I wrote a few weeks back about how impressed I was with reading Millennial Makeover. If you don't have a copy of this book, I highly recommend it, and if you do, read up because I'm going to have multiple posts about this and next week. I emailed back and forth with the authors Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, then put together about 10 questions for them to answer about the book, and will be posting them on the blog. They've grouped the questions into three categories: About Political Makeovers, Millennials and the 2008 Election, Millennials and Public Policy. I've told them that there may be further follow-up questions in the comments, which they'll hopefully have time to reply too, and we can follow up then on each of these three sections next week. I've not read a book like this that fixed my political jones since 'Crashing The Gate'... thats a joke... actually, since John Judis and Ruy Teixeira  wrote 'The Emerging Democratic Majority', which was sorta my entry textbook into writing about politics between 2000-2002. I really dug reading this book, and imagine the enjoyment I've got to be able to follow-up with the questions it stirred, to the authors themselves. Here goes part I:

Part I: About Political Makeovers

Part II: Millennials and the 2008 Election

Part III: Millennials and Public Policy

About Political Makeovers

You've looked at historical political changes in a unique way with Millennial Makeover, overlapping political realignment data with generational conventions, to show over-lapping insights. What was the inspiration to do this?

Our book was inspired by the writings of the late William Strauss and Neil Howe, particularly their book that first established this theory of generational cycles, entitled simply, 'Generations', in the `80s and their even more powerful book, 'The Fourth Turning', in the late `90s.  As life-long Democrats who have been friends for the last thirty years, we vowed to one day write a book that applied this generational framework to the aspect of American life we were most passionate about--politics. When Mike retired from his role as Vice President for Entertainment Research at Frank N. Magid Associates, we finally had both the time and access to the data we would need for this book. At the same time, the rise of social networks had been a phenomenon that Morley had been actively studying in his job as Executive Director of USC's Institute for Communication Technology Management (CTM) and this helped us identify the historical intertwining of technological change with generational change that underlies the theory of the book.

Were previous electoral realignments forecast by major party shifts in congress in the midterm election preceding the realigning presidential election?

In a word, "yes."  All previous realignments, "idealist" or "civic" were preceded by major congressional gains in the midterm elections immediately prior to the realignment. Of course, these gains were most decisive in the House, due to its larger size and the fact that only one-third of the Senate is elected in any single election year.

Specifically, in the 1826 midterm elections, before the clear creation of the Democratic and Whig parties, the John Quincy Adams faction lost nine House seats and the emerging Andrew Jackson faction gained the same number. In 1858 midterm election that preceded the decisive 1860 realigning election, the Republican Party that had contested its first presidential election only two years earlier, gained 26 House seats, while the Democrats lost 36 and began the process of fracturing into several irreconcilable factions. Their 1858 gains enabled the GOP to take control of the House for the first time.

In the 1894 midterm elections Grover Cleveland's Democrats lost 125 House seats and the Republicans gained 130, thereby taking control of the House two years before William McKinley's 1896 presidential election victory. In the 1930 midterm elections, contested a year after the Stock Market crash that led to the Great Depression and two years before the FDR realigning election, the Democrats gained 52 seats. In 1966, the GOP picked up 47 House seats, setting the stage for Richard Nixon's presidential victory two years later.

All of this history clearly suggests that the Democratic Party's congressional gains in 2006 may very well be a harbinger of a coming electoral realignment.

There have been five previous realignments in U.S. history. The realignments of 1828, 1896, and 1968 were "idealist" realignments and those of 1860 and 1932 were "civic" realignments. You've said that 2008 will bring the third "civic" realignment.

Is it possible that 2004 election of George W. Bush actually produced a realignment based on a concern with terror, especially if John McCain is able to use the same issue to win again for the Republicans in 2008?

This is the outcome that Karl Rove hoped and planned for after 9/11. He thought George Bush's victory in 2004 was the modern day equivalent of William McKinley's victory in 1896. But the voting patterns of 2004 do not suggest that it was a realigning election or the start of a realigning era. For one thing, Bush won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in modern history. The in-depth analysis of the 2004 election presented in Millennial Makeover suggests that if any realignment potentially began to take shape in 2004, it was actually away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats. This possibility stems, not only from Bush's narrow win, but also from the fact that the first young sliver of the Millennial Generation eligible to vote in 2004 actually gave a majority to Democrat John Kerry rather than supporting George Bush.

In addition, most realignments have resulted in a change in party control of the electoral process and government as the weaker party replaces the formerly dominant party in power. Many factors clearly indicate that the Democratic Party is the best positioned of the two parties to lead America's next "civic" realignment. The Democrats have a solid lead over the Republicans in party identification, especially among the emerging Millennial Generation. Large majorities of Americans perceive the country to be off course and rate the performance of President Bush negatively. Most voters, again especially Millennials, hold opinions on issues, including the economy and the Iraq war, which are compatible with the positions of the Democratic Party. The large Democratic primary and caucus voter turnout and the significant Democratic edge in fundraising has given that party a competitive edge over the Republicans and suggests that the Democrats are enlisting new voters and growing their party base. All of this points to the likelihood that the coming realignment will be led by the Democratic Party.

However, a Democratic realignment in 2008 is not inevitable. As indicated, after the realigning election of 1896, the Republican Party, which had controlled American politics after 1860, continued to do so until 1932. But, it was a "different" Republican Party that dominated politics after 1896 than before. For one thing the voting coalitions that supported the two parties changed. Specifically, the GOP gained strength in the Northeast and upper Midwest while losing ground in the Prairie and Mountain West. For another, the primary economic focus of the GOP shifted toward the laissez faire policies that characterized the GOP in the first three decades of the 20th Century. Finally, the Republicans, especially toward the end of the "idealist" era ushered in by the 1896 realignment came to focus on traditional values on the social issues of the day. In other words, in and after 1896, the GOP shifted from being a "civic" to an "idealist" party.  It changed its product, even though it didn't change its brand, in order to fit the transition from the preeminence of one generational archetype to another.

So, it is possible that the Republicans could continue to dominate American elections as they have since 1968, but the party would have to change in a drastic manner, just as it transformed or re-branded itself in 1896. Now, however, it would have to shift from being an "idealist" to a "civic" party. Based on his positions on economic and social issues, there is little evidence that George Bush did that in 2004 or has done that since.

John McCain, however, may be different. He is better positioned than any of the other potential GOP presidential nominees to lead a "civic" realignment. His strength on national security should aid him in appealing to the overall electorate and to Millennials, a generation seared by 9/11. His more moderate positions, or at least imagery, on social and some economic issues should also broaden his appeal. The concerns about McCain among social issue and libertarian conservatives reflect both his relatively moderate image and their fears that McCain may take the Republican Party in a direction they don't like.  Consequently, if John McCain is elected president, his victory could lead to a Republican realignment, but it would be a "civic" realignment, different from both the 1968 GOP realignment and George Bush's reelection in 2004.

Only third to half of the Millennial Generation will be eligible to vote in 2008. Wouldn't that point to 2012 as the election where this generation will have its greatest impact? On the other hand, if you look at the years of realignments, 1828-1860 was 32 years, 1860-1896 was 36 years, 1896 to 1932 was 36 years, and 1932 to 1968 was 36 years. Now, it's been 40 years since 1968. And we could be looking at 44 years if it winds up being 2012 for the realignment.

Certain fundamental demographical facts about Millennials make it likely that 2008 will be the realigning election. There are currently about 100 million Millennials ranging in age from 5 to 26 years old, making it America's largest generation. Millennials now comprise about one-third of the U.S. population, a percentage that will only grow in coming years as members of older generations pass from the scene. Given the fact that many Millennials will not yet be able to vote this year, it is certainly true that the full force of this huge generation will be most strongly felt in elections beyond that of 2008. Nevertheless, we argue that Millennials will have a decisive impact this year. This will be due, in large part, to the unity of the Millennial Generation. Millennials, unlike Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, are not sharply divided along gender, racial, or ideological lines. Moreover, a clear majority of Millennials identify as Democrats, while the two next older generations are divided fairly evenly between the two parties. Assuming that the Millennial Generation retains its unity, it should provide the decisive balance between the more sharply divided older generations in 2008 and beyond.

Historically, realigning elections occur when a new group of voters enters the electorate in significant numbers for the first time and their unified attitudes tip the balance of power decisively to one party or the other. Keep in mind that in American presidential elections a 53/47 victory is considered decisive.  Consequently, a realigning generation's numbers don't have to be overwhelming to cause this outcome.  Normally, in the subsequent national election after the realignment, this shift in party fortunes and policy attitudes is ratified by an even larger victory for the newly dominant party.  For example, Franklin D.  Roosevelt won big in 1932, but the New Deal realignment was reaffirmed in a much larger landslide in 1936. Richard Nixon won relatively narrowly in 1968, but he won in a landslide in 1972, reconfirming the electoral shift to the GOP. Whichever party wins in 2008 will do so clearly, and then will likely win a landslide victory in 2012, bringing with it a mandate for sweeping changes in policy that will be debated intensely in the years between the first victory and the second.  

When I think about all the events that happened in 1968 (the last 'realignment' year', a truly pivotal year, and I compare it to 2008, the year we are in seems mild and calm in comparison. You mention that a "civic" realignment occurs around an epic historical event that shapes and galvanizes the political landscape. I'm not sure, in the same way that the civil war did for 1860, and the depression did for 1932, that 9/11 and the 'war on terror' does it for this realignment period. Maybe it does for the "9/11 changed everything" crowd like McCain, but among Democrats whom are being polled in the ongoing primaries, terrorism ranks in low single-digits as an issue, while the shaky economy (represented by nearly $4 a gallon gas) is a majority. Are you convinced that 9/11 and terrorism is the event and issue?

No, we are not convinced that 9/11 triggered the coming realignment. In our book, Millennial Makeover, we state that the country would, in a relative sense, be fortunate if 9/11 was the only catastrophe the country needed to experience in order to set off the change reaction inherent in  a political realignment. As you point out in your question, as bad as 9/11 was, it pales in comparison to events like the Civil War and the Great Depression.  The United States may have to live through a series of even greater and more devastating shocks than 9/11 before everyone will be ready to move in a new direction.  We suggest in Millennial Makeover that potential "triggering events" could range from an international crisis, perhaps even a nuclear "incident," a global environmental disaster, a pandemic, or a major  economic meltdown. Recent events suggest not only that any of these scenarios are possible, but that in every "mild case" of this  type of events that has occurred so far, the public's reaction has been to support increased governmental activism.  We hope, of course, that none of these major crises or disasters will come to pass and that 9/11 will prove, in hindsight, to have been the trigger for the next realignment. But, before its occurrence, we cannot confidently predict the exact nature of the event that will bring about America's next political makeover.  

After all, for those watching the financial markets, or calculating the odds of a new Mideast intervention, this time in Iran, the notion that this year has been "mild and c calm in comparison to earlier years of crisis" seems more like wishful thinking about the months to come than a certainty. Writing in The Fourth Turning in the 90's, Strauss and Howe suggested that there would be an initial shock to signal the beginning of a new era early in this decade, but that the real crisis would occur years later. So if 9/11 was only the foreshock of the emergence of a new era, there could be much worse things to come either in this year or later ones.