Democrat-Libertarian party.

Dear god, just not a Republican-Fascist vs. Democrat-Socialist.

[Harry Tuttle]

I agree with Mr. Fun. The parties were supremicist during that time. Hell, I'd even make the statement that there was only one kind of "party rhetoric" in the latter quarter of the 19th century. The civil war really put everyone into the same line.

[OzzyKP]

And the number one question that needs answering:

When is Ozzy getting laid?

[Harry Tuttle]

Recover from that ATV accident yet?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now with Bush and Dean its looking like a Republican-Fascist party vs. a Democrat-Libertarian party.

Dean is signaling a Democrat-Libertarian coalition? Are you talking about a different Dean?

[Ramo]

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s.
The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??

You missed '68. The South used to be Democratic, remember?

[OzzyKP]

Well moreso than some dems. But i wouldn't necessarily say it is a signal, but the contrast between him and Bush heightens the difference.

Weak example, I agree. And most likely my later prediction will be the correct one. Neo-Cons vs. FDR Dems. *shudder*

[Imran Siddiqui]

And most likely my later prediction will be the correct one. Neo-Cons vs. FDR Dems. *shudder*

Well that's nice. But what about on the domestic front. You do know that there is no such think as a neo-con in dealing with domestic issues, don't you?

[OzzyKP]

Thats the thing, they are as big government as the dems it seems, cause they'll go for whatever big spending bill to lock up votes. Or at least Bush is.

Not to use an extreme example, but real fascists like Hitler and Muscilini are often described as extreme rightists, but their domestic policies were quite socialist. Big government spending programs.

Neo-cons seem like that too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neo-cons seem like that too.

Repeat after me:

Neo-Cons have no domestic policy
Neo-Cons have no domestic policy
Neo-Cons have no domestic policy

Continue .