Alignment, de-alignment and re-alignment

                No understanding of voting behavior would be complete without a consideration of these three related terms. Alignment occurs when voters identify with a particular party. The relationship between the religious right and the GOP is one example of alignment. De-alignment occurs when a group breaks away from a particular party. The key thing to note is that under de-alignment, those voters do not necessary form a clear attachment to the opposing party. If they do, that would be called re-alignment. As an example of the latter; white conservatives living in the south have shifted from the Democrats to the GOP since the collapse of the New Deal. This particular voting pattern is especially noticeable during presidential elections. In 2012, Romney won 9 of the 11 states that formed part of the old confederacy.

                Identifying these trends in voting behavior requires a certain degree of historical detachment. By doing so, one is able to identify elections as a turning-point in voting patterns. When this is the case, we can describe it as a re-alignment election. When a re-alignment election occurs, a new party system may emerge in some form. Historians such as Marjorie Hershey claim that there have been six party systems within the states, and the last re-alignment election was back in 1968.

                In any given election, social groups may shift their alliance from one party to another. During the 2004 election, the Latino vote was closely fought over by the two main parties. Since then, the Democrats have established themselves as the more popular party amongst Latinos. However, there is much within the GOP’s stance that might attract Latino voters. If the GOP manages to win over this expanding group of voters, then its chances of gaining victory will be greatly enhanced. Due to projected demographic shifts, the GOP needs to address this particular demographic group as a matter of urgency.

                The two most closely aligned social groups to a particular party are African-Americans, and Evangelical Protestants. However, as late as the 1970s both parties were in contention for black voters. Whilst the Democrats based their appeal on civil rights, there were also a number of Dixiecrats who adopted an unsympathetic (and at times, overtly racist) stance against black people. From the Republican side, Nixon did much to advance the whole concept of affirmative action. For example, he launched the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in order to force the construction industry to hire more non-whites. Even today, the EEOC is widely lauded as the single most important development in the history of affirmative action. That said; the ‘party of Lincoln’ now holds very little appeal to black voters.

Amongst Evangelical Protestants, the party of choice is clearly the Republicans. The religious right has emerged as an important element of the party since the 1970s, which in part reflects a shift in the balance of power within the country as a whole. The 'old' North-Eastern elite has been eclipsed by a more southern/western-based network. The latter is associated with a more committed religious agenda than the moderate pragmatism of the North-Eastern style of conservatism.

                Holding a group of voters together is always going to pose difficulties, and there are few better illustrations than the New Deal alliance. From the 1930s to the 1960s, this disparate band of voters was aligned to the Democrats based on a set of policies designed to help the less well-off within society. However, the issue of civil rights eventually caused white conservatives to shift their allegiance from the Democrats to the Republicans. This re-alignment has profoundly changed the contours of elections within the states. There is no obvious equivalent to the New Deal within the GOP, although the religious right certainly provides a crucial base of support within the party. Disagreement lies at the very heart of politics, and no party can expect to hold diverse social groups together for an indefinite period of time. On reflection, the Democrats managed to keep the New Deal together by avoiding the divisive issue of civil rights for such a lengthy period of time.

At the present time, civil rights could conceivably disrupt the Democrat coalition of supporters. Young people and LGBT voters are favorable towards same-sex marriage, but some elements of the party’s blue-collar supporters are hostile to the idea. The Democrats could conceivably experience a fissure comparable to that experienced in the 1970s and 80s, when vocal minority groups appeared out-of-step with blue-collar Democrats. Reagan was particularly skilled at appealing to blue-collar Democrats, claiming that they had been marginalized by the liberal elite and its pro-minorities stance. In a particularly memorable soundbite, he declared “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me.” Reagan had the communication skills and backstory needed in order to utilize such words to maximum effect.