Title: » On Critical Elections American Inquiry
Headings: On Critical Elections
On Critical Elections
PART ONE
2008: THE CRITICAL ELECTION THAT WASN’T
PART TWO
PARTIES MADE NEW: OUR SIX CRITICAL ELECTIONS
1. THE ELECTION OF 1800: JEFFERSON
2. THE ELECTION OF 1828: JACKSON
3. THE ELECTION OF 1860: LINCOLN
4. THE ELECTION OF 1896: McKINLEY
5. THE ELECTION OF 1932: FDR
6. THE ELECTION OF 1980: REAGAN
GENERAL REMARKS ON CRITICAL ELECTIONS
WHY NOT CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICAN INQUIRY?
Like this:

Content: » On Critical Elections American Inquiry
On Critical Elections
An essay in three parts by Susan Barsy. All rights reserved. PART ONE
2008: THE CRITICAL ELECTION THAT WASN’T
A touchstone of my thinking is the election of 2008, which in my mind I refer to as “the critical election that wasn’t.” For historians, the term “critical election” has a special meaning. It doesn’t mean simply an election that is vital or all-important; it means one that changes the party system itself, by re-defining what one or more of the political parties represents. In a critical election, the parties themselves undergo significant change, as the central ideas around which they are organized are reformulated in ways that are fundamental, many-sided, and long lasting. Whereas every presidential election cycle introduces some new ideas and personalities, not every election produces change in the parties’ basic beliefs and ideas. A critical election is a rare sort of generational event that attains landmark significance because, by aggregating ideas in a new and different way, it charts a new direction for the country and opens up new possibilities.