The 1896 Realignment

• Date: 01 January 2005
• Author: Everita Silina,Jeffrey M. Stonecash
• Published date: 01 January 2005
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04263824
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1532673X04263824AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / January 2005Stonecash, Silina / THE 1896 REALIGNMENT

THE 1896 REALIGNMENT

A Reassessment

JEFFREY M. STONECASH

EVERITA SILINA

Syracuse University

The electionof 1896 is regarded as a critical one in which a significant and enduring shift in party

electoral fortunes occurred. This evidence is so important because it supports the more general

argument that critical realignments are the way that significantelectoral changes occur. Change

is seen as abrupt,with new alignments persisting for decades. Votersare seen as detached, briefly

attentive, and then relatively stable in a new alignment. In this view, the political process is not

seenas onein which there is continuouspolitical debate, electoral attention, and secular electoral

change. This analysis reexamines the evidence for the occurrence of a critical realignment in

1896, using results for presidential and House elections. The data do not indicate that an abrupt

change occurred in 1896. The changes that occurred were gradual, with most occurring after

1896.The evidence suggests that secular changeand gradual electoral shifts should receivemuch

more attention.

Keywords: critical realignment; secular realignment; 1896 election; political parties

The critical realignment perspective offers a clear interpretation of

how political change occurs. The essence of the argument is that

social tensions accumulate, eventually erupting in relatively abrupt

and dramatic increases in political conflict and electoral attention, fol-

lowed by a new political alignment. Many voters then establish new

allegiances that persist for a lengthy time period. This stability is later

disrupted by a new critical realignment.

The acceptance of this interpretation of change has numerous con-

sequences for how we think about and study American politics. If we

presume that critical realignments (Key, 1955) are the primary sources

Authors’Note:We would like to thank John Coleman for some very valuable comments about the

importanceof stating Burnham’s arguments clearly. He was a discussant on the panelat the 2003

Midwest Political Science Association Meetings, where an earlier version of this article was

presented.

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH, Vol. 33 No. 1, January 2005 3-32

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04263824

© 2005 Sage Publications

3

of change, we are less concerned about the possibility of secular

realignments (Key,1959). There is less attention to gradual changes in

party positions and to whether and how voters engage in assessments

of party positions over time. Party identification is seen as created by

these alignments and as stable in subsequent years (Green, Palmquist,

& Shickler, 2002) rather than as an attachment that changes when

there are incompatibilities between voter issue concerns and party

positions (Fiorina, 1981; Franklin, 1992). There is an expectation of a

so-called periodicity to American party alignments (Mayhew, 2002,

p. 16), with some arguing that a realignment did occur in the 1960s

and 1970s (although skeptics suggest that believers are “waiting for

Godot” [Shafer, 1991]). Many scholars accept this periodicity and

present American political history as defined by party systems created

by critical realignments (e.g., Aldrich, 2003, p. 283; Bibby, 2003, p.

33; Hershey & Beck, 2003, pp. 128-129).

A crucial matter is whether the specific cases presumed to confirm

the existence of critical realignments actually fit the expected pattern.

Our primary concern here is the 1896 election. This election is often

presented as a case illustrating the presence of critical realignments.

Burnham (1981) sees it as a realignment that shaped political debates

and electoral patterns for much of the next century. Textbooks regu-

larly refer to this election as a prime example of critical realignments

(Burns, Peltason, Cronin, & Magleby, 2000, p. 234; Edwards,

Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2003, p. 250; Ginsberg, Lowi, & Weir,

2003, pp. 331-333; Patterson, 1999, p. 217).

There are reasons, however, to reconsider whether 1896 is a con-

firming case. As Mayhew (2002) reports, despite all the reference to

the election, it has not been studied extensively. Although some

empirical work supports the occurrence of a realignment (Brady,

1988), other analyses cast doubt on 1896 as a case of a critical realign-

ment (Bartels, 1998, p. 290). Perhaps most important, the original

empirical work presented to establish the presence of a critical realign-

ment in 1896 has never been assessed.

Given the importance of the issue of whether critical realignments

occur, our concern is to reevaluate the evidence for a critical realign-

ment in 1896 and in so doing to assess the more general issue of how

political change occurs. If this case does not fit expectations, the sup-

4 AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / January 2005