The 36-year cycle?

People think about this for a moment. In 1896 William McKinley was elected President. From then until 1932 we had all Republican Presidents except for Woodrow Wilson for two terms. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President of the United States for the first time. From 1932 until 1968, we have had all Democrats, except for Dwight Eisenhower for two terms. It is now 36 years later again. 2004. We have had a dominance of Republicans in the Presidency. Except for Jimmy Carter for a term, and Bill Clinton for two. Do you think that maybe we could have 36 years of relative Democratic dominance of the presidency with maybe only two or three terms of Republicans starting with John Kerry? This is somewhat statisical and even like I am relying on the stars, but I strongly feel we are at a crossroads. The tide is turning. In the years leading up to 1932, Republican power was at its peak. THen the tide turned. In 1968, Democratic power was at its peak, then Republicans started getting elected. In the last three years, we have seen the peak of Republican power. It is time for the tide to turn once again. With John Kerry having sealed the deal for his nomination, he is the one to rely on to help effect this change.

Yes we are at the crossroads and this has the feeling of 1932 all over, or to be quite honest, 1800

1800 was the end of the Federalists, and the beginning of the Jeffersonian Republicans (forerunners to the Dems).

with radical policies, like the USPA... just like the Whigs were identified with the Alien and Sedition Act.

Them parallels are there... and it took 30 years for the GOP to finally emerge and replace the Whigs.

And the GOP came only two or three years after the Whigs split, and that was because the party divided into Northern and Southern factions over slavery and a bill related to slavery called the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

...Sorry if I sound like a know it all. :)

Anyhow the USPA and the Alien and Sedition Act have many things in comon.. of course the USPA, Second try has many things in common with the Enabling Act of '36... and more and more Americans are makign that bloody connection.

What is that?

.

interesting. I hope youre right. I want the dems running the country when I am older.

I just cannot see myself trusting Republicans again after this failure.

During the 1870's and 1880's the country was just as split between two parties as it is now. However, it took the Panic of 1893 to break the stalemate and help the Repugs. In 1932, the Republicans lost their majority party status because of an incompetant Hoover. In 1968 we lost our majority status because of Wallace's (and the Dixiecrat's) defection and trouble in Vietnam. Out of all of those realignment years, 1896 is the most similar to 2004, with Kerry being a Democratic McKinley (hopefully he'll actually live during his term as POTUS).

It actually goes back to George Washington, not Mckinnley.

There is also the 72-year cycle (which I guess works the same way - since 72 is 36 x 2).

Here is how it works:

In 1788, George Washington was elected President. He represented the "federalists" and was the leader of the movement for independence. For the next 36 years, these policies dominated American politics.

36 years later - in 1824, Andrew Jackson was elected. It is true that the "Jeffersonian Republican-Democrats" first came to power in 1800. But they weren't an organized party in the traditional sense. More like a faction. And they were limited to Jefferson and Madison. But in 1824, Jackson took that old faction and officially created the Democratic Party on the basis of reform. For the next 36 years, the Democrats and their agenda controlled the government in Washington since all the opposition parties: the federalists, the whigs, and the Republicans split the anti-Democrat vote.

36 years later - in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected. He was the first Republican President, and essentially created the Republican Party (or was the first to bring it to power). Every one knows what he did. But the Civil War also destroyed the Democratic base in the South. The north became solidly Republican. They brought in reconstruction, ended slavery and the rest after the war ended. The Republicans became the new "majority party" after Lincoln.

36 years later - in 1896, William McKinnley was elected. William McKinnley is the father of the "modern" Republican Party. This was during the time of the Rubber Barons, etc. He and his successor Theodore Roosevelt, brought the west to the Republican Party. Big buisness and libertarian westerners-that was the new GOP coalition after 1896. Also, McKinnley was the first US President to recognize US international strength and was often accused of having an "imperialist" foreign policy. He was the one who: in 1897, annexed Hawaii; declared war on Spain (Spanish-American War) in 1898; annexed old Spanish colonies - Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Phillipines. TR was the one who built the Panama Canal.

36 years later - in 1932, Frankilin Roosevelt was elected. FDR brought in the "New Deal" Reforms, which dominated American politics for the next 36 years. Building the welfare state, which was seen as necessary to offset the inequities of the McKinnley legacy. Roosevelt dramatically changed the role of the government in the lives of the American people. All his successors applied some measure of FDR's logic to government. His coalition was made up of the south and northern cities.

36 years later - in 1968, Richard Nixon was elected. Nixon destroyed the FDR coalition by employing the "southern strategy." Which was to divide southerners based on cultural issues. Without the south, the Democrats could no longer win national elections unless they ran a southern themselves: Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Nixon also brought in an era of anti-government and "strict constructionalist" policies. This era is also marked by the fall of communism and the rise of the United States as the worlds ONLY superpower.

36 years later - is 2004. The point is that every 36 years there is a sea change in American politics and a new coalition is built which keeps the respective party in power until the next sea change (36 years later).

The 72 year cycle works the same way, although proponents argue that every 72 years a GREAT President is elected that ultimatly saves the nation.

1788 - George Washington. Washington, won the Revolutionary War and ensured the US survived those first difficult days.

1860 - Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, ended slavery, won the civil war, and made sure the union stayed together.

1932 - Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt, ended the Depression and won the Second World War. Protecting the US from the rise of Communism and Fascism.

2004 - ???.

Another thing. Is that before each of these Great Presidents (both in the 36-year and 72-year cycles) is elected. A bad President precedes him. That "bad" President (does not necessarily mean unpopular) is usually a carbon copy of the one who started the sea change to begin with but is met with failure.

In 1820, John Quincy Adams is elected (though loses the popular vote) and is the heir to the George Washington & John Adams Federalist legacy. He calls for reforms based on old principles. But still loses to Andrew Jackson in 1824.

In 1856, John Buchanan is elected. He campaigned based on Jacksonian Reforms and believed he could keep the union together by appeasing the south - remember Dredd Scott? He was a failure and wasn't even renominated in 1860.

In 1892, Grover Cleveland was elected for the second time in three elections (he lost the 1888 election) although he won 1892 barely. He ran as a "Lincoln Democrat" believing in the social reforms that Lincoln never got the chance to introduce. Recognizing the changing nature of the Republican Party, he wanted to build a coalition between old Democrats and Lincoln Republicans. But big buisness was too strong and he could not overcome the Republicans. Eventually time ran out for him.

In 1928, Herbert Hoover was elected as a total product of the McKinnley era Republicans. He believed in all the things that McKinnley Republicans believed in. But the Depression and his inept reaction did him in.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was elected. He was an FDR Democrat all the way. But the backlash in the south over civil rights and the war in Vietnam did him in.

In 2000, George W. Bush was elected (sort of). He is a total by-product of the Nixon-Reagan legacy. His father rose in politics during the Nixon years, was Reagan's vice President and later became President himself. George W. Bush took advantage of his position.

ALL - EVERY SINGLE ONE - of the Presidents elected the year before a "sea change" President served one term.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected President after the election went to the House of Representatives. Jackson won the election of 1828.

"The Emerging Democratic Majority" by Ruy Texieria, it'll help confirm a lot of what you're thinkng; in fact, the last four years have been more of the "fluke" in a general realignment AWAY from Reaganism-Rupublicanism towards Democratic progressivism once again. Clinton really started it; Al Gore SHOULD have been able to continue it, and now, IMO, a guy like John Kerry CAN continue the transformation of the American political landscape that was already underway in the early 1990s. Good analogy, though, about the cyclical nature of things; a lot of scholars have spent a lot of research and lecture time debating the actual length of those cycles, but they're definitely there--and this time they're favoring US! :D

B-)

I like these type of posts.

which just happens to rhyme with Dean. Pigasus in '40!