Puzzles and Confusions: Political Realignment in the 1980s
Few concepts in the social science literature have aroused as much controversy and discussion in recent years as party and electoral realignment. The term conjures up images of sharp dramatic changes in the nature of political conflict, upsurge in mass political involvement and participation, sharp alteration in the political agenda and the nature of political outputs. Realignment has attracted attention because it was thought to be topical as well: Walter Dean Burnham's elegant argument for the periodicity of realignment suggested that the United States was "due" for realignment in the late 1960s, precisely at a time at which many of the warning signs (ideological tensions within the parties, thirdparty campaigns, breakdown of traditional party loyalties) were becoming obvious.' But what has become clear by 1986 is how divided scholars are on the status of the "current" realignment. Recent years have seen assorted scenarios for creation of an era of electoral dominance by a conservative Republican majority, for reconstitution of a Democratic majority (in traditional New Deal or modified form) and, most popular of all, for the end of party systems and of realignment itself as we have traditionally perceived it, due to a possibly irreversible deterioration of party loyalties that produces perpetual dealignment. To some extent, the disagreement centers on how to interpret specific events