There were some good questions to the readings of Millennial Makeover, so I've recieved via email the responses from the authors in this post. Also, they will be on FireDogLake this Saturday for its book Salon, if you've any other questions.

Here are the previous entries on Millennial Makeover:  MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics

Part I: About Political Makeovers

Part II: Millennials and the 2008 Election

Part III: Millennials and Public Policy

On to the Q & A:

Question from Fuzzy Dunlop

     Q. What is a "realignment election?" What possible outcomes would qualify 2008 as a realigning election?

     A. Political scientists and historians generally agree that realignments have occurred regularly and predictably about every four decades throughout U.S. history. There have been five previous realignments--in 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968--and we believe that one is about to occur in 2008. During the forty years between realignments one of the political parties dominates the political process by winning about three-quarters of all presidential elections. Each of the parties has a stable coalition of groups that almost invariably give it a majority of their votes. (Think of the almost unanimous support of African-Americans for the Democrats and white Evangelical Protestants for the GOP and the predictable "red state/blue state" pattern we've seen for the past several decades). Finally, during the years between realignments, public policy concerns and outputs remain stable. For example, during the current era, public policy has emphasized the relatively laissez faire economic policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations and a significant focus on social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

     A realigning election (or era) produces a major turnover in electoral results.  Normally, in a realignment the formerly dominant party loses that status and the formerly weaker party becomes electorally dominant. That happened in 1828, 1860, 1932, and 1968.  Realignments invariably produce major alterations in party voting coalitions. The late 1960s realignment saw the South shift from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican and the Northeast and New England move away from the Republicans to the Democrats. In public policy, that realignment also produced, among other things, the end of strong New Deal era governmental economic interventionism and a slowing down of civil rights legislation and enforcement.

     In Millennial Makeover, we argue that two types of realignment--"idealist" and "civic"--have alternated throughout U.S. history. Each type has sharply different characteristics and results than the other. The 1968 realignment was an "idealist" realignment. Idealist realignments produce a greater number of independents and split-ticket voting, low voter turnout, negative attitudes toward the political system and institutions, a focus on divisive social issues, more exclusionary racial and ethnic concerns, gridlock, limited government, and greater economic inequality.

     The coming realignment will be a "civic" realignment. It will lead to a greater level of voter identification with the political parties and more straight-ticket voting, high voter turnout, more positive attitudes toward politics and political institutions, lesser focus on social issues and greater concern with basic economic and international matters, more inclusive racial and ethnic concerns, revitalization and reliance of governmental institutions, and greater economic equality.

     For reasons we pointed out in previous postings, the Democrats (especially Obama, because of his strong appeal to the emerging Millennial Generation, but also Clinton) are best positioned to lead the coming civic realignment. But, in John McCain the Republicans will nominate a candidate with the greatest potential among all of the GOP contenders to produce a civic realignment. In the end, however, it won't simply be which party wins the election that will determine whether a realignment has or will occur. Party change is only one of several possible indicators. In addition, look for major changes in voting patterns, attitudes toward the political process, and public policy regardless of which party wins the presidency in November.

Questions from M. Boehm

      1) Historically, do voters tend to vote in large percentages for candidates of their own generation?  I've seen conflicting information about this.  

     2) In the next 20 years, will aging boomers offset the impact of the Millennials?  In other words, won't the voting age distribution chart look like Marilyn Monroe- heavy on the top (older) and bottom (younger).  Strauss/Howe place the start of the boomers at 1943 (if I remember correctly), meaning that the oldest boomers are turning 65 this year.

     3) Is there a good source of historical age cohort voting in Presidential elections?  I'm having some trouble finding this information before the 1990's and the widespread availability of exit polling data (which began during the 1960's?).      

     A. (Q. 1). Because an emerging generation that produces a realignment through its votes when it is very young, it must vote for candidates of an older generation. For example, the GI Generation that produced the "civic" New Deal realignment did so by electing Franklin Roosevelt, a member of the Missionary Generation. The Millennials who produce the next "civic" realignment will do that by electing older members of the either the Baby Boomer Generation (Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) or Silent Generation (John McCain). Eventually, as members of the realigning generation themselves age and older generations inevitably pass from the scene, those in the realigning generation will vote for the own peers. Finally, as the realigning generation becomes elderly, it will, in turn, vote for members of younger generations.

     (Q. 2) Statistically, it is possible that Millennials could be outvoted by older generations in this election. However, the Millennial Generation is far more unified in its political attitudes and identifications than older generations. Its members identify as Democrats by about a 2:1 margin and it is probably the first generation since the GI Generation in which a greater number call themselves liberals rather than conservatives. It is also strongly united in its attitudes on a range of economic, international, and social issues. Finally, the gender and ethnic differences that separate the members of older generations from one another are very limited or even non-existent among Millennials. This unity in attitudes and behavior leads us to believe that, even though the Millennials will only comprise a  minority of the electorate in 2008, it will provide the crucial balance between the more divided older generations.

     However, the chances that Millennials will be outvoted by older generations will steadily diminish with time. For one thing, Millennials are a very large generation, the largest in U.S. history. The nearly 100 million Millennials now comprise about a third of the American population. By 2020, when all Millennials are eligible to vote and many Baby Boomers have died, the Millennial Generation will comprise a majority of the U.S. population and electorate and it will be impossible for an older generation to outvote them. This will especially be the case if, as we expect, Millennials remain politically unified and Boomers continue to be as divided as they have been for the past four decades.

     (Q. 3) There are two issues that impact the availability of age cohort data. First, scientific polling or sample survey research only began with the Gallup polls of the mid-1930s. Apart from anecdotal evidence, reliable information about generational voting patterns is unavailable before that time. In addition, survey data obtained since then, especially by academic or non-profit institutions, such as the University of Michigan Survey Research Center or the Pew Center for Survey Research, is archived and may be obtained by those with academic or non-commercial credentials. We were fortunate to have access to and the assistance of Pew in obtaining important data that we utilized in writing Millennial Makeover. Beyond that, we utilized analyses of voting behavior written by political scientists and other contemporary observers to obtain information about voting patterns and political attitudes within various age groups in previous historical eras. Finally, it may be possible to obtain archived information of this type from commercial research firms such as Gallup and Harris, although those organizations are often hesitant to do so.

Questions from mikeplugh

I'm involved in the Media Ecology field and wonder why there's no mention of Harold Innis, Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, Neil Postman or any of the people rooted in the tradition of medium theory cited in your work. It's a very good read and a very interesting piece of research, but it's missing the perspective on how Millennials are cognitively different beings than their Gen X and Baby Boomer predecessors.

They've been socialized less as literates and more as a kind of post-literate class of electronic learners. Baby boomers were still primarily a literate orientation, while Gen Xers shifted to an image-based cognition thanks to television as a primary communication environment. The Millennials are socialized in a digital/web-based environment on an increasing basis and cognitively resemble a tribal version of their literate American ancestors.

     Q. Curious about what consideration you gave to ideas like this in putting your book together...

     A. In our book we talk about the impact that Information Technology architectures--such as mainframe, client/server or web/social networks--have on organizational governance and culture. We draw upon the experience of the media industry, particularly the music sector, to suggest what happens when peer- to-peer architectures disrupt existing power structures and use those as analogies to political campaigns and their governing structures and cultural attributes.  We wrote all that early in 2007, before the Obama vs. Clinton Democratic primary campaign made these comparisons obvious to everyone. However, we did not delve into the works of those who have established medium theory and postulated that the medium impacts our cognitive development. The omission was simply a matter of us not feeling we had any particular expertise in this area that would allow us to provide any new insights on the question. That said, we don't have any quarrels with your insightful comments.

Questions from astrodem

     1) One of the dangers Strauss and Howe refer to in their work The Fourth Turning is the tendency late in an Unraveling for the older generations to cling to institutional and political power for too long...to the point where it can disrupt the transition into the subsequent turning (Crisis). Due to the peculiarities of our electoral college system, swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Arizona--which have significant senior-aged populations--are likely to play a pivotal role in the 2008 election. Do you see any potential for swing states with large Silent-aged populations to delay the coming realignment? What specific dangers do you associate with such a scenario?

     2) Although the historic immigration rallies in the spring of 2005 involved participants of all ages and generations, it is my understanding that these rallies were largely organized by young Millennial-aged Latinos via their online social networks, email, texting, and by word-of-mouth. Latino Millennials then recruited their siblings, parents, grandparents, and extended families to join the cause. Do you see this as an early example of Millennial organizing abilities?

     3) Related to question #2, is it possible that we could see similar mass organizing by the Millennial generation in defense of their preferred presidential candidate during the Democratic Convention in Denver this summer? It seems highly unlikely that Millennials would be content to sit back and do nothing if Hillary Clinton were to use underhanded tactics to try to steal the nomination from Barack Obama. Are we looking at a replay of the 1968 convention, but on an even bigger scale?

     4) Tensions between the generations often erupt during realignments. During the late 60's and early 70's, those tensions became very personal. Boomer teenagers and twenty-something's rebelled quite openly against their own GI parents. The dinner table became a place of heated political confrontation, often to the point of mutual distrust and in some cases disrespect. Yet we don't see that kind of highly personalized intergenerational hostility AT ALL as the realignment of this decade approaches. Millennials get along famously with their Boomer parents, seeing their parents as inalienable friends and vital to their support system, even when they and their parents are supporting different candidates. In this realignment, we can see the generational tensions in our politics, but not so much in our personal lives. How do you explain this difference?

     5) One of the big changes that I have noticed in late Xers and Millennials is they are far more attracted to urban living than their parents, who prefer big houses on big plots in big suburbs. Today's youth, influenced by shows like The Real World, Sex and the City, Will and Grace, and Seinfeld seem far more attracted to urban lofts, condos, and high rises. They have also been influenced by a pop culture that demonizes and/or ridicules suburbia: American Beauty, Desperate Housewives, the Stepford Wives, Disturbia, etc. With the collapse of the housing market, many are forecasting the end of suburbia as we know it, predicting that suburbs are going to become the ethnic and working class slums of the 21st Century. Even if these predictions are overstating the case, this still strikes me as a major shift in our culture and demography. Does this kind of shift have any precedent in previous realignments or turnings? What, if any, are the political implications?

     A. (Q. 1). Our primary motivation for writing the book was to explain the Millennial Generation to older generations so America would not mismanage this particular generational transition. While we think the Millennial Generation is too large and too unified for its  impact to be thwarted by smaller and more divided older generations, your point about the  older electorates in certain states conflicting with younger voters, is a good example of what could go wrong. Arizona, and to a lesser degree, Florida, won't matter much since they are likely McCain states anyway. But Pennsylvania will remain a real test of the Democratic party's ability to heal its generational divisions right on through the general election. If it turns out to be the state that allows a Silent generation candidate to take office in staunch opposition to a Millennial-oriented Congress, Millennials might raise the intensity of their demand for change in ways that could be very disruptive to our political process. But the social rules Millennials have embraced make it unlikely that we would see open rebellion as opposed to increased political participation from this young generation that will eventually overwhelm older voters in most states, if not in 2008, than very shortly afterwards.

     (Q. 2) Yes we do. In Los Angeles the Millennial Latino organizers first asked their parents for permission to leave school to organize the demonstrations. When they got to City Hall they respectfully met with the political power structure to be sure they were sympathetic to their cause. While their leaders met with the Mayor the rest of them sat down on the steps of City Hall since some of them had read that "sit ins" were part of the student protests in the sixties. When the march was done, the Millennials picked up their trash so as not to disturb the urban environment and went  quietly back on their school buses and returned to school. The contrast in style and tone with the political protests of their idealist Boomer parents couldn't have been more dramatic.  

     (Q. 3) While it is quite possible that Millennials will organize to make sure the Democratic convention nominates their favorite candidate, it would be highly unlikely that the protests would be in the streets or resemble the events of the 1968 convention in any other way. Millennials will insist the older adults in the arena "play by the rules" and find "win-win solutions" that work for the entire group.  The idea of forcing confrontation and creating winners and losers is just not in this generation's consciousness. Instead you are likely to see electronic petitions, lots of YouTube videos, and a constant stream of chatter on social networks and cell phones designed to persuade the delegates to `do the right thing." The implied threat will be not violent physical disruption, but a willingness to desert the Democratic Party in November 2008 and very likely for the coming four decades.

     (Q. 4) Millennials are not Boomers. They belong to an entirely different generational archetype. They are members of a "civic" generation, Boomer are members of an "idealist" generation. While Millennials are as young now as their parents were in the sixties, that doesn't necessarily mean that the two generations will act the same way politically or in other respects.  The behavior of Millennials, in fact, resembles that of the earlier civic generation, the GI Generation, which took on the problems of the Depression and World War II that were  left to it  by older generations and used the political process to find solutions to those problems.  The members of the GI Generation  didn't complain. They didn't riot in the streets. They just went about the business of remaking America in fundamental ways. The political campaigns of the 1930s  were just as intense as those we are experiencing today,  but even in the midst of the worst economic crisis the country has ever faced violent social protest was at a minimum. Even the Socialist party that offered a very populist, radical economic solution to the Great Depression was unable to secure the support of more than 3 % of the voters at the depth of the Depression in the 1932 presidential election.  As with the GI Generation, rules  matter to Millennials, unlike their anti-establishment Boomer and Gen-Xer  parents.

     (Q. 5) There is no evidence of the demographic shifts you describe. Families and jobs continue to migrate to America's suburbs despite talk of "cool cities" or the attractiveness of urban culture. Lots of young Millennials live in cities, of course--or on college campuses. But more than a quarter of those older than eighteen still live with their parents, presumably in suburban settings. And once they become "settled" by  getting married and having families they show no sign of reversing the continuing suburbanization of America that has been characteristic of the United States  for the last fifty years. The pop culture examples you cite are not indicative  of Millennial culture. Think instead of High School Musical and Hanna Montana.  Those represent Millennial ideals and values much more than what the Boomer producers and Gen X writers in Hollywood think of as fare for the youth market.

Questions from TinaH1963

     Q) We already have a national service program--it's called Americorps.  We also already have programs that reward people with money for college if they use their postgraduate education to serve in underserved communities.  Still, I like the idea of requiring service, because I think we should all give back.

     A) We have certainly not meant to omit or denigrate the existence or value of the existing national service programs--Americorps-- as well as the Peace Corps and the U.S. Military. Nor are we necessarily predicting the creation of new national service organizations, although it would not surprise us if those were created during the next several decades.

Rather we are simply pointing to the extraordinary willingness of the members of the Millennial Generation to serve their country and their communities in a variety of ways. In 2004, 80% of high school students, all of whom were Millennials, participated in a community service program. This compares with only 27% of high school students, all of whom were Gen-Xers, who did so in 1984. Similarly, in 2006 more than a quarter (26%) of national service volunteers were 16-24 years old.  Again all of them were members of the Millennial Generation. This is twice the percentage contributed by members of Generation X of that age in 1989 (13%).  

More anecdotally, Jon Schnuur, the CEO of New Leaders for New Schools, said in a recent event at which we spoke that more than 10 percent of the last graduating classes of both Princeton University and Spelman College had applied for the national Teacher Corps, too many for that organization to enroll. In addition, perhaps Barack Obama's biggest applause line when he speaks on college campuses is his proposal to provide two years of college expenses in exchange for one form or another of public service. While, in part, this positive reaction likely stems from the self-interest of a generation beleaguered by college loan debt, it also reflects the orientation toward service of this generation of Americans.  Finally, regardless of one's personal opinion of the Iraq war or the way in which the Bush Administration in managing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, all of us must recognize that many, if not most, of the front line troops in those conflicts are members of the Millennial Generation who have volunteered to serve and who are doing so with dedication, competence, and courage.

At this point, we cannot predict with certainty whether the increased opportunities for public service will become mandatory or remain voluntary. On the one hand, the already existing proclivity of Millennials to volunteer for public service, as well as proposals such as Senator Obama's to compensate such service, may make more coercive measures unnecessary. On the other, given the positive attitudes toward and the value placed on public service by this generation, we would not expect Millennials to resist mandatory public service to nearly the extent that those in older generations, in particular Baby Boomers, once did.

This is the second of three parts in review of Millennial Makeover:  MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics

Part I: About Political Makeovers

Part II: Millennials and the 2008 Election

Part III: Millennials and Public Policy

Millennials and the 2008 Election

What is the new coalition that would support the Democrats in 2008?

Political realignments have historically resulted in the creation of a new majority voter coalition for the emerging dominant party. The 1932 realignment produced the famous New Deal coalition comprised of urban industrial workers, Catholic and Jewish voters in the Northeast and Midwest, African-Americans, and the white South. The 1968 realignment and the years that followed made the GOP a party based on the white South, well-to-do economic conservatives, and Evangelical Christians. We would certainly expect significant changes in voter coalitions in 2008 and in the coming civic era, especially if the Democratic Party leads the realignment.

While it's still a bit too early to forecast general election outcomes with certainty, primary and caucus results suggest that an Obama candidacy may bring about the sharpest coalition changes. His strong support among Millennials of both sexes and all ethnicities squares with the pattern of previous realignments, all of which have been based on partisan strength within a large, emerging generation. Beyond this, Barack Obama has demonstrated solid appeal among upscale, highly educated professionals, especially in suburban areas. He appears to be uniting Millennials and upscale professionals with already strongly Democratic African-Americans. Geographically, Obama seems to have greater appeal than has been recently normal for Democrats in Southwestern and Mountain states such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana and in states in the upper South such as Virginia and North Carolina. At the same time, Obama clearly has work to do to retain the support of such previously important Democratic support groups as working class whites and Baby Boomer women.

Based on the patterns of her primary and caucus support, Hillary Clinton will rely on a much more traditional Democratic coalition, one that includes Boomer women, older Latinos, and working class white voters--groups among which Obama is weakest. However, should Senator Clinton receive the Democratic presidential nomination she will have to shore up her support among Millennials and African-Americans. The extent to which she is able to do that will depend largely on the circumstances of her nomination.

You write that "one of the most distinguishing characteristics of civic realignments is the highly partisan nature of the electorate during such eras" (p. 114) which I believe is correct. Given this, is Barack Obama framing of his candidacy as "post-partisan" a failure on his part of fully understanding the political climate? Or, as you describe later in the book (p. 251) is this the talk of the "transition" before "whichever party best adapts to the new political era" becomes solidified?

We believe it is more of the latter than the former.  Obama does risk losing some of the partisan zeal for his candidacy among Democrats if he is perceived to be too bi-partisan in his approach. Other realigning presidential candidates in civic eras, such as Abe Lincoln and FDR, were fierce partisans who rallied their previously unsuccessful supporters to national victory by the power of their ideas and their commitment to a new vision.  At the same time, these very same candidates, once they were elected, went out of their way to absorb some of the defeated party or factions into their governing coalition, including giving them Cabinet posts.  Any successful candidate in a civic realignment election needs to portray what we call in Millennial Makeover, "positive partisanship."  This approach combines a positive message of hope and change with a fiercely partisan approach to the campaign battle itself.  Clearly Obama has the first part of this formula for victory down pat.  We won't know  until the primary battle is over and, assuming he is successful,  the general election campaign begins whether he also has an equally formidable grasp of how to execute the second half of the formula for victory in a civic era.

Of what generation is John McCain a part and what are his strengths and weaknesses as a "civic" era candidate.

John McCain is a member of the Silent Generation (born 1925-1945). To date, no member of this generation has been elected to the presidency, making it the only American generation to hold this dubious distinction.

In answering another question, we previously wrote about McCain's strengths and weaknesses. On the plus side, are McCain's clear national security credentials. These seem to have obvious appeal in an era of international tension and fear of terrorism. In particular, McCain's strength on national security issues should aid him in appealing to the Millennial Generation and providing a unifying message built around his life story of patriotism and personal service. Beyond this, McCain's more moderate imagery on economic and social issues put him in position to appeal to Millennials and other groups distinct from the normal "Red State" Republican coalition of recent decades. His "straight talk express" and other attempts to portray himself as a truthful politician, willing to buck his party's establishment if need be, are also designed to appeal to Millennials who value authenticity in a candidate.

On the downside, McCain's primary weaknesses are  his  Republican affiliation, and a potential inability to dissociate his candidacy   from the unpopular policies of the Bush administration.  John McCain is first and foremost a Republican in a year when that party faces a widening deficit in party identification while, at the same time,  voters are increasingly voting a straight, partisan ticket.  With Millennials identifying almost 2:1 in favor of the Democratic Party and representing an increasing share of the overall electorate, the task of any Republican trying to win the presidency is  the need to capture  the vast majority of independent voters.   However, McCain emerged from the Republican primaries and caucuses  with a perceived need to shore up his conservative Republican base. If he follows that strategy he is likely to associate himself with the negative imagery of the GOP  among independents.  Being a Republican in an election when many factors--the distribution of party identification among voters, particularly negative perceptions of the GOP, an increase in the percentage of voters holding positions on issues compatible with those associated with the Democratic Party, a weakening economy, the continuing unpopular Iraq war, and highly negative perceptions of George Bush--make McCain's task particularly difficult.   Who he chooses for Vice President will be one early sign  of whether he is pursuing a base strategy or an independent voter strategy.  Another  signal will be whether McCain  exiles President Bush to his Texas ranch during the Republican convention, in the same way Hubert Humphrey exiled LBJ to his own ranch in 1968, or invites Bush  to speak at the convention. Such  decisions will tell a lot about what general election strategy McCain will be pursuing and whether he will have any chance at all to win over the large number of independents he will require for victory.

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.

This is a remarkable book, and one that I'll be referring to often this election. If you want to understand the historical context of the 2008 election, read this book.

A 'realignment' book, that goes into the history of US elections to describe two types of realignment, idealistic and civic, and how they have influenced history. More importantly, how it's happening again. What makes the book all the better is that its a terrific read. Very easy to read and I found myself gaining a new insight every chapter.

They argue that there's been five previous political makeovers, the last being toward the conservatives in 1968. The one we are in right now, they argue, is for either '08 or '12, we are sorta on the cusp right now.

My own view has been that Democrats should take the presidency this year, but we might fall just short in '08 (like Al Smith did in the 1928 election due to religious prejudice). If we are able to take it in '08, all the better.

I was trying to think about a similar book, and I guess it would be The Emerging Democratic Majority, from the beginning of this decade. If you enjoyed TEDM, you'll likewise enjoy Millennial Makeover. They've got a website with more info, including videos and where you can buy the book.

Remind me how Gore lost again... nevermind, I'm just reading the final Shrum chapters, on his running media & strategy for Gore in '00 and Kerry in '04.

You know what else I'm reading, Millennial Makeover. This is a phenomenal book. The 2008 book of the year in politics, as far as I'm concerned. I'm about halfway through, and will write more. Suffice to say that if you love seeing how political history is cyclically seen to influence our contemporary political transformation, you will also enjoy the insight.