Critical Realignments in Modern Politics

In Walter Dean Burnham’s Critical Elections, Burnham began to explain the idea of critical realignments and how they challenge the original political structure as intended by the founders. As he stated in his book, major political elections in the United States often follow an alarming trend. This trend, known as critical realignment, explains how american political culture has fostered an environment that accepts stagnation among policy makers once elected. Furthermore, he explained that the only way that major concerns among minorities can end with policy changes is through a radical upheaval by a large amount of citizens. As a result, political action is often avoided by policy makers until a major -often times violent- action is taken by the citizenry. What sparked my interest in Burnham’s work is the extent to which this phenomena can be avoided or whether this is completely inevitable.

As I read the piece by Burnham, it became clear that one of the major enhancers of the critical alignment phenomena was the two party system coined by the United States. As he states, the two party system has created political organizations (Republicans & Democrats) whose primary goal is to stay in office as opposed to actually focussing on the needs of the people. This is due to their needs as an organization and their continuing goal to heighten each’s respective public reputation by having more legislatures from their party in office. Furthermore, these parties have developed routines which have been proven to get people elected but ultimately fall short when creating legislation. As a result of this unfortunate truth, it is clear why it takes so much time for any socioeconomic change to ensue. It is because the major political parties have taught the politicians to intrinsically value getting into office more than protecting the good graces of the people. Then, the people are essentially ignored until they are forced to use ‘overwhelming external force’ to push change.

In conclusion, it is not clear as to whether or not the political party system is the main source of critical realignments. There are also important factors within the political system that prohibits legislation from passing through congress with ease and speed- making it hard for passing legislation to match the constantly changing sentiments of the people. This makes it hard to determine whether or not the lack of gradual change is due to the complacency of our elected officials or if it is simply the workings of the Constitution. What can ultimately be drawn from Burnham’s writing without question, is that this phenomena is not going anywhere anytime soon. As long as the two party system remains in practice in American politics, officials that are not very interested in the well being of the people will continue to be elected. Furthermore, the Constitution makes it impossible to drastically change the speed at which legislation is passed. Overall, without a complete upheaval of the current democratic system in the United States, I believe that critical realignments will remain an unfortunate trade-off associated with the government our founding fathers created.

4 Responses to "Critical Realignments in Modern Politics"

Emily Dunbar says:

December 4, 2017 at 10:09 pm

You have brought up some very interesting ideas. I agree that our two party system has some flaws. It is very true that government officials are more geared toward getting into office and not really about the needs of the people. Even though this is the main purpose of these government officials. They are elected and out into office based on their ideals so that the people are being well represented in Congress. The fact that a two party system steers away from this ideal that is set forth in our Constitution is a major issue. However it is hard to find a solution, if we get rid of this system and form a multi-party system, this also causes issues and little will get done in Congress with the disagreements between all the new parties that are formed out of this idea. So even though I do think that the two party system needs to be amended to ensure the rights of the people are being represented, a multi party system is not the path to go on in my eyes. We need to discuss what the main goal of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, because I do not think our system is what they had in mind. I believe the officials are the main problem but there is no way around the people who are running for positions in our government.
Katherine Fell says:

December 5, 2017 at 2:03 am

The fact that drastic and often violent measures need to be taken by the electorate in order to create legislative change in this country is one of the one of the downfalls of politics in America. As you said in your post, this is because oftentimes, the people can’t come to a consensus on major issues, so legislators feel no pressure to step outside of the safe comforts of their partisan ideologies. It’s not until major actions are taken that they feel the need to respond. What’s unfortunate, though is that circumstances need to become more and more extreme in order to get the attention of Congress.
The number of shootings and evidence of gun violence in the United States is astronomically high, and without government intervention, it will only get worse in the future. This will cost countless lives and cause endless suffering for families across the country. The recent shooting in Las Vegas was the most violent and devastating shooting in US history, and members of the right are still avoiding the topic of gun control, often citing that violent and tragic incidents should not be used as political tools in order to pass legislation, and that it’s too early to capitalize on the deaths of innocent Americans. For the people who died or lost loved ones from the attack, though, it was already far too late. This unfortunate pattern of violence in America should be enough to motivate Congress to produce meaningful change, but the partisan culture wars that have been plaguing modern politics is preventing that, making it impossible for members of Congress to put a stop to the problem that has a clear and achievable solution. More gun laws are beyond overdue in the United States, and I’m terrified to see what would have to happen in order for a critical realignment in gun legislation in America.
Camryn Travis says:

December 5, 2017 at 11:22 pm

I think you bring up some really important and valid points about critical realignments in U.S. politics. Not only does critical realignment reduce any incentives for politicians to work for all the citizens they represent instead of just their majority of voters, but fear of re-elections often creates heavily documented bias in voting towards the end of a political official’s term. For example, many judges become ‘tougher on crime’ close to the time of re-election. Judges will convict more people and often give them longer sentences than during any other time of their term. The threat of not being re-elect is so strong that officials will act differently than they would during the rest of their term. This shift in behavior is unfair to American citizens. We should be guaranteed that politicians will try and act as they said they would when running for office. I agree that there must be radical change in the structure of the American democracy before this will ever be possible, but I am unsure if a complete reboot or introduction of a multi-party system would be best. While a multi-party system would create greater competition that ensures more work is being done for citizens, that competition could also cripple American government. The United States has already suffered multiple government shutdowns with a two-party system, I fear a multi-party system would only make matters worse.
Stella Von Spreckelsen says:

December 6, 2017 at 4:42 pm

It is clear to see that politics becomes a power hungry game between large parties using political actors to represent their desires to remain in control. This past election really represented how power hungry each party is. The republicans were more than happy to regain control of the house. Although they regained control of the house not much change has been made because they have realized that a lot of the republicans are on opposite spectrums on issues and are not agreeing. This has created even more polarization within the party and has led to much criticism of the party as a whole. The republicans are very afraid of losing their power and are now trying to back any republican running for office or in office despite their problems. For example, at first when the Roy Moore allegations came out, a lot of republicans were bashing him and calling on him to drop out of the race. As soon as they saw the possibility of a democrat winning Alabama they dropped all their reserves on him and decided to support him just to ensure that the republican party would remain in control.

Comments are closed.